BUSH BUDGET PRIORITIES : Bush Sought to Show Leadership, Initiative : Administration Insider Says President Needed to Start Debate With Congress on Budget Deficit

With his address Thursday night to a joint session of Congress, President Bush took his first steps into the fiscal mine field that could well define his presidency.

His goal, dictated by the economic reality of the nation’s straitened circumstances and the political reality of the Democrats’ firm control of Congress, was modest but critical: to demonstrate leadership and initiative, while holding down costs and minimizing the risk of blame.

“He needed to start the debate on the deficit by putting the budget in play,” explained one Administration insider, a holdover from the Ronald Reagan presidency. “He had to get out there where he could start a discussion with (House Speaker Jim) Wright and (Senate Majority Leader George J.) Mitchell.”

The political thinking behind the Bush speech, as this strategist explained it, was for Bush to assume the responsibility appropriate for a chief executive--but to avoid painting himself into a corner if it should prove impossible to cut the budget deficit and still avoid boosting taxes.

Lays Out Blueprint

To that end, the President laid out a four-point blueprint for cutting the deficit and offered an array of modest proposals for making the country “kinder and gentler.” At the same time, he reaffirmed his opposition to higher levies. “No new taxes,” he declared once more.

Beyond positioning the White House on the budget, however, the speech reflected a dilemma Bush has yet to resolve in his approach to presidential leadership. In part because of his own nature and in part because he must build his political persona without disowning his mentor, Ronald Reagan, Bush appears torn about how to address the country.

Sometimes, as in parts of Thursday’s speech, he sounds a Churchillian call for national commitment and sacrifice to overcome serious problems. At other times, he sings the soothing song of peace, prosperity and comfort.

“We live in a peaceful, prosperous time,” Bush told Americans on Inauguration Day. And on Thursday night, after looking back on the severe inflation President Reagan confronted at the start of his presidency, Bush declared: “We are fortunate, a much-changed landscape lies before us tonight. So I don’t propose to reverse direction. We are headed the right way.”

Still, as Bush and his advisers realize, there are signs of growing public impatience with the promises made by Reagan and echoed by Bush that the deficit dilemma will be solved.

Poll Shows Pessimism

A new national poll by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion shows that a majority of Americans--52%--believe the deficit will increase during the coming year. Another 14%, who believe the deficit will remain the same, are dissatisfied with how high it is.

Moreover, 57% expect inflation to increase during 1989, and 40% believe unemployment will climb.

In the face of this anxiety about the economic future, the President told his countrymen and the Congress: “ . . . We cannot rest. So tonight, we must take a strong America--and make it even better. We must address some very real problems.”

And with its recommendations for government action on subjects ranging from promoting basic scientific research to stepping up the war against drugs, the speech reflected what Lee Miringhoff, director of the Marist Institute poll, called “a shift toward a ‘kinder, gentler’ domestic agenda from the Reagan theme of ‘get the government off your back.’ ”

“The question remains whether this is just a change in tone or whether there will be a commitment of resources to these ideas,” Miringhoff said.

In his inaugural address, Bush had emphasized that he did not view leadership “as high drama and the sound of trumpets calling.” The words he uttered Thursday night were more like an invitation to deliberate than a call to action.

Times may be tough, Bush seemed to be saying, but not all that tough. “Next year alone, thanks to economic growth, without any change in the law, the federal government will take in over $80 billion more than it does this year . . . with no increase in taxes.”

On the one hand, Bush warned: “We cannot settle for business as usual.” On the other hand, he added: “Government by crisis will not do.”

Between these extremes, Bush did not directly identify what he believes the national mood should be. But he did speak out strongly for a partnership approach.

Limits to Role

Bush does not have the political luxury a Democratic President would have had of blaming his predecessor for the nation’s problems.

Nor could he afford at this point to lash out at the Democrats, given their supremacy in Congress.

“My team and I are ready to work with the Congress, to form a special leadership group, to negotiate in good faith, to work day and night--if that’s what it takes--to meet the budget targets, and to produce a budget on time,” Bush said.

And near the end of his remarks, Bush called on Congress “to come forward with your proposals, if they are different. Let us not question each other’s motives. Let us debate. Let us negotiate. But let us solve the problem.”

“His main objective seemed to be to keep the honeymoon going with Congress,” said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. Bush took only “one shot” at Congress, Sabato pointed out, when he declared: “And frankly, we need less congressional micromanagement of our nation’s military policy.”

But at the last moment the President, an ex-House member from Texas, softened the tone of the text by ad-libbing the admonition: “Don’t take this the wrong way.”

Refers to Churchill

In conclusion, Bush recalled Winston Churchill’s leadership of embattled Britain in World War II. He called on Americans to demonstrate similar perseverance and fortitude.

But Churchill was a charismatic leader who prevailed by making the most of crisis. Bush, for his part, is a self-styled man of moderation who does not want to alarm his countrymen or ask them to sacrifice.

What remains unclear is whether this approach can produce Churchillian results.