Capital Thinkers Offer Words of Wisdom to President-Elect

The capital’s ubiquitous think-tank industry, never shy about offering its varied opinions, is weighing in with unsolicited advice for President-elect Bill Clinton and the Democratic entourage that will accompany him to the White House.

The proposals range from suggestions for reducing the government’s budget deficit (raise taxes) to the post-Cold War status of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (abolish it). But maybe the best single piece of advice comes from the Democratic-oriented Progressive Policy Institute: Don’t get too cocky, it says.

“The largest transition pitfall, put simply, is hubris,” the institute said in a report. “The last three Democratic presidents have suffered from early self-inflicted wounds. For (John F.) Kennedy, it was the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion; for Lyndon B. Johnson, it was the decision to escalate the war in Vietnam; for (Jimmy) Carter, it was the promotion of his energy bill and the alienation of the Democratic Congress in his first year in office.”

If the incoming Administration can avoid trying to create what the institute termed “the illusion of absolute power,” the rest should be relatively easy.

Some of the think-tank suggestions seem pretty obvious, although Clinton may not want to hear them.

“Neither a presidential line-item veto nor elimination of ‘waste, fraud and abuse’ in government can erase even one-tenth of the U.S. annual deficit,” wrote Debra L. Miller, director of the Strengthening America Commission of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“Balancing the budget cannot be done without raising taxes,” she concluded.

Perhaps the most impressive report, based on the stature of its authors, was issued jointly by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Institute for International Economics of Washington. The paper was prepared by 30 former Democratic and Republican officials--including Cabinet members, ambassadors and senior military officers--with a combined total of 457 years of government service.

As might be expected of a group with such a wide range of viewpoints, the recommendations avoided radical proposals. After outlining two possible comprehensive approaches to government reorganization, the panel called for a middle course.

But the report said its authors were unanimous on one thing: “Whatever the personal style of the President, the modern presidency requires a strong chief of staff.”

The panel said that while the chief should not function as a prime minister or deputy president, he should clearly be “senior to all other White House staff.” Since 1945, all Republican presidents have employed the chief of staff system, but the Democrats have used it irregularly and somewhat reluctantly. The report said Clinton should change that.

Thomas (Mack) McLarty, the childhood friend Clinton named as chief of staff, has said he intends to be mainly an efficient administrator.

In general, the report suggested that Clinton should strengthen the White House, even if it means downgrading the Cabinet.

“No matter how strong a Cabinet team you assemble, White House leadership in formulating strategy and policy is essential for a successful Administration,” the report said.

To strengthen the White House, the panel suggested the creation of two new councils to parallel the existing National Security Council--an Economic Council and a Domestic Council. During his campaign, Clinton promised to create a White House council to deal with the economy. The Domestic Council, in the panel’s plan, would coordinate policy on such matters as housing, education, transportation, civil rights, crime and welfare.

No matter how it is reorganized, the federal bureaucracy will remain a giant institution. The Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank, said, “The sheer size of the executive Establishment makes it unmanageable from any single central point.”