LEVELAND - Al Gore yesterday proposed that the $4.56 trillion federal budget surplus expected over the next decade be seen not so much as cash in a piggy bank, but a means for achieving 10 national goals, including increasing personal income and savings while reducing poverty.
In a speech at Cleveland State University, as well as in a 191-page annotated booklet distributed by his campaign and posted on the Internet, the vice president also tried to distinguish himself from the Republican presidential contender, George W. Bush.
Gore accused Bush of avoiding details and practicing ''cross-your-fingers economics'' as he talks about tax cuts, Social Security reform, rebuilding the military, and other priorities.
The Democrat's booklet, titled ''Prosperity for America's Families,'' included a description of all the programs and tax incentives he has already unveiled in his campaign. It added an accounting showing he could pay for them - and establish a $300 billion ''rainy day'' fund as well - without exceeding the projected surplus.
''I don't want you to have to read the tea leaves, or read between the lines of a press release or position paper, to know what a Gore-Lieberman administration would mean to families,'' Gore told an audience of several hundred students, faculty members, and invited guests.
''Instead, you can just read my plan,'' the vice president added, invoking memories of President George Bush's infamous ''read-my-lips'' antitax pledge.
The Bush campaign said the Texas governor has already released his own budget details and submitted them to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation for analysis. By contrast, they said Gore's ''laundry list'' of proposals would exceed the surplus by as much as $906 billion.
''Al Gore's 200-page budget is written in red ink,'' said Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett. ''Al Gore's laundry list of Washington spending programs will lead to a $900 billion budget deficit, and his tax plan will force families to hire lawyers and accountants to determine whether they are one of the lucky few who get targeted tax relief.''
To bolster its claim, the Bush campaign took out a half-page ad in USA Today, in which six recipients of the Nobel Prize in economics and dozens of economists endorsed Bush's spending plan. ''It is based on conservative revenue projections and sensible spending baselines and will create more economic growth and greater opportunities for all Americans,'' the economists said.
Independent analysts yesterday found reasons to be skeptical of both candidates' claims.
''The Gore plan leans much more toward spending increases, whereas Bush's proposals are angled toward tax reduction,'' said David Wyss of Standard & Poor's DRI in Lexington, Mass. ''But when you put them through a model, there's not much difference.
''In both cases, you end up with slightly higher interest rates and a moderately lower surplus. ... It looks like they'd get rid of about one-third of the [projected] surplus though their proposals,'' Wyss said.
''Gore's saying he's going to spend the surpluses into oblivion and Bush is going to give it all back,'' said economist David Jones of Aubrey G. Lanson & Co. in New York. ''So in both cases, we are going to end up worse off and the Fed's going to have to raise interest rates.''
At the core of Gore's economic plan is his proposal to pay off the nation's $3.4 trillion national debt by 2012. The vice president proposes paying down $3 trillion of the debt in the next 10 years with $2.3 trillion in surplus Social Security taxes, $450 billion in surplus Medicare taxes, and the $300 billion rainy-day fund if it is not needed for other purposes.
The vice president's other goals include: doubling the number of families with $50,000 in savings and investments accounts, from one-third of US families to two-thirds of them; raising the median family income over a decade by one-third, or from about $50,000 to $67,000 annually; increasing home ownership to 70 percent of American families, up from about 67 percent currently; and reducing the number of people in poverty to 10 percent from about 12 percent currently.
Gore said he could achieve those aims with spending proposals he has already announced, all of which would be paid for with the expected surpluses. For example, the booklet says incomes could be increased with the vice president's proposed spending on biomedical research, computer technology, and through increased foreign trade.
The idea of increasing savings could be achieved with Gore's idea to have the government match personal savings up to $2,000. The vice president has also proposed expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit to help reduce poverty.
Campaign staff members conceded that some of Gore's goals could be achieved only if optimistic results are attained. For example, under no 10-year period in US history has personal income increased by one-third, as Gore hopes, said one budget adviser, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity.
Gore, however, exuded confidence during his speech.
''My plan wasn't built on the cross-your-fingers economics that says we can give more to the people who already have the most, and then just hope that the benefits trickle down to the middle class,'' he said. ''The Gore-Lieberman economic plan has one guiding purpose: to help the middle-class families who have always been America's purpose and its pride.''
Gore's plan was endorsed by former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, a Clinton administration appointee. He flew in from Wall Street for the speech and spiced his introduction of Gore with a partisan political attack.
''Fiscal discipline is not easy; tax cuts are a lot easier. But fiscal discipline is the right path for the economic future of our country,'' Rubin said.
Referring to Bush not by name but as ''the other candidate,'' Rubin also criticized his proposed 10-year, $1.3 trillion tax-cut proposal. ''That approach in large measure rejects fiscal discipline, and, in my view, would be greatly detrimental to the economic well-being of our country,'' Rubin said.
Material from Reuters news service was used in this report.
