CLINTON'S SPINNING, SPENDING UNCHALLENGED

Almost daily since his State of the Union address last month, President Clinton has managed to capture prominent headlines for his many new spending proposals. This effort to dominate the news media day after day has a twofold purpose: First, it makes the president look like a man with a bold plan to improve America, and, second, it helps maintain the illusion that the president isn't really concerned about that impeachment trial in the Senate.

But if things are so good in this country -- and the White House has pretty much convinced most Americans that is the case -- why do we need to spend so many billions of dollars to fix things?

Probably the most astonishing thing about the Clinton let's-spend-until-the-Republican-drop machine is how widely these plans are being accepted without question.

Take a look a four key spending proposals outlined by Clinton -- in the glare of TV lights and surrounded by newspaper reporters -- over the past week: $100 million for children's health initiatives; $1 billion in job assistance for dislocated, illiterate or disadvantaged workers; $14 million to close the gap in women's pay; and $25 billion for school renovations.

Children's health initiatives: Funds would be used to subsidize training of pediatricians and to develop better treatments for childhood asthma. In widespread reporting by major news agencies, not one peep of dissent was mentioned. No one questioned whether or not pediatricians would be entering medical practice with or without government subsidies. No one wanted to know whether or not pharmaceutical companies, with an eye toward huge profits, are already developing effective asthma medications.

Job assistance: The federal funds would go close what Clinton calls a skills gap. No one questioned whether the private sector is already pushing for more training to meet job demands when unemployment is at an all-time low. When major employers need to hire large numbers of skilled workers, they know how to set up training programs at their own expense without relying on government handouts.

Closing the gap in women's pay: This funding -- no more than a speck in the $3 trillion-plus federal spending plan -- would, thank goodness, not be used to subsidize women's salaries. Instead, it would increase the number of government employees, increase the number of brochures produced by the government printing office and pay for public-service advertising to tell women they are paid less than their male counterparts -- something they already know is a statistical reality. There was no mention of the many companies, large and small, that have already adopted policies to ensure equal pay for equal work -- without any government public-relations effort.

School renovations: This is the only spending plan that raised even a murmur of dissent from the Republican majority in Congress, which, of course, must approve appropriations sought by the president. In short, the GOP appears to agree that the federal government needs to spend more money on school buildings, but the Republicans are fussing that the Clinton plan targets inner-city schools and skips needy suburban and rural districts.

But, as Walter Williams discusses in his column below, there is no correlation between per-pupil spending, teacher salaries or teacher-student ratios and academic achievement. What makes the president or the congressional Republicans think giving away money for more classrooms is going to achieve anything in the area of improved grades, fewer dropouts and better-trained workers to seek jobs?

Sadly, the news media -- this newspaper included -- is to blame for the lack of questions about all these spending plans and a willingness to give Clinton exactly what he wants: positive headlines to counter the bold type generated by the impeachment trial. News organizations have gone soft, serving as public-relations vehicles for the president's effective image-building campaign.