NEWS ANALYSIS : Clinton Talks Perot’s Talk, but Support Lags

Over the past 10 days, President Clinton has offered a campaign finance reform plan, embraced restrictions on lobbyists, railed against special-interest power and proposed a trust fund to guarantee that new taxes go to reduce the deficit.

“Sound familiar?” asks Ross Perot spokeswoman Sharon Holman.

Indeed, and the resemblance is no coincidence. For Clinton, stressing the parts of his agenda that are akin to items on the Perot agenda is not only good policy, it is also political necessity. Left alone with his electoral base, Clinton stands as a minority President supported by only the 43% of voters who sided with him last fall.

But if he can add even 40% of the voters who backed Perot, Clinton could create a solid majority, good not only for reelection in 1996, but also for pushing his programs through Congress in the meantime.

Accomplishing that goal, however, requires delicate balance, for the two groups of voters have sharply different priorities. Perot supporters, for example, consistently tell pollsters that reducing the federal deficit is the overwhelming priority. But, notes Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, Americans who actually voted for Clinton by and large see the deficit as only one of several priorities and generally favor expanded government spending on major social programs.

Realities like that mean Clinton must worry about alienating his own core supporters as he tries to reach out to others. At the same time, he must contend with criticism leveled by Perot at his every move.

In an interview Friday, Perot insisted he would support Clinton if the President put forward worthy ideas. “We in United We Stand, America, will move heaven and Earth to help him get rid of lobbyists,” for example, Perot said. But Perot sharply attacks the actual ideas Clinton has put forward.

Clinton’s campaign reform and lobbying reform proposals are “sham reform,” Perot said. The idea of a deficit reduction trust fund is “meaningless.”

“The American people don’t want sham reform, they want real reform,” he said, as he described how many people turned out to hear him speak in a recent appearance in Wichita Falls, Tex. When he asked the audience there about Clinton’s deficit reduction trust fund idea, “the audience did one of two things, they either laughed or groaned,” he said. “They know, already had figured out, that this is smoke and mirrors, it does not do anything.”

Asked about Clinton’s campaign reform proposals, which have been endorsed by at least some United We Stand groups, Perot said he plans a mailing to all his volunteer leaders highlighting the plan’s shortcomings “so they understand the numbers.”

Perot focused on the compromise Clinton struck with House Democrats that would continue to allow political action committees to contribute up to $5,000 to House campaigns while limiting them to $2,500 in a Senate campaign and $1,000 in a presidential race. People say, “ ‘What is this?’ ” Perot said.

As for the bill’s proposed caps on campaign spending, which would limit House candidates to roughly $1 million between their primaries and general election campaigns, Perot correctly noted that only a handful of House candidates spent nearly that much in the last election. “That’s not a limit,” he said.

“This is no good,” he concluded. “It’s a game that has been played in Washington that favors incumbents.”

Nor does Perot have much good to say about the lobbying reform bill Clinton has embraced, which would require lobbyists to disclose gifts they give to members of Congress. “We want it to be illegal to do it, not that you can do it and report it,” he said.

Not surprisingly, given that sort of reaction, Clinton and his advisers have decided that the idea of support from Perot is nothing but a tantalizing mirage, glimmering on the horizon but never reachable in reality.

Instead, they hope to appeal to Perot’s supporters directly. And some issues exist that appeal to both groups. The most important one is jobs. If the economy improves, generating more jobs and higher incomes, Clinton’s popularity clearly will rise with it.

But while Clinton hopes his programs will improve the overall shape of the economy in the long term, there is not much he can do--particularly in this era of huge government deficits--to generate prosperity in the short run. For now, he has to try to put together a range of policies that appeal to both sides.

The resulting balancing act suffuses both Clinton’s public appearances and his legislative strategy. This past week, for example, as the House Ways and Means Committee approved the President’s package of tax increases and cuts in entitlement programs, the panel also approved an expanded version of his plan to set up “enterprise zones” in low-income urban areas to help spur economic development.

Strategists hope the expanded enterprise zone money will add something to the deficit reduction package that will help garner the votes of congressional liberals when the bill reaches the House floor this week.

The balance was also very much on Clinton’s mind Friday as he held a Rose Garden press conference to talk about the week’s events. Asked what he would say to those who worry that money for urban aid, transportation and job training will be squeezed as he pushes for deficit reduction, Clinton pleaded for patience.

“The enormous squeeze on domestic spending, including investment spending, began 12 years ago. I can’t turn it around overnight. And I ask them also to consider this: Until we can prove that we have the discipline to control our budget, I don’t think we’ll have the elbow room necessary” to target money for new programs.

“I don’t think we have any other option at this time.”

That message has been a hard sell. Liberal members of the House, in particular, “have gotten very restive,” says a Clinton adviser with close ties to several House committee chairmen. “They just don’t want to accept that there isn’t any more money.”