Clinton

WASHINGTON — Amid the din of battle over the federal budget, President Clinton summoned Democratic congressional leaders to the White House last week and gave them an unexpectedly upbeat message: With a little discipline and a little luck, they might win this fight yet.

“The Republicans are very disciplined and very good,” Clinton warned his war council around the Cabinet Room’s long mahogany table, according to people who were present. “But we’re making headway.”

Congress’ drive to cut the budget this spring was launched by triumphant GOP leaders, confident that they had a mandate from voters to slash government programs and shrink the federal budget deficit to zero.

But after three months of rhetorical battle, Clinton believes that he has begun to turn the Republicans’ issue around–into a major political opportunity for himself.

The budget battle is “the centerpiece” of Clinton’s work this year, said White House Chief of Staff Leon E. Panetta. “It will determine a lot about the priorities of the country; it will determine a lot about our economy in the future; it will determine a lot about the role of government.”

It will also determine a lot about how voters view Clinton as the election year of 1996 approaches. “It . . . will better define who the President of the United States is, and I think that’s helpful,” Panetta said in an interview.

Transforming budget-cutting from a liability into an asset would be a startling turnaround for a President whom Republicans succeeded in painting as a “tax-and-spend Democrat” only last year. But public opinion polls read raptly by White House aides suggest that the voters are moving Clinton’s way: An ABC News-Washington Post poll last week found that while respondents by a wide margin once trusted Congress over Clinton to deal with the deficit, the President has nearly closed the gap.

Clinton’s biting attacks on GOP plans to shrink Medicare, education and veterans programs have helped lift his approval rating in the poll to 51%, its highest level in a year.

White House strategists said they were not worried that the House Republicans passed their GOP budget plan last week, as was long expected. More important, they said, was that Clinton apparently succeeded with his threat to veto a GOP spending-cut bill, since the GOP leadership acknowledged that they probably wouldn’t have the votes to override a veto. It showed that the President can still make himself relevant.

Clinton is betting that House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and other GOP leaders overestimated the public’s desire for cutting government–especially once the public realizes that the savings would come not only from unpopular programs, such as welfare and foreign aid, but also from middle-class benefits.

Political strategists note that Clinton’s argument may attract some swing voters–especially white women older than 35, one of the President’s critical demographic targets. Making up more than one-fourth of the electorate, they largely voted for Clinton in 1992, abandoned the Democrats in 1994–and could be key to his prospects in 1996.

At the same time, Clinton and his aides believe that they must eventually seek a budget compromise with the Republicans–if only to avoid the charge that the President has become irrelevant to the process of shrinking the government, a goal most voters still want.

“Preserver of the Big Government status quo is not a place you can end up in a fight this big,” one presidential adviser said.

So Clinton, Panetta and other aides have devised a two-part strategy to try to stop the GOP juggernaut and turn the budget battle to their advantage.

The first phase has been to shift the topic away from the deficit, force the public to confront the kind of cuts the Republicans want and paint the GOP as heartless vandals who would loot Medicare and student loans to give tax cuts to the wealthy.

“Less government? That’s not the issue. The issue is: Do you want your kids to go to college?” Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich said.

If that tactic works, and Republicans retreat from their proposed spending and tax cuts, then the Administration wants to sit down and try to negotiate a compromise, a budget “that might be nobody’s first choice but that is really quite a good budget,” said Alice Rivlin, director of the Office of Management and Budget.

But Clinton doesn’t want to begin those negotiations until “his leverage is at a peak,” Panetta said, meaning the President wants to continue whipping up public opposition to GOP budget cuts and threatening to veto a budget he doesn’t like, at least for a while.

“The Republicans are beginning the budget triage, amputations and decapitations, and for the moment the Democrats are happy to sit in the surgical theater and watch the blood flow,” said Ross K. Baker, an expert on Congress at Rutgers University.

Already, however, Panetta and other Administration officials have begun sending signals to Capitol Hill about the kind of deal Clinton might eventually want to make.

“Yes, we want additional deficit reduction,” Panetta said. “But in order to engage, the Republicans have to back off these huge tax cuts, they have to recognize that any Medicare or Medicaid savings have to be done in the context of [health care] reform, and they have to be willing to protect education as a key investment.” Almost everything else is “on the table,” he said.

