Clear Cut Strategy Clear Cut  
THE REAGAN administrationÛªs chief budget strategist, OMB director-designate David Stock-man, observes that only economic growth and inflation control can really reduce the federal budget deficit. But he has also noted the importance of linking stimulative tax cuts with a cut in federal spending deep enough to allay fears of inflationary pressure. Can he succeed in budget control where his predecessors have failed?</br></br>Budget cutting is not exactly a new preoccupation in this town. President Carter waged a three-year war with federal agencies and Congress to control federal spending. The battle was not completely in vainÛÓper capita non-defense spending has declined by about ll1 percent in the last two yearsÛÓbut the effort was thrown out of whack by an estimated $25 billion increase in spending this fiscal year caused by higher unemployment, prices and interest rates,</br></br>Mr. Stockman is aware of the practical necessity of early consultation with congressional leaders and interest groups a nicety too frequently ignored by the Carter administration. But such efforts at creating a consensus also require that budget cuts be fairly and broadly distributed. In a country this rich, the main burden of fighting inflation cannot be put on those least able to bear it: the poor and the unemployed.</br></br>A broad-bast'd cut in benefits is essential in any case to provide enough money to support a healthy tax cut. And a tax cut must be big enough to con- vince the many taxpayers who benefit directly from government programs that they are not losing out on the deal. This suggests two other important principles: tax cuts should be linked to spending cuts, and the spending cuts should be presented as a package. No dessert without the spinach.</br></br>Some things, as a practical matter, canÛªt be cut; air traffic controllers are the favorite example. But there arenÛªt many others, and a few programs probably deserve outright annihilation. The idea of an across-the-board cut for most programs shouldnÛªt be dismissed out of hand. True, it implies changing the terms of entitlement programs at least temporarily (one easy way is to defer cost-of-living adjustments briefly), but it avoids having to reorder priorities substantially, a difficult job to do in the rush of a first budget season. Some improvements might also be sought on the revenue side, such as withholding tax on interest and dividends, a big money-raiser with no effect on tax rates for the honest.