VIEWS OF CLINTON: TRYING TO MUDDLE THROUGH A TIME WHEN SEEKING SOLUTIONS

Conversations in the past week with two Missourians are illustrative of the present dilemma of the fledgling Clinton administration: an ambiguity, accidental or intentional, about the president's newly proposed economic policy and many of its revenue ramifications. The policy, which calls for an increase in taxes, a downsizing of governmental programs and a sharper focus on new development of America's economic machine, is getting plenty of attention these days, some of it misdirected. It isn't that all the attention is purposely misstated, although this is true in certain instances, but that many citizens simply do not comprehend the extent of the problem and, therefore, lack any sympathy for the steps that have been proposed.

The first conversation occurred in a small outstate restaurant with a financially modest self-employed worker who was bewailing the Clinton recommendation to increase the level of income on which Social Security benefits would be taxed. Since the worker is in his mid-30s, it's unlikely any increase would affect him for years, if ever. His second complaint was the president's decision to increase income tax rates on the middle class, which was news to those around him. Despite assurances that Mr. Clinton had made no recommendation to boost the rate on his relatively modest income, our critic suggested that it was time for the former governor of Arkansas to retire.

The second conversation occurred a couple of days later, this one with a respected university economist in the state, a man whose views have been sought over the years by presidents of large corporations and even those who worked at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. "We Americans have a need to simplify every issue, large or small, and when most of us attempt this impossibility, we invariably use the wrong terms and thus arrive at conclusions that are far from the mark." Warming to his subject, he observed that Mr. Clinton, in his State of the Union address on Feb. 17, often used the words "investment" and "revenue" as if they were interchangeable. "Oftentimes the two mean the same thing," our professor admitted, "but by failing to define the differences, the president opened himself up for considerable criticism, particularly from his political enemies." One need only glance at recent editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal to confirm our economist's observation.

Before and after his inauguration, Mr. Clinton has defined investment as money spent by government to strengthen the nation's economy and reverse policies that have permitted deterioration of such national resources as air and ground transportation, health care research and high technology development. At the human level, he has suggested that lives are a terrible thing to waste and has proposed modest retraining projects to equip millions of citizens to secure decent employment at something better than entry-level salaries.

Clinton's defenders and critics can agree on perhaps no more than a couple of his proposals, but one of them wins lip service from both: our desperate need to reduce the annual federal nightmare known as budget deficits, which threaten not only the individual security of us all but the nation's as well. The current annual deficit, which is often confused with the child in the country. It is this deficit, which has gone through the roof in the past decade, that stifles so much of our economy and reduces the capital available for programs that will improve the lives of all Americans. Interest costs on our national debt are as much as the combined budgets of these departments and agencies: Agriculture, ~Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, NASA, EPA, Army Corps of Engineers and the Small Business Administration.

Five programs defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest payments on the national debt take up 70.2 percent of all federal revenue. Since 71 percent of all executive employees are in defense, it makes sense to trim this expense, as Clinton is recommending. The cries of the elderly and poor make it very difficult to trim Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, so the amount of tinkering has thus far been minimal, even as the critics have been most vocal. As for debt interest, the only way to reduce this expenditure is by reducing the amount Uncle Sam must borrow every year.

This is meant as neither a defense nor a condemnation of the president, who has already made mistakes and will undoubtedly make many more. It is meant to point out the problems he faces, along with all of us, as we try to muddle through a time in which we are at least looking at our nation's problems and seeking some solutions. We believe it's about time.