Not the Last Word--but Not a Bad Start : Clinton proposes an economic plan well worth discussing

Sure, it’s not perfect, it’s not the last word on anything, it has some obvious problems. But it’s a lot better than nothing--and at least it starts the debate. And it is a plan. So thank you, Bill Clinton.

For by offering his approach for revving up the nation’s stalled economy, Gov. Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, becomes the first contender for the nation’s highest office to steer campaign talk away from meaningless political rhetoric and vague symbols. Even if his ideas fall short on specifics, he is to be applauded for trying.

Now the challenge is for his opponents to come up with their own detailed plans. So far, President Bush has been recycling old ideas in an ad hoc manner, displaying little or no vision. Then there’s maverick Ross Perot, who may talk a good game on television but adroitly avoids a detailed discussion of most issues.

HIGHLY OPTIMISTIC: To be fair, Clinton is unveiling no major new economic initiative, but he refined--and put dollar figures--on some of his earlier proposals. The Arkansas governor has the right concepts, although in their current and embryonic form his measures are short on financing detail and perhaps overly optimistic in revenue projections.

Clinton wishes to roughly halve the deficit, to about $193 billion, by 1996. He would ratchet down federal overspending over the same period with cuts of about $300 billion, achieved by eliminating some unspecified programs and 100,000 federal jobs. He also would raise taxes on the wealthy and require the minuscule percentage of Medicare users who earn more than $125,000 a year to pick up a greater share of their costs. Soaking the rich--though politically the easiest possible lift for Clinton--is neither a magic route to equitable taxation nor a huge source of new money. Tapping even a little into skyrocketing but sacrosanct entitlement programs like Social Security would provide much greater savings.

PUSHING WINNERS: Clinton’s broadest vision would shore up the neglected cities. He proposes public investment of more than $50 billion annually for urban relief, education and investment in America. To revitalize the cities, he would rebuild roads, bridges, sewage plants and the like. He would also spend more on affordable housing and public safety. His National Police Corps would put 100,000 new officers, including unemployed military veterans, on city streets. Not a bad idea.

To prepare poor children for jobs, Clinton would build on proven successes that over the longer run save money, such as Head Start, the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutritional program and expanded prenatal care. To prepare welfare mothers for jobs, Clinton proposes a workfare program that offers training, health care and other support--but only for two years. The working poor would get more generous tax credits. But, in a bow to reality over politics, Clinton has scaled back his original call for a tax cut for the middle class.

The Democrat’s plan also takes note of lack of health care for millions of Americans. He supports managed care, spending limits and some type of universal health insurance coverage. But at what cost? This is one complex issue where at least some specifics are badly needed.

Still, is Clinton’s economic plan a useful start? You bet. Should it prompt serious debate? Let’s hope so.