One key concession the White House has quietly offered: Clinton is willing to drop most or all of his proposed $500-per-child tax credit–the core of his long-promised “middle-class tax cut”–if Congress agrees to make college tuition tax-deductible.

Those early signals suggest to some members of Congress, including some worried liberal Democrats, that Clinton may be willing to give up quite a lot–except for his major concerns on Medicare, Medicaid and education–for the chance to claim a victory.

When bargaining can begin in earnest depends mostly on the GOP’s tolerance for pain. Aides say Clinton will stay on the attack for at least three weeks as Republicans pass their budget resolutions and begin making decisions on the discretionary portion of the budget.

But White House officials hope that the solid Republican line will begin to fracture as members of Congress read the mood of their constituents. Some in Congress predict a turning point could come as early as the Memorial Day recess, which begins Saturday, but others warn that it might be September before negotiations start.

The White House strategy is not assured of success, of course. At least three problems loom:

First, Clinton has succeeded only partially in changing the focus of the debate from deficits to middle-class benefits. By a wide margin, the public still says it wants a balanced federal budget, with no deficit. The President’s dirty little secret is that he doesn’t think a balanced budget can be achieved in the foreseeable future at reasonable cost.

In fact, the public is inconsistent on these issues. Large majorities say they want to balance the budget, but equally large majorities say they are opposed to significant cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, student loans and other education programs.

Second, Democrats aren’t entirely unified behind Clinton’s strategy, which is why the President spent much of his meeting in the Cabinet Room last week appealing for more discipline.

Some strains were already evident in the closed-door session, participants said. House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) urged Clinton to give the Republicans no quarter, but Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said: “It’s not enough to complain; we need to say where we go from here.”

Third, and most important, the Republicans may not cooperate. “Democrats have no standing to say anything about what we are doing in the House and the Senate,” House Budget Committee Chairman John R. Kasich (R-Ohio) said last week. Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) often disagree with each other, but they agree on one point: They don’t want Clinton to win credit for their hard work in fashioning a leaner federal budget. So they may be tempted to pass a budget bill of their own design and dare Clinton to veto it this fall.

That would lead to a messy confrontation that could require the federal government to halt routine operations until a solution is found.

“I don’t think anyone comes out a winner” in an impasse like that, Panetta said. “I don’t think the President wins; I don’t think Republicans or Democrats win.”

Closing a two-day Western trip, President Clinton on Tuesday pledged to Los Angeles audiences his special commitment to help the California economy, while asking state residents to do their part for the economic plan he is pushing through Congress.

Clinton, in mobbed campaign-style stops in South-Central Los Angeles and at Los Angeles Valley College in Van Nuys, asserted that the U.S. economy won’t recover until the nation’s largest state can pull itself out of its slump. “We can’t turn this economy around unless we’re going to lift California up,” Clinton told students at the community college.

The President also signaled his interest in California immigration problems, saying that he will soon pick a “compassionate but hard-headed” person to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He said he hopes to get Atty. Gen. Janet Reno’s recommendation for that post as early as this week.

Clinton, who has traveled out of Washington for part of the past two weeks trying to drum up support for his economic plan, visited a black-owned apparel store on South-Central’s Florence Avenue to illustrate his view that the riot-torn area can only be rebuilt through a joint effort of government and business. He used the community college stop to stress his advocacy of continually retraining workers to make them competitive in a world economy.

The Clinton road show has been part economics seminar and part campaign extravaganza, and his visit to Los Angeles was no exception.

At the community college, he sat on a wooden stool under flowering mimosa trees to field questions from students on education, jobs, immigration and other subjects. At the South-Central stop, he and Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown toured the store, then stripped off their suit jackets and ties and shot baskets for a few minutes with a group of youngsters.

The crowds were large and warm, but Clinton’s most impassioned defense of his program came when hecklers taunted him at the community college. To their chants “You broke your promise”–referring to his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class–and “No new taxes,” the President rejoined:

“You know what the ‘no new tax’ crowd did for 12 years? They cut taxes on the rich, raised taxes on the middle class and left the country in a ditch,” he said. “The free lunch crowd has had their chance.”

