THE STRUGGLE FOR ECONOMIC ANSWERS : Growth: Politicians and economists are at odds over proposed short-term fixes for long-term problems.

The nation’s political leaders, squirming at the prospect of facing the voters in a recession year, are forging ahead with proposals to fire up the U.S. economy through tax breaks and other rescue plans.

But the growing consensus to do something worries many economists, who warn that the fervor for action today could prove harmful to the economy’s health tomorrow. “You don’t win votes with long-term fixes for the economy,” asserts Edward E. Yardeni, chief economist at the C. J. Lawrence investment firm in New York. “You win votes by giving money away.”

The real problem, these analysts maintain, is not today’s slump, despite all the unhappiness it is causing voters and politicians. Rather, they say, there is a long-term threat: Even when the downturn ends, the United States will confront a future of stagnant living standards and meager wage gains unless it reverses years of insufficient saving and investment.

Does anyone have the answers? Increasingly, Congress, the White House, conservatives and liberals are competing to provide them. Following are several frequently mentioned prescriptions for economic revival. Some may be included in the growth package President Bush unveils later this month in his State of the Union address, igniting the Economic Rescue Debate of 1992:

* Tax relief for the middle class. There are various approaches to giving households a cash boost, some permanent, some temporary, some targeted to families with children or first-time home buyers. The political benefits are obvious, but many say the economic gains would be short-lived.

* Capital gains tax cut. A favorite of the President, this measure would promote the sale of various assets, such as shares of stock or real estate. Economists differ widely on its long-term value.

* Investment tax credit. This tax break would stimulate business investment in equipment, with long-term benefits. To hasten new investment, it could be offered on a temporary basis.

* Broader eligibility for individual retirement accounts. Also, the White House may propose easing restrictions that now limit withdrawals of cash from IRAs.

* Public works spending. Investment in highways, schools, training centers and other elements of the U.S. infrastructure is needed for gains in productivity and, ultimately, living standards. As a starting point, some suggest speeding up federal transportation projects scheduled for the next several years.

* Emergency revenue sharing. A one-shot infusion of federal cash could help states put laid-off public employees back to work and ripple quickly through the economy. But it could be expensive and doesn’t have much federal support.

A troubling reality looms above most attempts by policy makers to find a swift economic cure-all: Overall increases in spending or broad tax cuts could expand a federal budget deficit now ballooning toward $400 billion. Yet it may be impossible to give the economy a quick kick without expanding the deficit, deepening the nation’s debt and risking higher interest rates.

“You can’t stimulate the economy unless somebody spends more money,” declares Jeff Faux, president of the Economic Policy Institute in Washington.

Moreover, the quest for an economic Rx is complicated by the fact that the patient is suffering from several ailments.

The recession, which may be lingering, has brought rising layoffs and a pullback in consumer purchases of homes, cars and other big-ticket items. It has also eroded the value of many assets. Yet apart from the slump, other deep-seated flaws remain in the nation’s economic fiber and are likely to keep the recovery a meager one.

The steadily rising prosperity of the post-World War II period has been slowing for years, reflecting insufficient gains in productivity and America’s competitive struggles. The debt burdens of households, corporations and government remain troubling and make it harder to invest in the future. Such problems aren’t likely to vanish in a modest upturn.

“I think what’s really upsetting Americans is a growing realization that tomorrow is not going to be better than today,” declares Barry P. Bosworth, an economist at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

In contrast to an election-year fix, the nation’s future well-being may demand more overall investment in education, research and technology and relatively less consumer spending--”almost the opposite of what you’d do to jump-start the economy in the short term,” says Lyle E. Gramley, chief economist at the Mortgage Bankers Assn. in Washington.

As recently as last summer, the sorts of tax-and-spend measures--”fiscal” strategies--used to cushion past bouts with hard times seemed off limits because of the federal budget deficit and spending controls Congress had adopted to fight it.

But such attitudes have changed with the arrival of an election year and anxiety that the slump is stubbornly hanging on. Public worries about the economy have soared in recent months, despite a trend toward lower interest rates. Opinion polls have documented a dramatic drop in the President’s popularity. Many in Washington, anxious to play a more active role in fighting the slump, appear increasingly willing to expand the deficit, at least for the moment.

