IS SENDING MORE MONEY AN APPROPRIATE ANSWER?

Americans have had a few days to mull over President Clinton's plan to address the federal government's fiscal mess. There will be no middle-class tax cut, as promised when the president was a candidate; in fact, the middle class will pay more taxes. Still, most Americans are reacting to this development with good nature, perhaps glad to see a chief executive propose some action in response to the problem. Still, taxpayers are cautioned not to suffer this plan too gladly; once the bills start rolling in, the status quo that President Clinton has vowed to shake up might not look so bad.

In a perverse sense, we are bolstered by the comments delivered by some Americans in reaction to the Clinton plan: Many expressed a willingness to "sacrifice," as suggested by the new administration, if the sacrifices are distributed evenly. American virtue is solidly represented in this attitude. It speaks to fair play; people of this nation will shoulder their share of a heavy burden as long as they feel a few slackers aren't getting by.

Still, when you boil this down, there are fundamental questions to be asked that are unaffected by the dynamics of the proposal made last week. Individual Americans should ask themselves:

"Am I the problem?" The answer is "no."

The begging question for individuals then is:

"Why am I paying for the problem?" A good question.

Still another question is:

"Who caused the problem?" Well, the federal government, for spending hundreds of billions more than it takes in each year.

And the follow-up question:

"Who will get additional money as a result of this overzealous spending?" Woefully, it is Congress, with no recent history for restraint and with a fresh source of money.

Consider how a good corporation downsizes itself, something many have done in recent times. Department heads are asked to examine their operations closely to determine if there are areas that can be eliminated without adversely affecting the product or tearing apart the business. Let's instruct Congress to follow this lead: President Clinton should ask each of the 435 members of the U.S. House to look at their home districts and report to him on something that can be cut without buckling the nation. All 100 senators should be asked to "contribute" to the list.

Talk about turning the status quo on its head ... members of Congress are accustomed to bringing home the bacon, not leaving it in Washington. Still, every federal lawmaker should be obliged to bear the weight of this "sacrifice" if all colleagues are doing the same. And if the cuts are sufficient in the scaling down of government, perhaps no tax increases will be necessary to balance the budget and reduce the national debt.

We respect Bill Clinton as leader of this nation. We respect his seeming disposition toward addressing the problems of this nation's budget. We even respect the notion of a presidential "honeymoon," a period of time where the new chief executive can get his bearings and put his new ideas into motion. However, even in a matrimonial honeymoon, if the spouse snores, a gentle nudge is an acceptable act.

We think the nudge this nation should give President Clinton is one that indicates not complete and unwavering support of his program (he suggests citizens call their elected representatives) but one that says Congress must do its fair share and rightful duty. Turning over more money to Washington, when Washington is at the heart of the problem, doesn't seem the most appropriate solution.