OK, Congress--Are We Getting Serious? : Almost anything is better than economy-crippling gridlock

President Clinton has laid out new economic measures designed to put the nation on a firm course of deficit reduction while stimulating the economy a bit. In his goals, surely, he is heading in the right direction.

Some like his program, some don’t. In any event, Clinton’s detailed plan for America’s comeback marks a good beginning to the national debate now spreading from Wall Street to Main Street. His call for short-term sacrifice for the sake of, as he put it, “our grandchildren’s grandchildren” has resounded positively so far with the public, according to several polls.

Clinton’s proposals are under close scrutiny--as well they should be, considering that they include $496 billion in higher taxes, which would be one of the biggest tax increases in American history.

He has proposed spending cuts in 150 programs, some of them favorites of congressional Democrats. He wants to freeze federal pay hikes for a year. He has included $160 billion in “investments”--new spending for social programs.

It is not a perfect plan, nor is it a final one. But it is the only economic program on the table now, and it is conceived to work in an integrated package. It could be subject to endless nit-picking. But if Congress picks at the President’s plan until nothing is left but a return to the status quo, Washington gridlock will once again be in fine form. America’s jobs and its economy cannot afford that anymore.

Before, during and since his address to Congress last week, the President expressed a willingness to work with Congress. Administration officials have repeatedly challenged their critics to offer real alternatives, not just sweeping rhetoric.

As the President, his Cabinet and other top officials fanned out across the country over the weekend to promote the economic plan, Leon E. Panetta, director of the Office of Management and Budget, put it this way to his former congressional colleagues: “If there are those that think it can be done differently then let’s hear the specifics. . . . Don’t give me some kind of gimmick. Talk to me about specifics and we’ll listen.”

For their part, the Republicans have been taking the Clinton plan to task for what they describe as insufficient spending cuts and unnecessary tax increases. So far they have not proposed spending cuts of their own. They ought to seriously take up Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen’s challenge that they make some hard choices of their own and deliver alternatives. If Republicans have any, put them on the table, fast.

The Clinton plan is looking better to the financial markets, which had been spooked by leaks before the presidential address. Long-term interest rates have dropped, and that’s good. Thirty-year Treasury bonds, the barometer of long-term interest rates that must drop if the Administration’s plan is to succeed, fell to their lowest level since the government began selling such securities in 1977. That’s impressive.

Even Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has all but endorsed the Clinton effort. In testimony before the Senate he said that the Administration’s plan was “a serious proposal” based on “plausible” economic assumptions.

Now begins the long, arduous challenge of assessing the merits and weaknesses of every specific of Clinton’s plan. If Congress doesn’t like the President’s plan, it should come up with one of its own. But the plan must make sense. And it must be specific and fair. Compromise is always possible. And any more gridlock would be a disaster.