Tick, Tick, Tick . . .

The clock is running: Tick, $6,350. Tick, $6,350. Tick, $6,350.

Every single second the United States of America goes about $6,350 deeper into debt. That’s $381,000 every minute, $23,000,000 every hour, $548,000,000 every day.

The figures do not represent what the federal government is spending, but only how much more it is spending than it collects in revenue. The staggering figures grow even bigger as interest is added to the new debt.

Yet, as the clock ticks and the red ink flows, the Administration stands staunchly against two critical ingredients to any significant deficit-reduction plan: a realistic scaling back of the growth in defense spending, and some source of new revenue.

The President did hint recently that he might yield some on defense, but, after several days of negotiations with Senate Republican leaders, White House Chief of Staff Donald T. Regan said, “We have not offered anything.”

The President lends little sense of urgency to the debt problem, insisting that the country can simply grow out of it through economic expansion.

The deficit is not taken so lightly, however, by a remarkably diverse and distinguished group of economists. Six former chairmen of the White House Council of Economic Advisers--three Republicans and three Democrats--issued a statement this week expressing their concern about “the fundamental dangers” of running up more debt at such a pace.

Such deficits would erode the long-term viability of the economy, said the six--who include former Reagan advisers Murray L. Weidenbaum and Martin Feldstein.

They said that four elements are needed to make a substantial reduction in the deficit: a slowing of the growth of entitlement programs, other domestic cuts, defense reductions and a tax increase.

The six said that they do not agree on an exact mix, but they concurred in this statement: “As a practical matter, it will be difficult to devise an effective policy combination that will meet that goal without some contribution from each of the four elements.”

So far the President has relied almost exclusively on just one of the four points for reducing the deficit: drastic domestic cuts and elimination of programs. Until all four become part of serious negotiations, however, there can be no real progress toward the adoption of a realistic budget for fiscal 1986. In the meantime, the clock continues to tick.