(MONEY Magazine) – MONEY readers approach unanimity on one issue: back in 1986, Congress should never have legislated away the universal deductibility of Individual Retirement Account contributions. Since it did, more than 10 million workers have stopped funding their IRAs. The losers: those who are covered by a pension plan at work and make more than $35,000 for singles and $50,000 for couples. Indeed, in our Americans and Their Money poll of 300 subscribers conducted by Gallup in 1989, 91% favored reinstating the fully deductible IRA. Now a master plan to revive -- and even expand -- the IRA-for-all is taking shape in Congress. Texas Democrat Lloyd Bentsen, the powerful chairman of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, and Delaware Republican William V. Roth Jr., a committee member, are leading a campaign to establish Super-IRAs. These would again allow every working taxpayer to put as much as $2,000 annually into an IRA and deduct every dollar from income, letting the money grow tax- free until withdrawn for retirement. And, for the first time, IRAs could be tapped penalty-free for such expenses as first-time house purchases, college and large medical costs. As attractive as it may seem, however, the Bentsen-Roth proposal faces a formidable obstacle in the form of the swollen federal budget deficit, expected to reach $318 billion in 1991, up 46% in a year. Both Congress and the Bush Administration have agreed that any revenue-losing proposal must be offset dollar for dollar by spending cuts or tax increases. And Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the Super-IRA would cost $25.8 billion over the next five years. Yet not one of the 77 senators who have co- sponsored the Bentsen-Roth bill or the 111 representatives who have backed a companion measure in the House has come forward with ways to pay for it. Without such a plan, says Illinois Democrat Dan Rostenkowski, Bentsen's counterpart in the House as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the idea shouldn't even be considered. Where do you stand? To make your voice heard in Washington, complete the questionnaire on the facing page and mail it to us. After publishing the results of this survey in our August issue, we will pass your responses, whether you're for or against the proposal, directly on to Bentsen, Rostenkowski and other key figures in Congress and the Bush Administration. Before you vote, however, let's review the two main Super-IRA provisions: -- You can choose either a front-end or a back-end tax break. With the first approach, your contribution would be tax deductible and your earnings would grow tax deferred. You would owe ordinary income tax on your money when you withdrew it. In addition, you would owe a 10% penalty on any amount you took out before age 59 1/2. With the alternative -- the back-end break -- your contributions would not be deductible, but just the same your earnings would grow tax deferred. Moreover, you could withdraw all or part of the money, free of ordinary income tax or penalty, for any purpose after five years. -- Penalty-free withdrawals would be allowed from either type of Super-IRA at any time for these three purposes: 1) To buy your first home (your parents and grandparents could also tap their IRAs to help you buy a home) 2) To pay college or grad school fees and bills for tuition, books and supplies -- but not room and board -- for yourself, your child or your grandchild 3) To cover medical expenses for you or a dependent that exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income Now take up your ballpoint pen, and tell us what you think.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE CREDIT: NO CREDIT CAPTION: MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD