Talks Open on Conflicting Plans to Balance the Budget : Government: White House official suggests the dispute will become a campaign issue. GOP questions Clinton’s commitment to an accord.

White House and congressional budget barons Tuesday opened what will surely be a long and contentious series of negotiations over plans to balance the budget in seven years. But the two sides are so far apart that some insiders already are predicting the talks could collapse or stretch into next year.

Even before the negotiations began, a top White House official suggested the budget dispute would inevitably move from the negotiating table to the campaign trail, becoming a central issue of the 1996 elections.

It’s a “very large debate, very big principles at stake,” White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said in a television interview. “There are big differences between the President and the Congress. And I suspect that those kinds of issues will have to be settled in November of 1996.”

Remarks like that led some Republicans to question the Administration’s commitment to reaching a budget accord despite President Clinton’s agreement--part of last week’s deal to end the partial shutdown of the government--to try to balance the budget in seven years.

“Anyone who says you can’t resolve these issues until next November is clearly bent on not resolving them,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.).

In a closed door meeting Tuesday on Capitol Hill, Clinton told Senate Democrats he was committed to sealing a deal--but not at any price. “He wants a balanced budget,” said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) after the session. “But he thinks we shouldn’t ignore the priorities we set.”

Negotiators are working against a deadline of Dec. 15, when funding for many government agencies expires. But hardly anyone expects the broader budget issues to be resolved by then. That means Congress likely will have to pass another stopgap funding bill--or plunge the government into another partial shutdown like the one that recently exposed both parties to the wrath of voters impatient with gridlock in Washington.

The budget talks are the climax of months of jockeying that have put Clinton squarely at odds with Republicans’ ambitious campaign to scale back the size and scope of government.

Their disagreements have crystallized in disputes over two different legislative matters: First, several of the 13 appropriations bills needed to fund the government, only six of which have been signed into law so far; and, second, the so-called budget reconciliation bill, which embodies Republicans’ plan to curb the growth of Medicare, cut taxes and make scores of other cost-saving changes in federal benefit programs.

Clinton is expected to veto the reconciliation bill. He also has threatened to veto many of the remaining appropriations bills, which include measures that would cut spending for education, health and other social programs the White House holds dear, and a defense appropriations bill that provides more for the Pentagon than Clinton wants.

Until recently, it had been assumed that Clinton would veto the defense bill and try to persuade Congress to shift some money from defense to social programs. But the political calculus of a veto changed significantly in the wake of the Bosnian peace agreement, which will require Clinton to seek additional funding for dispatching 20,000 U.S. peacekeeping troops to Bosnia.

“If you veto the defense appropriations bill at the same time” that the Administration needs additional funds for Bosnia, said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), “that’s going to be a pretty hard position to justify.”

The budget-balancing reconciliation bill will be the principal focus of the negotiations that began Tuesday evening in the Capitol. But the first session was expected to address only the mechanics of scheduling and organizing the talks.

“We are here to engage in serious negotiations,” said White House Chief of Staff Leon E. Panetta as the talks began. “It’s going to be a tough job.”

Republicans and the White House will have to bridge wide differences to reach a budget accord. Republicans have called for $245 billion in tax cuts over seven years; Clinton wants only $105 billion in tax cuts and wants them more narrowly targeted on the middle class.

The Republicans’ budget would cut $270 billion from the projected growth of Medicare; Clinton wants to trim only $124 billion. Clinton also wants more money for education, the environment, Medicaid and tax credits for the working poor than the Republicans provide.

In his closed-door meeting with Senate Democrats, Clinton rejected a suggestion from one senator that he and the Democratic Party would be better off with no budget deal. “The ‘no deal’ option is not something he wants,” Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) said.

But despite his statements, it remains unclear just how hard Clinton will push for an agreement.

Heading into the talks, Administration officials suggested that the Republicans had more to lose politically if the talks collapsed without a balanced-budget agreement.

“Getting a balanced budget was a centerpiece of their legislative agenda, and they have yet to deliver on any of the major elements,” Panetta said. “I suspect they would bear a pretty serious burden if they weren’t able to” enact their budget.

But Domenici suggested that Clinton would pay a steep political price if no balanced-budget deal were reached, arguing that the collapse of the talks would send interest rates soaring and the economy into a nose dive.

“To those who want to wait until November [1996], they’re going to have to bear the responsibility” if the economy takes a negative turn as a result, Domenici said.

Asked to assess the prospects for reaching a budget agreement by mid-December, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) said Tuesday: “I’d like to think they are at least 50-50.”

House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) Tuesday accused the White House of foot-dragging, saying it had not produced a detailed response to the GOP budget-balancing plan in the nine days since the White House and Congress agreed to enter budget negotiations.

“I’m an optimist that it can be done,” Gingrich said of the prospects for a budget deal. “But the first nine days have not been very encouraging.”