He cited as proof of his commitment to California the efforts of Commerce Secretary Brown, who has visited the state seven times since January to help coordinate the government’s effort to help the economy. He said he had asked Brown to “map a specific plan to turn this economy around.”

The President told the college students he would like to help the state’s economy through increased aid for laid off defense workers and their communities, additional community policing and financial aid to offset immigration-related costs.

He made again a pitch for the central idea of his economic plan, that the country needs to cut its deficit while increasing spending–”investment”–for other purposes that will strengthen the economy over the long term.

In South-Central Los Angeles, Clinton visited The Playground, a community center and sporting goods store on Florence Avenue just one mile west of where rioting erupted last year. It was founded by a business person, a lawyer, a doctor and ex-gang members from the Crips. A basketball court was established in back so youths could play as well as buy merchandise.

While the store has received no federal aid, Clinton used it to illustrate his Administration’s redevelopment strategy, which also calls for the use of tax-advantaged “empowerment zones” to bring commerce to distressed areas.

After touring the store and meeting its owners, Clinton headed for the basketball court. He shed his coat, removed his shoes and socks and deposited the contents of his pockets in a shoe box.

In front of a phalanx of several dozen photographers, Leonard Baylor, 8, presented Clinton with a gift of size 13 sneakers.

“Thank you, Mr. President, for coming,” Leonard told the President. “Here, take these shoes.” Then, the boy said to the President: “Shoot some hoops with us?”

Baylor broke into tears–because he was overcome with emotion, a store owner later said. The President pulled Baylor close to comfort him.

Clinton pulled off his tie and pulled on athletic socks and the sneakers. Brown did the same. They then joined 18 youths on the court ranging in age from 6 to 17.

The President captained one team and Brown led another while a friendly crowd of about 200 as well as reporters and camera crews looked on.

Clinton, with shirttails flapping from the back of his baggy suit pants, missed his first two shots, then saved face by hitting from 10 feet out. Brown, however, swished from 20 feet away.

Clinton also grabbed five rebounds. “I made some good passes,” he said, but seemed to acknowledge that his commerce secretary stole the show, declaring, “Can Ron Brown shoot a jump shot or what?”

After the game, Clinton told the crowd: “I want everybody in America to know that there are people here in Los Angeles who believe that we can bring business to this area, that we can put people to work, if you have the help you need.”

“I wanted to come here today not just to have a little fun with a basketball, but to say to you and all of America that we’re going to have to rebuild this country from the grass roots up,” Clinton said. “This is an incredible untapped resource for America. If everyone in this country who wanted a job had one, we wouldn’t have half the problems we’ve got.”

Clinton said that he and Brown planned to go back to Washington to try to pass an economic program that will put “you back to work.”

The crowd in South-Central was clearly with him. Dorothy Redmond, a nursery school owner in the neighborhood, said: “I’m very encouraged. I am an entrepreneur of a small business and I think this is a step in the right direction.”

“I’m just speechless,” said Flora Lane, who traveled to South-Central from her home in the Wilshire district. “He is a person who cares about all people. I am for him 100%, plus his wife.”

But all the reviews of Clinton’s program weren’t favorable.

In Washington, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) characterized Clinton’s trip as “heading West while his poll numbers go South.”

“His West Coast public relations blitz is just another political make-over to try to convince people he’s cutting spending when he’s really breaking all world records for tax increases,” Dole said.

In Sacramento, the Wilson Administration released a report contending that Clinton’s five-year plan would cost Californians $11.6 billion more than their “fair share” of spending cuts and tax increases.

The state Department of Finance said it drew its figures from Clinton’s proposals for defense cuts, defense conversion and retraining, tax increases on personal income and energy, and tax credits for investment. The analysis also included estimates of the indirect effect of changes in spending and tax policy and a possible reduction in interest rates.

The study said it was assumed that “California will receive a disproportionate share of benefits included in the Clinton proposals–tax credits, investment spending and defense conversion spending.”

