Eight Steps to the GOVERNMENT AMERICANS DESERVE.

• Author: STEUERLE, C. EUGENE

Americans have always been ambivalent about government, but in rent years they have become alarmingly estranged from it. There are three reasons for this

shift in attitude:

First, they feel that the government is not responding to their current needs. It is busy, even meddlesome, and increasingly removed from today's real conditions and concerns.

Second, for years now, it appears as if the primary job of government is not governing, but management of the deficit or of a temporary surplus.

Third, Americans have come to believe that much of the information disseminated by the news media and elected representatives is unreliable.

People feel that they have lost ownership of their government, and this feeling has persisted even during recent periods of sustained economic growth. Reclaiming ownership will be a long and arduous process requiting the development of ways of comparing the relative needs and opportunities of today's citizens, creating more flexibility in the budget by setting reasonable limits on yesterday's commitments, and restoring a political process that informs and empowers citizens, rather than merely pandering to their special interests.

The following are eight pathways to a government more attuned to current and future needs. They do not make up an entire domestic agenda for the nation, but present a comprehensive approach to restoring the ownership of government to citizens and developing a more dynamic public sector.

1 FREE THE FISCAL FUTURE

The impending retirement of the baby boom generation threatens to overwhelm the Federal budget. In fact, under a current unsustainable law, Social Security and Medicare are expected to consume almost all Federal revenue by the middle of the next century. Often narrowly construed as the "Social Security problem," this fiscal straitjacket is the inevitable outcome of creating programs that are scheduled to grow indefinitely without any legislative action. If Americans are to free themselves, it is necessary to do more than control future deficits. Today's temporary surpluses are relatively small, especially when compared to the deficits projected under current law. Even if projected deficits were zero for decades to come, the fiscal future would still be ensnared in the extraordinary commitment to spend ever-increasing amounts of revenue on programs that respond to past priorities.

This commitment grew up during an unprecedented period in the nation's history. From 1947 to 1973, it was possible to enact new legislation that benefited people through expanded domestic programs and reduced taxes. The sources of funds were largely hidden, but perhaps most important were the peace dividends after World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War. People came to expect that domestic spending always could grow faster than the economy and could do so without higher tax rates.

Programs with built-in growth have become more and more dominant over the past few decades, gradually taking ownership of government away from the people and their elected representatives. While it can be argued that new laws can be enacted to slow growth, this argument ignores the expense of reneging on past promises and the extra costs incurred when new or discretionary needs are not allowed to compete for funds on an equal footing with these entitlement programs.

The first step, therefore, is to create some slack in the budget by curbing the automatic expansion of current programs and reducing the competitive disadvantage that new or discretionary programs face in the legislative process. At the very least, programs can be prevented from growing faster than the economy and denied eternal exemption from the legislative process, whether on the expenditure or the tax side of the budget. While Congress cannot reconsider every program every year, all "permanent" programs could automatically come up for review or renewal every five or 10 years, on a staggered basis, to ensure that they reflect citizens' current priorities. Creating a system with greater fiscal slack does not necessarily mean fewer expenditures, but it does allow more decisions to be made by future generations in response to their needs.

2 GIVE SOCIAL INSURANCE A MODERN FACE

Redesigning social insurance requires moving beyond a simple focus on budget to a comprehensive reassessment of the relative needs of all Americans. It must be decided collectively whether providing a 16th or 17th year of retirement should really be a national priority just because built-in growth has made it one. In addition, neither Social Security nor Medicare has ever been adjusted for increasing life expectancies or for the changing demographics of the population--specifically the movement of the baby boom generation through the...