CLINTON BOARDS BLANCED-BUDGET TRAIN A BIT TOO LATE

I think most of us learned a long time ago that if you don't like the president's position on a particular issue, you simply need to wait a few weeks. ... If you can follow this White House on the budget, you're a whole lot smarter than I am.

-- Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, ranking Democrat, House Appropriations Committee, June 13, 1995.

This is how a senior member of the Democratic Party greeted President Bill Clinton's announcement of a 10-year plan to balance the budget. Rep. Obey's reaction was typical of liberal members of the House Democratic caucus, but the bluntness he added was stunning nonetheless. Recall that in February, Clinton had proposed a budget that made no pretense of even attempting to place the federal government on a path to a balanced budget. In fact, the Clinton budget, February version, would have added $1 trillion to the national debt over the next five years. Now he says he agrees with the goal of a majority congressional Republicans, but just a little slower: Clinton would get there in 10 years instead of seven.

Or would he? Clinton has other problems that range beyond the central one of his own personal credibility. His born-again conversion to the ranks of budget cutters is undercut by the questionable nature of the numbers he rolled out. Here, problems abound.

First, he is late to the party. Both House and Senate have acted weeks ago in already approving seven-year budget programs. This suggests that the Clinton announcement was more for political effect than for real impact on a process that was already far along.

Second, even if you accept Clinton's numbers at face value (a dubious assumption), his plan would add an additional $450 billion to the national debt. Who among us has heard anyone saying, "Oh, let's balance the federal books, but let's wait longer to do it..."? More debt will mean higher real interest rates, a slower paydown and a greater burden on future generations.

Third, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Clinton's budget numbers are seriously flawed. CBO says that over the 10 years of the new Clinton budget, his Office of Management and Budget's numbers are off by a whopping $850 billion! A politician of Clinton's skills might dance his way around this, except that this is the same man who urged Congress, during his February State of the Union speech, to rely on CBO budgetary projections. So much for that dance.

Given these flaws, it is hard to take the president or his administration seriously. Consultant-inspired, eyes-on-the-next-election conversions are one thing. Serious governance is another. Clinton has always seemed to believe they are one and the same. They aren't.