TEARING INTO THE DEFICIT

Can it really be happening? For more than 30 years politicians have been calling for a balanced budget, as something it might be nice to have someday, if it could be done without hurting anybody. Such oratory, it has long been understood, is the accepted substitute for actually doing anything to bring federal spending back into line with revenues. But to set a hard date, fiscal year 2002, for cutting deficits all the way down to zero? And put real numbers on the table -- as much as $1.4 trillion less spending over the next seven years? And make specific suggestions about where the money should come from, including a hit list of 284 federal agencies and programs to be legislated out of existence? It seems hard to take seriously.

But the Republicans who control Congress are dead serious. In record time last week, they rammed through resolutions containing all these proposals in the House and Senate Budget Committees. The resolutions are likely to be approved by floor votes in both chambers this week. Moreover, contrary to the conventional wisdom of decades, which held that government spending could never be reined in enough to wipe out deficits because too many citizens would be outraged by losing federal help, many of the G.O.P. ideas stand an excellent chance of actually taking effect.

Remarkably, only a few weeks ago, congressional Republican leaders were still cautiously talking about putting America on a "glide path" to a balanced budget and making a "down payment" toward that goal. But the defeat of their balanced-budget amendment, along with some goading by Democrats, steeled them to pursue the battle by other means. "The change in the temperament of the people seems to make it easier than reducing the deficit in the past has ever been. It's a lot different," says an elated Pete Domenici, the Senate Budget Committee chairman. "I find it much easier to lead, much easier to get Senators to concur that we no longer have the luxury of fiddling around the edges."

There will be chances to revert back to that mode, of course. Budget resolutions only set broad dollar targets for federal spending and revenues. Other committees and then both houses must vote the actual appropriations, and eventually a mammoth "reconciliation" bill must be signed by President Clinton, or passed over his veto. During the months of wrangling to come, some proposals will surely be modified. The House g.o.p. may not get as big a tax cut on upper incomes as it wants, since its $340 billion tax-cut package means it will have to cut at least that much more in spending. Proposals to cut back Medicare and Medicaid, already the flash point of attack, may be softened. "We're going to focus on their vulnerabilities," says California's Vic Fazio, a member of the House Democratic leadership. "The average American will reject it."