GRIDLOCK IS DESIRABLE OVER FLAWED PROPOSALS

In athletic events, a one-point victory is as good as a rout; it counts the same when the records are written. In politics, a win is a win, too, but it's a trickier business. President Clinton's congressional triumph with his tax package came about only after weeks of arm-twisting, deal-making and other varieties of intense persuasion ... and this in a lawmaking body where most are allegedly his friends. While the budget deal is now on the books, President Clinton's lurching conquest may herald rough times ahead.

Look at the composition of Congress: In the Senate, there are 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans, while in the House, there are 258 Democrats and 175 Republicans (with one independent member and one vacancy due to death). Certainly, Bill Clinton looked at this composition when he proclaimed upon his election that "gridlock in now over" in Washington. He looked to Capitol Hill and saw mostly friendly faces and heard mostly agreeable voices. Still, one thing that will turn an ally sour is a bad idea. And the depth of "badness" in the budget plan is clearly indicated by the number of presidential partisans who risked a great deal politically by not lending their support to this package, Mr. Clinton's foremost test of leadership to this point.

The House, with 41 Democrats jumping ship on the proposal, passed the budget plan by a vote of 218-216. Senate Republicans drew six Democrats to their side to knot that chamber, and President Clinton had to rely on his vice president to cast the tie-breaking vote. Even Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, the last Democrat to submit to the president's side, cast his vote not out of conviction but in deference to Mr. Clinton's rickety situation. In his Senate speech Friday, Kerrey said he "would not cast a vote that would bring down" the administration. If the vote was supportive, the speech was scolding.

President Clinton was due a scolding. Calling for sacrifice in the face of budget deficits and a huge national debt, the president championed a plan heavily weighted toward raising revenue and barely aimed at reducing government expenditures. While President Clinton's pep talks on Capitol Hill called on lawmakers to exhibit "courage" with their votes, he misidentified the criteria: the courageous thing would have been to limit the new taxes and "sacrifice" the amount of money Congress has to spend. In promising that the spending cuts would come down the road, especially during Vice President Gore's upcoming exercise in "Reinventing Government," Mr. Clinton has provided legislators and their constituents with the classic "check's in the mail" line.

If the president stretched his influence to its maximum on this critical budget vote, and managed a legislative victory by a total of three votes, what might he expect when questions of health care reform, welfare restructuring and the North American Free Trade Agreement come before Congress? The friendly faces turn ugly when administration plans aren't well-conceived. And gridlock might be a desirable circumstance especially when induced by Democrats on a Democrat if the legislation on the table is not in America's best interest.