“It’s a whole new fiscal world out there,” one House Ways and Means Committee aide says. “People are coming out of the cave and rubbing their eyes and saying, ‘Where should we go?’ ”

The White House has floated proposals to offer temporary tax credits of up to $2,000 for first-time home buyers and is considering a plan to lighten tax burdens of the middle class. Both actions could be financed by defense cuts, although Administration officials reportedly may steer some of the defense savings toward deficit reduction.

In addition, the President is expected to recommend easing restrictions on withdrawing money from individual retirement accounts, perhaps to help people pay for college tuition or first-time home purchases.

After Bush reveals his economic-growth package this month, Congress will focus on a variety of tax proposals, some financed by savings in defense, others paid for by tax hikes for the rich.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowsi (D-Ill.), for example, has suggested reducing taxes for most Americans while creating a new, higher bracket for the affluent as a way to pay for the reductions. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) has proposed tax rebates for families with children--$300 per child--financed by defense cuts.

Millions of middle-class households would welcome the relief, no doubt, but analysts focusing on the future argue that such measures divert funds from more basic goals, such as improving education or modernizing U.S. industry for the competitive battles with Japan and Western Europe.

“The pressure for a quick fix during an election year is probably overwhelming, both for Congress and the President,” says Bosworth, who served as a high-level economist in the Carter Administration. “But in general, I think all the tax proposals are a bad idea.”

In any case, retailers and manufacturers might find a middle-class tax cut to be something less than a bonanza. Consumers would devote much of it to saving rather than spending, past history suggests. And a significant portion of any extra spending would go toward foreign-made cars, electronics and other imports.

Yet the ultimate nightmare for economists goes beyond such technicalities: They fear that easing the federal spending controls embodied in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 could unleash a tornado of election-year wheeling and dealing and spark a huge run-up in the deficit.

“The very grave danger is that everyone on Capitol Hill tries to throw in his own laundry,” says Gramley, a former governor on the Federal Reserve Board.

When it comes to tinkering with the tax code, many say America’s future prosperity requires new incentives for private investment rather than relief for the middle class. Advocates of a cut in the capital gains tax, for example, say such a reduction would make it more attractive for entrepreneurs to invest in risky, but potentially rewarding, projects.

“When we remove the incentive to invest, we stop creating jobs,” says Jon P. Goodman, director of USC’s entrepreneur program and a specialist in economic development.

A cut in the capital gains tax could be designed to reward long-term investments over short-term speculation by providing a bigger tax benefit for gains realized after a period of years, some point out. Also, a new rule exempting the effects of inflation from capital gains taxes would give investors even greater incentive, says Allan H. Meltzer, a professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University.

Still, the measure often is derided as a windfall for the affluent and gets faint praise even from some of its proponents: “I think it’s a step in the right direction, but not a very important step,” Meltzer says.

Separately, many economists say a tax credit for business investments should be put back in the tax code, perhaps on a temporary basis. Although the measure might aggravate the deficit at first, it ultimately could pay off for the country as business executives modernize their equipment and technology in response to lower costs of capital.

The tax credit would “significantly add to the economy’s growth potential by the next century,” maintains Mark Zandi, an economist with Regional Financial Associates, an economic consulting firm in West Chester, Pa.

Certainly, tax cuts aren’t the only way policy makers can offer a kick to a stalled economy. There remains the stimulus of extra spending, although costs could be daunting in light of the deficit: Overall, an infusion of $30 billion to $50 billion might be needed to stimulate the $6-trillion U.S. economy, economists say.

As a palatable step, some analysts suggest speeding up the six-year schedule of projects listed in the $151-billion highway and mass transit plan that became law in December. Some also say the federal government could help by providing a one-time cash infusion to the financially troubled states.

The spending could be designated for burgeoning Medicaid and welfare expenses, easing financial pressure on state governments and enabling them to put employees back to work.

More broadly, added spending on public projects--buildings, training centers, transportation and more--would help the country both in the short term and the long term, advocates contend. For all the cost, such outlays “contribute to solving the long-term problems of productivity and competitiveness,” argues Faux of the Economic Policy Institute. By contrast, “a tax cut doesn’t get you anything in the long run.”

Confusing? To Zandi, the separate challenges posed by the short-term recession and the economy’s structural flaws have presented policy makers with a Hobson’s choice: Barring quick action, the slump might intensify during the election year--and toss many politicians into the ranks of unemployed. But opening up the economic debate to new tax-and-spend proposals could unleash political forces that are unpredictable and risky for the economy in the long term.

“There’s a lot to be said for the fact that they should do nothing,” Zandi says.