NEWS ANALYSIS : Clinton Stresses He Will Have Final Say on Economic Policy : Strategy: To build a coalition for change, he moves to ease liberals’ concerns over an advisory team tailored to reassure Washington, Wall Street.

As he announced the first members of his economic team Thursday, President-elect Bill Clinton made clear that the loudest voice in the new Administration’s economic policy will be his own.

With unusual force, Clinton stressed that, while he will look to his new team for advice, “in the end, I will make the ultimate decisions and be the ultimate arbiter.” In case anyone missed the point, he announced that he would chair the new National Economic Council--envisioned as the central economic policy-making body in the incoming Administration.

In one sense, Clinton was only bowing toward a political imperative after a presidential campaign in which George Bush was turned out of office largely because many voters thought he had paid insufficient attention to the economy.

But Clinton’s emphasis on his role was more than political tactics or a determination not to lose control of his Administration. It reflected his fundamental strategy for attempting to achieve far-reaching change.

In building a government--as in shaping his campaign message--Clinton is committed to demonstrating that he can balance a broad coalition by carving a “third way” through liberal and conservative choices. To do that successfully, he must win at least a degree of support for his programs from both liberals and conservatives.

The makeup of the economic team he unveiled Thursday was clearly tailored to reassure Washington and Wall Street; his choices were notable for their commitment to fiscal responsibility. At the same time, Clinton’s emphasis on retaining personal control over the final product was meant to reassure liberal supporters.

Between the lines, Clinton was saying that they need not fear a sell-out to traditional attitudes and interests; he stands ready to defend his campaign agenda of increased spending on infrastructure, education and training against any adviser overly focused on restraining federal spending.

At times Thursday, it almost seemed as though Clinton were directing his new appointees to take a pledge, as one after the other filed to the microphone to echo the President-elect’s words and insist that they believe the nation faces two deficits--one in the federal budget, the other in public investment.

More gestures of reassurance to those worried that the first appointments signal a lurch toward the right could come as soon as today; insiders said that they expect the imminent appointment of Laura D’Andrea Tyson, a more liberal economist from UC Berkeley, as chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

It is also possible that Robert B. Reich, another liberal favorite who is handling economic planning for the transition, could receive a top appointment today. Reich met with Clinton in Little Rock, Ark., Wednesday night and is considered a strong possibility for appointment as secretary of labor.

This maneuvering over Clinton’s first appointments symbolizes the difficult political calculation looming over every decision he makes. Last November, he was elected primarily with the votes of partisan Democrats, many of them eager for new spending on social needs. But to move from a 43% plurality in 1992 to effective control over the government in 1993--and a majority coalition in 1996--he needs to reclaim voters in the center skeptical of government activism, taxes and spending.

To balance both will not be easy--as Clinton was reminded in the days leading up to Thursday’s announcement.

Clinton’s decision to lean heavily on familiar, moderate figures as his top economic choices--particularly Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen as Treasury secretary and Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Carmel Valley) as director of the Office of Management and Budget--echoes the approach of the last President who took office in his 40s, John F. Kennedy.

In the effort to soothe business and Wall Street, Clinton did not go quite as far as Kennedy--who chose Republican Douglas Dillon, undersecretary of state for President Dwight D. Eisenhower, as his Treasury secretary.

By naming Bentsen, Clinton won rave reviews on Wall Street. But, as Kennedy did with Dillon, Clinton has generated uneasiness among some liberals--who identify the Texas senator more with tax breaks for powerful industries than ground-breaking initiatives to restructure the economy.

“He’s nodding to Wall Street much more than he needs to,” groused one top-ranking union official earlier this week.

But Clinton aides note that Bentsen has supported a middle-class tax cut and called for an aggressive stand in trade negotiations, positions popular on the left. And friends insist that both Roger Altman and Robert E. Rubin, chosen as deputy Treasury secretary and director of the new National Economic Council, respectively, have a broader perspective than most investment bankers. Rubin, for example, headed a task force on urban poverty for New York Gov. Mario M. Cuomo.

In fact Bentsen and the two investment bankers have actually provoked less anxiety on Clinton’s left than Panetta and Alice Rivlin, the economist named as his deputy at OMB.

Some liberals see both Panetta and Rivlin as unduly preoccupied with reducing the budget deficit--even at the expense of the new public “investments” in education or infrastructure that candidate Clinton portrayed as critical to long-term economic revival. In fact, during the campaign, Panetta criticized Clinton’s economic agenda for focusing too much on new spending and not enough on cutting the deficit. Asked about that at Thursday’s press conference, Clinton joked: “Well, I’m going to give him a chance to teach me some math.”

That’s not funny to some liberals in Clinton’s coalition. But it’s a pleasing prospect to more centrist advisers who fear that Clinton will not be able to pass his new spending initiatives in Congress unless he proves that he is willing to limit the growth in other programs, particularly entitlement spending.

“If he is going to save the investment agenda in Congress,” said one Clinton economic adviser in this camp, “he is going to have to take the spending-cut agenda even further than he has so far.”

Such a course implies more risk than Clinton was willing to assume during the campaign--when he said that it made no sense to impose major cuts on popular entitlements until after he tried to control the growth of health care costs. Those around him remain divided on whether he will change direction now.

What They Do

Here are brief descriptions of the roles of the secretary of Treasury, director of the Office of Management and Budget and head of the new National Economic Council: * Treasury secretary: President’s chief economic spokesman. Plays key role in determining tax policy and serves as Administration’s top emissary to Wall Street and international financial markets. The Treasury Department is responsible for overseeing the government’s financial affairs, including managing the $4-trillion debt and producing new currency and coins. * OMB director: Prepares the President’s budget and serves as the executive branch’s clearing house for congressional spending proposals. OMB reviews spending requests from all the executive agencies in preparing the President’s budget request each year. When an agency disagrees with OMB’s decisions, it can appeal to the President. OMB also reviews regulations before they are issued by departments and agencies. * National Economic Council: A new office being created by President-elect Clinton to coordinate Administration economic policy between various executive branch agencies. It would oversee economic affairs the way the National Security Council guides foreign policy. Source: Times wire services