Mr. Clinton's Spending Proposals
PRESIDENT CLINTON is criticized for having relied too heavily on tax increases and for not having come down hard enough on spending in the economic stimulus-deficit reduction plan that he outlined last week. It's true that the plan could stand some additional starch in this regard, but its weaknesses are not as great as the critics suggest. This is still a strong and in most respects courageous proposal that would move the country in most of the right directions; it offers the best chance of genuine economic recovery that the country has had in years. The program can be strengthened, but repair should not become the excuse for trashing it.</br></br>(1) Some of the spending cuts the president has proposed are wispy at best. For the five years 1994-98, for example, he would save about$8 billion by "streamlining government," while reducing spending a like amount through "other administrative savings" that are nowhere spelled out. All presidents propose to create a leaner government in undefined ways like these, butit never happens, or if it does, you can'ttell.</br></br>(2) Mr. Clinton has taken on some formidable interest groups from which his predecessors fled; his proposal to subject a larger share of Social Security benefits to the income tax is the best example. You could wish that he had taken on a few more while he was at it. He proposed only minor savings in the veterans' affairs budget of $35 billion a year; an eager budget-cutter could have found some more. Likewise, he could have killed the space station as unaffordable in present circumstances, though perhaps his proposal to restructure it will turn out to be much the same thing.</br></br>(3) Having done, even so, a decent enough job of coming up with a list of spending cuts, he then gave up too much gained ground by proposing to add back billions of the dollars in the names of stimulus (a minor amount) and investment. Some of this is good spending, but the president did too much, and in the process he threatened his own initial accomplishment. It isn't clear to us that the economy needs a temporary $9 billion investment tax credit to hasten its recovery, or that the additional $10 billion the president has proposed over four years for job training can be well spent. The administration might also have found something better to do in a year of cuts than to propose expansion of the government's tree-planting programs.</br></br>The spending increases and tax cuts mainly under the rubric of investment come to$170 billion over four years. The arguments in favor are that the causes are good, that the president is paying for the new programs he has proposed, that he is proposing in addition all the fiscal restraint that the economy can likely withstand in the next several years and that the "investment" side of the plan is necessary for political reasons - the price of the votes he will need to pass the rest.