NEWS ANALYSIS : Clinton’s Allegiance to Goals Questioned : Transition: His shift on deficit and tax cut raises uncertainty over where he’ll stand on rest of his agenda.

A week before he takes the oath of office, President-elect Bill Clinton faces growing questions about his commitment to key elements of his campaign platform.

In recent days, Clinton, his aides and political allies have edged away from his campaign goals of cutting the federal deficit in half within four years and trimming middle-class taxes to achieve greater fairness.

The President-elect also has appeared less firm on some other objectives, such as his plan to cut the White House staff by 25% and his now-abandoned goal of presenting his economic plan on the first day of his presidency.

And observers contend that it is unlikely he will hold firm to two other promises: granting hearings for all Haitian refugees who seek asylum in the United States and requiring employers to spend a percentage of their payroll on worker training.

Although Clinton frequently hedged on his pledges throughout the campaign, the movement away from several key objectives has created uncertainty about where the new Administration ultimately will stand on a variety of issues.

“His agenda is less clear,” said James A. Thurber, political analyst at American University in Washington. “Now that he’s moved into the governance stage, on some points we’re seeing that he’s less certain.”

The issue was raised Tuesday at the daily press briefing in Little Rock, as reporters asked Clinton communications director George Stephanopoulos whether any campaign vows remain unalterable, or whether the realities of government have made all earlier pledges “squishy.”

“I don’t know if everything is squishy,” replied Stephanopoulos. “I mean, the governor is committed to moving forward on everything he talked about in the campaign.”

Asked to cite a campaign promise that had been fully realized, he said that Clinton had succeeded in choosing a Cabinet that, in its racial and gender diversity, “looks like America.”

“That’s been the biggest decision he’s had to make since the transition started,” he said.

Many presidents have discarded key campaign goals, of course, and many Americans are aware of the economic woes that stand in the way of Clinton’s campaign promises--including his commitment to extend health care benefits to all Americans and to step up spending on infrastructure and education.

Yet the shifts remain a tricky issue for Clinton. If he is perceived to be repudiating too many commitments, he risks disappointing the public whose support he badly needs as he shapes economic and health care programs that are likely to demand painful sacrifices.

The issue of campaign pledges is especially sensitive this year because of the 1988 “no new taxes” pledge that helped torpedo George Bush’s reelection chances. Moreover, in the eyes of some Americans, Clinton must still live down his reputation as “Slick Willie”--a candidate forever on both sides of any issue.

Analysts noted that Clinton may suffer because he has raised expectations by being so specific about what voters would get if they elected him President.

And the opposition is poised to take advantage of any slip-up. Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), the Senate minority leader, already has said that Clinton’s middle-class tax cut was the equivalent of Bush’s “no new taxes” pledge.

“There are enough Americans left with doubts about him that this creates the possibility that he will have a non-honeymoon,” said Kevin Phillips, an analyst with a background in Republican politics.

Clinton and his staff began trying to lower expectations about his plans even before he won the election. His change of heart on the middle-class tax cut and the 50% deficit cut have been ever more evident in recent days, coming as his allies and advisers contend that Bush Administration officials had concealed at least $60 billion of the expected federal deficit--a sum that would crimp all plans.

Clinton’s new view on the tax cut was most clearly enunciated at the Monday Senate confirmation hearing of Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Carmel Valley), the director-designate of the Office of Management and Budget. Panetta said that the tax cut is less important to the new team than cutting the deficit or increasing spending for new projects to help the economy.

Also Monday, Clinton said in a Public Broadcasting System interview that, while he still intends to cut the budget deficit by about $145 billion, such a reduction would no longer represent half of the spending shortfall.