A Letter From the Publisher

By Robert L. Miller

As President Reagan was putting the last touches on his eighth budget proposal to Congress last week, a similar exercise was taking place three blocks north of the White House, in our Washington bureau. TIME correspondents, playing the roles of the Cabinet officers they are normally assigned to cover, decided to try their hands at chopping the $150 billion federal deficit. The result, which appears in this week's Economy & Business section, may not revolutionize the budget process, but it is likely to encourage more than a few taxpayers to pick up a pencil and try it themselves.

National Economics Correspondent Richard Hornik conceived the project as a way of illustrating why Congress and the President have not gone far enough to solve the deficit crisis. Hornik grew increasingly alarmed by the problem upon returning to the U.S. ten months ago after two years as bureau chief in Beijing, where budget decisions are not hindered by public opinion. "As a nation, we have been living beyond our means," he says. "The economic health of this country cannot be ensured unless the budget deficit is reduced."

Hornik and his colleagues interviewed experts, assessed the worthiness of costly weapons systems, debated tax increases and piled up enormous personal deficits on late-night coffee and takeout cheeseburgers. Like the policymakers in the White House and on Capitol Hill, they quickly learned that there is no free lunch, takeout or otherwise. National Security Correspondent Bruce van Voorst selflessly suggested deep cuts in spending at the Pentagon, but Correspondents Ricardo Chavira, Glenn Garelik and Dick Thompson and Reporter Jerome Cramer had a tougher time slicing the nondefense areas they cover. "We had hoped to crunch numbers dispassionately," recalls Correspondent Ted Gup, who covers Congress. "But the numbers are merely symbols expressing values. Passions are aroused when values come into conflict. If a roomful of journalists found it so difficult to agree, you can imagine how hard it is for lawmakers."

Senior Editor Charles Alexander, who supervised the project with the help of Associate Editor Stephen Koepp, does not suggest that the correspondents' budget is the only one that will work. "We wanted to stimulate discussion," he says. Of course, he adds with a wry smile, "cutting the deficit was a little easier for us. We don't have to run for re-election."