But those benefits, it said, will only partially offset the “dampening effect” of the defense cuts. Although California’s population is about 12% of the nation, the study said it appeared the state would absorb at least 25% of the cuts.

Overall, the report said, the plan would cost Californians $68.7 billion, or 14.6% of the total. Based on the state’s 12% share of the nation’s population, the “fair share” of the deficit-cutting burden would cost the state and its residents $57 billion, the report said.

Times staff writer Daniel M. Weintraub contributed to this story from Sacramento.

* RELATED STORIES: A3, B1

PHILADELPHIA — George W. Bush and his campaign have enjoyed remarkable success synchronizing the message from everyone at the Republican National Convention this week.

Except his parents.

After maintaining a low profile all year, former President Bush and former First Lady Barbara Bush have been drawn into a pointed war of words with President Clinton–the man who ousted the elder Bush from the White House in 1992.

The confrontation, which escalated when Barbara Bush criticized Vice President Al Gore on Wednesday, worries many Republicans, who fear it will both distract from the convention’s velvet-glove feel and reinforce questions about whether the younger Bush would be this close to the presidency if his name was Smith.

“It plays into [the Democrats’] hands,” complained one Bush campaign insider about the feud. “It’s what they want: a distraction from a perfect convention.”

Indeed, Democrats have welcomed the controversy. “It reminds everybody . . . that Bush thinks the presidency is an office you can inherit,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew on Wednesday.

Karl Rove, Bush’s chief strategist, rejected the notion that the Bush family-Clinton tiff was interfering with the convention’s carefully scripted message of moderation and civility. “I think what’s more important . . . is that the vice president is such a weak candidate that he’s forced to rely upon a constant barrage of attacks launched by President Clinton,” Rove said. “I think people see it as inappropriate and it paints a picture of Al Gore as a weak candidate and a weak leader.”

She’s Skeptical Gore Can Restore Respect

Barbara Bush added fuel to the flap when, with her husband Wednesday on ABC-TV’s “Good Morning America,” she first inferred that Clinton had brought disrespect to the presidency, then said she was skeptical Gore could return respect to the office. “It would be very difficult, I think, with some of the things he’s done,” she said.

She did not elaborate.

The multi-generational battle–which before Barbara Bush’s comments had seen Clinton criticize the younger Bush and both the younger and elder Bush criticize Clinton–underscores the unique circumstance of this campaign. Only once before in American history has a president’s son also won the office. And that man, John Quincy Adams, ran 24 years after the term of his father, John Adams, had ended, long enough for the passions of his presidency to cool.

In contrast, the younger Bush is running at a time when the wounds of his father’s defeat are still open, especially among Republican activists who viewed Clinton as morally unfit for the office even before the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal.

But in both public and private, George W. Bush has always emphatically rejected suggestions that he has sought the White House to avenge his father’s defeat. And for most of the campaign, the younger Bush has been extremely sensitive to avoid the impression his presidency would amount to a restoration of his father’s.

Bush, for instance, hasn’t campaigned with his father since the former president referred to him at a New Hampshire rally as “this boy . . . of ours.”

Media Stir Debate on Father’s Influence

That arms-length relationship began to break down last week, when Bush selected Dick Cheney as his running mate. As Defense secretary, Cheney had been an architect of the Persian Gulf War that marked the greatest triumph of the elder Bush’s presidency. And President Bush’s apparent backstage support for Cheney inspired a new wave of media discussion about his influence on his son’s campaign.

Clinton stirred the pot Friday at a Democratic fund-raiser in Rhode Island, where he suggested that Bush was running for president on minimal qualifications. Speaking as if he were Bush, Clinton said derisively, “I mean, how bad could I be? I’ve been governor of Texas; my daddy was president; I own a baseball team.”

Democratic insiders say Clinton may have turned on Bush in response to Bush’s own barbed comments that day on his inaugural campaign swing with Cheney. Bush described his running mate as “a solid man . . . a man who understands what the definition of ‘is’ is.” That was a reference to an often-ridiculed answer from Clinton during his 1998 grand jury testimony in the Lewinsky scandal.

