SURPLUS MADNESS LIKELY TO INFECT CANDIDATES

Remember the disparaging remark James Carville, election guru to socialists everywhere, made when Paula Jones accused President Clinton of inappropriate sexual activity while he was governor of Arkansas? Carville said something like this: Drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, and this is what you get.

How about this one: Drag $3 trillion or $4 trillion through the presidential primaries, and you get candidates ready to resort to fisticuffs over how to spend it.

Recently, estimates of the federal surplus over the next decade were increased substantially. Just a year ago, experts could see the federal government taking in about $3 trillion more than it spends. But as the boom economy continues unabated, forecasters are more optimistic. Now they say the surplus could be as much as $800 billion more than anticipated a year ago.

Tax cuts? New government programs? Debt reduction? A little of all three?

These are the major ways candidates see to use the extra money. And, if you listen to the candidates long enough, you will be lulled into thinking that, surely, some good can come of Big Government after all particularly if everyone is being promised something.

It would be awfully nice if some level-headed candidate would step up to the microphones in front of the glaring TV cameras and say something like this: "Whoa! Let's talk about surpluses when we have the money."

And then this smart politician could explain:

First, the enormous surpluses being forecast hinge almost entirely on a continuation of the current economic boom for at least another 10 years. Is that possible? Yes, it is. But is it likely? Not if cycles of the past are any indication. And particularly not when much of the current growth is related to inflated stock prices paper wealth that could evaporate in the twinkling of a profit-taking rush.

Second, almost two-thirds of the anticipated surpluses are in the form of Social Security collections that exceed monthly benefit checks to a growing segment of an aging American population. Politicians vow that those surpluses are sacrosanct and must be used to guarantee old-age benefits to every Baby Boomer.

And third -- this may be the most important -- the predicted surpluses will occur only if Congress will abide by spending limits adopted in 1997. Remember those spending limits? They were part of the budget package that year. The limits were touted as proof of how responsible government can be with your tax dollars.

Guess what. Those limits were ignored in 1998 and 1999. Forecasters say the huge surpluses they see down the road depend -- absolutely depend -- on sticking to those spending limits.

So here we are, getting ready to pick nominees for president. And campaigns for congressional races will be heating up soon. We'll be hearing a lot more about the good economy and ways to spend the money.

But will anyone talk about spending limits? Will anyone even attempt to throw a wet rag on the raging stock-market inferno? Will anyone vow to protect Social Security?

It's not likely, unfortunately. Candidates know what voters want to hear, and common-sense caution and practical planning don't turn a frog candidate into a victorious prince.

There is one person who keeps reminding all of us about our economic future. But he isn't a candidate. He's the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan. And, even when he speaks plainly, the economic engine, now running on its own fuel, hardly burps.

Folks used to say, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch." Nowadays they say, "Go ahead, count your chickens before they start laying eggs."