COMMENTARY ON CLINTON’S PRIORITIES : Bold Cuts in Military Budget Essential for Country’s Health : With the collapse of Soviet Communism, he should swiftly lay claim to a $500-billion peace dividend for Americans.

Although I was a declared candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination for much of 1991 and 1992, as things turned out mine was never reported as a center-stage candidacy. Nevertheless, I did manage to participate with Bill Clinton and other “major” Democratic candidates in a half dozen forums, including several regional debates televised on C-SPAN or PBS affiliates.

A few million Americans heard me speak at least once. Nearly 100,000 actually voted for me. And I even won a few delegates to the Democratic National Convention. So, I figure I’ve earned this last pre-inaugural opportunity to make a few unsolicited observations and offer some serious advice to our President-elect.

Bill Clinton is a man blessed with remarkable political skills, and yet I believe his presidency is already in jeopardy. Clinton’s strength is that he is a gifted and disciplined consensus-builder. I watched him outmaneuver and outpoll his Democratic adversaries, while deftly incorporating their most compelling arguments into his own call for change.

As Sen. Tom Harkin fell by the wayside, Clinton absorbed his populist denunciation of trickle-down economics. Paul Tsongas’ early focus on the economy and Bob Kerrey’s single-minded call for health-care reform became Clinton’s top domestic priorities. And I was personally gratified when he noted that my own repeated pleas for post-Cold War economic conversion began to win some attention; soon he was weaving this theme as well into his message of hope for America.

So why do I regard the Clinton presidency as already in trouble? It’s because of his five-year, $1.36-trillion military spending plans. This is about $270 billion per year, nearly every bit as wasteful and destructive as President Bush’s proposed $1.42-trillion program that averaged about $280 billion per year.

I’m convinced that if Clinton adheres to these profligate 1980s-style military budgets, he’ll trap himself into being yet one more Cold War president who lacks the resources to end needless human suffering at home and “lift up America,” as he so eloquently promised in his campaign. Unless he adopts bold new post-Cold War priorities--starting right away with deep and long overdue military spending cuts--I’m afraid his presidency will become a forlorn exercise in misery management.

There’s still time for Bill Clinton to tell the American people the truth that he and his advisers have no doubt confronted in the privacy of the transition process: After 40 years of Cold War at an enormous accumulated national cost of more than $8 trillion, our country is much worse off at home than even Clinton described during the campaign.

But he can also report that the collapse of Soviet Communism has provided us an opportunity to defend our country at a mere fraction of what we’ve been paying. In short, a newly sworn-in President Clinton should explain to the American people that there is a peace dividend--a huge one of at least $500 billion over the next five years. He should make it clear, at the very beginning, that he is laying claim to the peace dividend’s benefits in the name of the American people. And he should be specific.

First, tell the American people that we can safely withdraw all U.S. forces from Western Europe and Japan, saving hundreds of billions of dollars. Tell them that we can actually enhance our security by investing a tiny fraction of these savings in “collective security,” joining with other nations to establish a permanent U.N. capacity to keep the peace, deliver humanitarian assistance, and police the rapid surrender and disassembly of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capacity.

Second, tell the American people that he has decided to cancel needless weapons systems like the B-2 bomber and the “Star Wars,” saving tens of billions of dollars each year. But reassure anxious defense workers by announcing that his administration is prepared to convert these weapons contracts to contracts for domestic reconstruction.

The new President should challenge the shipbuilders in Groton, Conn. to build second hulls on oil tankers instead of totally unnecessary Seawolf submarines. Challenge the aerospace firms and Southern California’s scientists, engineers and production workers to convert their talents and their military contracts, dollar-for-dollar, to build a modern 21st- Century rail transportation system. Challenge Los Angeles and Orange counties to become a regional and international center for transportation and environmental excellence.

Third, President Clinton should tell the American people that of the $100-billion per year peace dividend from these new priorities, he’s prepared to set aside about one-third for deficit reduction, one-third for meeting urgent national priorities in health and environmental reclamation, and the final one-third for direct aid to cities and public school districts.

When Bill Clinton takes office, he should show the American people that he is a “New” Democrat who has faith in us at the local level to repair our own infrastructure, educate our kids, and make our neighborhoods clean and safe--provided we have the resources to employ our own citizens to get on with the work.

History teaches us that a newly elected President really has only two opportunities to translate an ephemeral “mandate” into enduring new priorities. Bill Clinton’s first chance will be his Inaugural Address. Here, he can summon the nation to support and demand the new priorities made possible by a massive post-Cold War peace dividend.

His second decisive opportunity will come just weeks later, when he submits his first budget message. If he fumbles this chance to deliver on new priorities, line by line, I doubt that there will be another.

Like most Americans who wish our new President success, I’ll be watching and listening and hoping.