PRESIDENT IS MISSING THE MESSAGE OF AMERICA

President Clinton was out West this week, jogging on a beach, shooting some hoops at an urban playground and selling salvation in the form of heavier taxes. The sales pitch made his running and jump shot look good ... which is to say, the sales pitch was weak. Regardless of geographical location or made-for-TV setting, the president has trouble convincing Americans they are better off giving the federal government more of their money. President Clinton hits the road, campaign-style, to spread the message, but is he getting the message?

Something the president said Tuesday in California bears some examination. Granted, it was said in response to a heckler at one of his appearances, but we don't think it is a comment he would back away from in a moment of deliberation. Interrupted at Los Angeles Valley College by the spectator's shouts for "no new taxes," President Clinton responded: "We've tried it your way for 12 years and look what it got us. The no-new-taxes crowd had their way for 12 years."

Interesting.

Obviously, the "12 years" the president referred to encompass the administrations of his predecessors, Ronald Reagan and George Bush. It is true that during those years budget deficits and the national debt climbed precipitously. Yet, except for a short span during those dozen years, the Congress of the United States, which possesses constitutional authority to approve spending, has been held in the solid grasp of Democrats, members of the Mr. Clinton's own party. The notion that Presidents Reagan and Bush had it "their way" is absurd.

Further, President Clinton clearly implies a separation between his view of governance and that of the "no-new-taxes crowd." In fact, the president was elected to his high office in large part by promising a middle-class tax cut, a pledge he abandoned not long after votes were cast in November. If he derides the "no-new-taxes crowd," he maligns many of those Americans whom he let down with his broken promise ... adding insult to fiscal injury.

The budget President Clinton promotes carries tax increases that will total $246 billion over the next five years; the package includes an energy tax and higher income taxes that will affect individuals and corporations. The document contains just $100 billion in spending cuts over the same period, taking into account reduced Medicare reimbursements to doctors and hospitals, plus lower payments to federal workers and retirees. The equation should be reversed, with far more spending cuts than tax increases.

Last week, President Clinton suggested formation of a national trust fund for the collection of all money raised from new taxes and spending cuts, and dedicated to reducing the nation's budget deficit. "I don't blame the people of this country for being distrustful about what they hear from Washington when it comes to bringing down the deficit," the president said. He didn't cite his forsaken tax cut pledge as evidence. Pity poor George Stephanopoulos, chief Clinton image-maker and White House spin doctor, for the difficult chore such statements create for him. Even high-ranking Democrats rolled their eyes at the suggestion the trust fund might balance the budget.

In all of this there is little to indicate President Clinton accepts the widespread feedback that spending cuts provide the surest route to deficit reduction. In the absence of this pivotal bit of learning, he should at least attempt to minimize the trickery in his rhetoric.