Opposition Builds to Spending Cuts in Bush's Budget The White House says the cuts are needed to put federal spending on a more sustainable path after several years of rapid growth. But some members of Congress from both parties have objected that the cuts are compelled mainly to pay for the large tax cuts Mr. Bush has been seeking. Mr. Bush says he can save billions of dollars by reducing "corporate subsidies," eliminating "duplicative and ineffective programs" and wiping out pork barrel projects approved at the behest of individual lawmakers. But the reality is often more complex than the White House suggests. The National Association of Children's Hospitals and the American Academy of Pediatrics have joined members of Congress trying to prevent cuts in children's programs. The administration wants to trim $35 million from a $235 million program for training doctors at children's hospitals. The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials is fighting other proposed cuts, including one to slice $700 million from a program for construction and repair of public housing. Congress provided $3 billion for the public housing capital fund last year. Likewise, a wide range of businesses are scrambling to protect the Export-Import Bank from cuts that will be proposed by Mr. Bush. Defenders of the bank include the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and exporters of all sizes. Mr. Bush is expected to propose a 24 percent reduction in the bank's budget, below the current level of $927 million. Representative Jim Kolbe, the Arizona Republican who is chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee responsible for the bank, said, "We need to be expanding, not reducing, the amount the bank gets." Mr. Bush will also propose eliminating federal subsidies for loans made under the main lending program of the Small Business Administration. He would raise fees charged to borrowers and to lenders. Mr. Bush also plans to reduce the budget for one of President Bill Clinton's favorite programs, Community Oriented Policing Services, to $855 million next year, from $1 billion this year, administration officials said. Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, said this would be a serious mistake, "a misguided retreat from our commitment to keep crime down." Mr. Bush wants to save $25 million by eliminating a disaster preparedness program known as Project Impact. He said the program, run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, "has not proved effective." Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, has won support from the Senate for her efforts to save the program, which shores up buildings to minimize damage. The project, Ms. Murray said, saved lives in the earthquake that jolted the Pacific Northwest on Feb. 28. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/09/politics/09BUDG.html?pagewanted=all

Fears on Privacy Law Spur Warning by Armey � to help business evade regulation and to prevent House Republicans from trying to bring new privacy bills forward. Few issues have risen to prominence as quickly as privacy. As Americans have gone online by the millions, they have become increasingly concerned over ways that their digital footprints can be traced, especially by companies that use personal data for marketing. The Federal Trade Commission recommended that Congress legislate privacy standards for Web sites, and a number of lawmakers have filed bills intended to fill in the patchwork of privacy laws on the books. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/09/technology/09PRIV.html?pagewanted=all

Focus on Farms Masks Estate Tax Confusion Harlyn Riekena worried that his success would cost him when he died. Thirty-seven years ago he quit teaching to farm and over the years bought more and more of the rich black soil here in central Iowa. Now he and his wife, Karen, own 950 gently rolling acres planted in soybeans and corn. The farmland alone is worth more than $2.5 million, and so Mr. Riekena, 61, fretted that estate taxes would take a big chunk of his three grown daughters' inheritance.

Almost no working farmers do, according to data from an Internal Revenue Service analysis of 1999 returns that has not yet been published.

That might seem a reasonable assumption, what with all the talk in Washington about the need to repeal the estate tax to save the family farm. "To keep farms in the family, we are going to get rid of the death tax," President Bush vowed a month ago; he and many others have made the point repeatedly. But in fact the Riekenas will owe nothing in estate taxes. Almost no working farmers do, according to data from an Internal Revenue Service analysis of 1999 returns that has not yet been published. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/08/business/08ESTA.html?pagewanted=all