Neither Bush nor Clinton is confronting the hard numbers, but at least each is proposing ... BABY STEPS

• Share

WHO WOULD DO THE BEST JOB of leading the U.S. out of its economic mess? Would it be President Bush, who advocates tax cuts to unleash what Republicans like to call the magic of the marketplace? Or Bill Clinton, who wants to use the power of Washington to rebuild America's creaky infrastructure and pour resources into job-training programs?

At its economic forum last week in New York City, TIME asked a panel of leading economists and marketplace experts to assess the Bush and Clinton programs. Such analysis is a bit like looking at clouds, since both candidates offer wispy details and imaginative arithmetic. Their vagueness is not surprising, as the federal deficit has made it almost impossible to craft a stimulative economic plan in which the numbers add up without aggravating the red ink. "They really don't have solutions because the problems are so complicated nobody can solve them, not even within the next 10 years," said the Boston Co.'s chief economist, Allen Sinai.

Yet overall, the TIME panel welcomed the campaign as the start of a long- overdue effort by political leaders to wrestle with underlying economic problems and to put forth long-term solutions. Between the two candidates, the economists judged Clinton as somewhat more aggressive in doing so. "This is a watershed year in terms of the proposals that we've seen," said Sinai. "Both candidates are at least admitting and calling attention to the problems." The public nonetheless is still struggling to weigh the merits of the proposals and find any salvation in them. "Neither candidate's program has had any effect on consumer confidence whatsoever," said Gail Fosler, chief economist of the Conference Board, which tracks consumer and business trends. The TIME forum's analysis of the major proposals:

GROWTH

Neither Bush nor Clinton would do much to jump-start the economy next year, according to panel members. "There's much ado about nothing here, from a broad economic point of view," said Sinai, noting that the candidates' tax and spending proposals tended to offset each other, leaving little room for stimulus. The Bush program, which is chockablock with spending cuts to pay for | tax reductions, "would make a weak upturn a little weaker," Sinai said, while Clinton's plans "would make a weak upturn no worse, but not really any better." In the long run, he added, "the Clinton program would give us more productivity and more potential output."

JOBS

The heart of Clinton's plan calls for an $80 billion four-year public-works project to rebuild roads and bridges and create a national fiber-optic information network to enhance learning and to link homes, schools and offices. Clinton also wants a national education and retraining program, financed by a 1.5% payroll tax, for all employees from the mail room to the executive suite. Bush rejects the very idea of public-works projects but has belatedly called for a $10 billion four-year worker-retraining program.

By and large, members of the TIME panel endorsed Clinton's infrastructure plan. "We could start to repair roads and put a lot of people to work without any increase in wage costs because there are so many unemployed construction workers," said Donald Ratajczak, director of the economic forecasting center at Georgia State University. Fosler, however, said the plan would "dress the economy up rather than fix it."