PRESIDENT SHOULD STUDY BOND BUDGET BLUEPRINT

President Bill Clinton advised the nation three weeks ago of his plan for setting straight the federal budget, using small doses of spending cuts and much larger doses of taxation. At the time President Clinton made public his intentions, he challenged congressional opponents of his proposal to come up with specific alternatives. Missouri Sen. Christopher Bond has answered the challenge, and we favor his approach to handling the government's budget mess.

What makes the senator's approach more appealing than the president's is its basic understanding of the federal budget problem: Congress is given a certain amount of money to spend annually, and annually Congress spends more than this amount. This is not a taxpayer problem ... it is a spending problem; placing additional burdens on taxpayers, as the presidential proposal will do, seems neither fair nor rational nor effective.

What Sen. Bond wants to do is address the problem rather than compound it. His proposal calls for $228 billion in government spending cuts to be made before any tax increase can be enacted. Thank goodness for priorities placed in the proper order. History is on the side of the Bond argument: Congress has a track record for spending $1.59 for every dollar in tax increase. Turning the legislative branch loose with more money is not wise.

The Missouri senator claims that 15 government programs can be eliminated over the next five years, that domestic discretionary spending can be frozen, that entitlement reform can be undertaken and that other lesser cuts can be forthcoming ... all to the tune of $228 billion. Even this mighty effort at fiscal responsibility won't do the trick, but it's a start. What it does, most importantly, is change the focus of the fiscal proposal from that of encumbering all Americans to merely encumbering the governing body. This is to our liking.

To stimulate the economy and aid the nation's steady climb out of recession, Sen. Bond suggests not more taxes, but tax incentives that give Americans a reason to invest. He advocates expansion of individual retirement accounts, investment tax credits for businesses and a reduction in the capital gains tax rate. Increased taxes merely give people a reason to withdraw from economic activity, not enliven it.

Since President Clinton issued the challenge for thoughtful and precise options to his budget blueprint, he is surely obliged to give Sen. Bond's ideas due consideration. Will that happen? We try not to let cynicism get the best of us. The selling job is under way, and the budget plan that results from congressional handling may barely resemble the executive proposal made in February. The Missouri senator produced a plan rooted in spending cuts, hitting the fiscal problem where it lives. We hope President Clinton takes notice.