Not Me, Mrs. Ornstein

President Reagan's antics with respect to our massive federal deficit remind me of my days in Mrs. Ornstein's sixth grade class on the Lower East Side.

There were some tough kids in class, and they would shoot spit balls and paper clips toward the blackboard where Mrs. Ornstein was diligently inscribing her store of knowledge for a largely unappreciative audience. When the good teacher confronted the class and inquired who the miscreants were, they took on the innocent look of choirboys and pointed accusing fingers at others in the room. Each would point to a different classmate. Needless to say, the culprits continued their tactics to the long-suffering frustration of Mrs. Ornstein.

Fortunately, I escaped the next semester to junior high school where I was surrounded by a less fractious and more educable group of students.

President Reagan in 1980 ran aggressively on a platform of a balanced budget. He inveighed mightily against the profligate Democrat big spenders.

In his recent State of the Union message he called for a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the government from spending more than it takes in. A week later he blithely submitted a budget projecting $180 billion in deficits for the current fiscal year, close to $540 billion over the next three years, and projecting an additional $1 trillion in debt through 1989.

Who's he kidding? He's not a candidate on the campaign trail now. It's his budget prepared under his aegis, and he must accept responsibility for it.

After a lifetime of condemning deficit spending, Ronald Reagan has painted himself into the anomalous position of defending the largest deficits in our history.

When will his actions match his rhetoric? The electorate should not permit him to point elsewhere like those kids in Mrs. Ornstein's class.

To put these figures in proper context, you should know that the previous pre-Reagan record deficit was less than $66 billion. Is the public so inured to chicanery and double-talk from our leaders that it can serenely accept a tripling of the annual deficits, without sending messages thunderous enough to shake up Washington?

Unfortunately, the Democratic party leaders are little more decisive on this issue. Even responsible critics stump only for reducing the deficits rather than eliminating them. The accretion process insidiously has become irreversible. Red ink has become the accepted order of the day.

Contrary to any rationalization, we are courting disastrous consequences to our economic and financial structure if we countenance deficits of such magnitude. As pointed out in my year-ago column ("The Sins of the Parents"), the repayment of the trillions of debt can be deferred, but interest on that debt must be paid every year. At this rate, such interest payments will approach $250 billion annually by the end of this decade. What a legacy to leave to our children and grandchildren!

Granted deficits are a boring abstraction; but if neglected they will come back to haunt us. Make no mistake about it —

A boring abstraction evokes finger pointing, mortgages our future, and tests our mettle.

you can mortgage the future for only so long.

Besides, there is something inherently irresponsible about passing on our monstrous debts to future generations.

The situation is akin to an individual who careens out of control in the use of his credit cards. He enjoys now but must pay later, or his plastic toys will be taken away. In asking for a Constitutional amendment to assure a balanced budget, Ronald Reagan is saying, in effect: "Take my credit cards away because I can't control myself." What kind of leadership is that?

No responsible individual stands to gain from neglecting this cancerous situation, but the leadership must come from President Reagan. If he leads responsibly, whether it means closing tax loopholes, raising taxes, or fairly reducing expenditures (or, more likely, all of the foregoing), the public will follow.

Any antidote will be painful but must be undertaken now. Election year or not, delay will be calamitous. Partisan politics must be discarded. The loftiest and most principled form of leadership is needed to marshall the national resolve.

I marvel (and seethe) at the equanimity with which the public largely continues to accept these massive deficits, as well as the double-speak. Is it apathy or utter helplessness? Is there anyone out there who truly believes that we have found Nirvana and can spend and spend to our heart's delight without any adverse consequences?

Ronald Reagan has led an incredibly charmed life, politically. But he will not escape the harsh judgment of history (remember Herbert Hoover) if he permits annual $200 billion deficits to be the hallmark of his administration.