Whatever the cause, Clinton’s comments drew sharp retorts from both the younger and elder Bush. The former president told NBC earlier this week: “I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I’m going to wait a month. And then, you give a call. . . . And if he continues that, then I’m going to tell the nation what I think about him as a human being and a person.”

Since then, the elder Bush has studiously avoided further comments; he told Fox News on Wednesday that his son “probably wished I kept my mouth shut, but I haven’t heard from him yet.”

Some Bush campaign officials say the former president’s high personal popularity–recent polls found about two-thirds of Americans now have a favorable opinion of him–means there’s little risk in his increased visibility over the last few weeks. In any case, one senior Bush aide said that after this week, the parents will quickly recede into the background again.

NEW YORK — Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton acknowledged Sunday that he had experimented with marijuana while a 22-year-old student in England in the late 1960s, an admission that could raise doubts about his past candor in answering questions about his personal conduct.

For five years, the 45-year-old Clinton has answered questions about whether he had ever used drugs by saying he had never broken a U.S. law. During a televised debate here with Democratic presidential rival Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr., a questioner for the first time asked Clinton explicitly whether he had ever broken either a state, federal or a foreign drug law.

“When I was in England I experimented with marijuana a time or two,” he answered on the WCBS-TV broadcast, “and I didn’t like it. I didn’t inhale and never tried it again.”

Asked the same series of questions, Brown answered bluntly: “No.”

Clinton’s disclosure, which overshadowed one of the most substantive exchanges of the political season between the two rivals, is hardly unusual for a person of Clinton’s generation. Two of the Democratic presidential candidates in 1988 acknowledged similar behavior. And nothing Clinton said about his use of marijuana contradicted what he had said before.

But his decision until now to fend off drug-use queries with a narrow response, which could mislead voters into thinking he had never used drugs of any kind, was likely to add to concerns of those who regard him as less than straightforward.

Clinton said he did not believe the episode would hurt his candidacy, noting that other politicians had admitted to using marijuana and had suffered no apparent electoral consequences. He defended his previous denials by saying he had seen no need to volunteer a reply to something he had not been directly asked.

“Nobody’s ever asked me that question point blank,” he said, adding: “I said I’ve never broken the drug laws of my country, and that’s the absolute truth.”

It was the second time in a week that Clinton found it necessary to clarify previous statements on drugs.

On Thursday, a Clinton campaign aide, Betsey Wright, volunteered to the Los Angeles Times that the governor had never used cocaine or knowingly been around it.

The Times had contacted Wright to ask about a state police drug investigation in the mid-1980s of Clinton’s half-brother and a political contributor. After answering the questions, Wright said: “I assume from the questions that you were implying guilt by association in a state where everybody is associated. For that reason, when I verified with Gov. Clinton the answers to some of the questions, I asked him the following questions:

“ ‘Bill, have you ever used cocaine?’

“He replied, ‘No.’

“I said, ‘Bill, have you ever been in a room where you were aware there was cocaine?’

“He replied, ‘No.’ ”

When asked Friday why she had posed questions never asked by The Times, Wright said she had heard “rumors” that reporters were trying to place Clinton at parties where cocaine had been used. “I decided it was best to go ahead and put the issue on the table,” she said. (Interviews by The Times with some people said to have been in attendance at those parties have produced no evidence linking Clinton to the drug.)

Later Friday, Clinton called The Times to say that the campaign had not intended to provoke a story quoting him as denying cocaine use. Senior Clinton campaign officials said they feared such a story might be seen by the public as raising yet another question about his personal life.

Clinton’s Sunday acknowledgement of marijuana use while a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford came only three days after Clinton was asked by a member of the editorial board of the New York Daily News whether he had been asked previously about his drug use.

Clinton said that he had been asked such questions, and that his answer had always been that he had never violated a U.S. law.

Clinton campaign officials later described the new admission as an “elaboration” of Clinton’s previous comments and suggested that it and the earlier, narrow denials were merely two ways of looking at the same issue.

“Bill Clinton told the truth at every step of the way,” his chief strategist, James Carville, said. “It’s like the old saying about the guy who’s being sworn into office and he’s asked, ‘Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?’ and he answers, ‘Which one do you want?’ ”

Carville and other senior Clinton aides nevertheless expressed concern that the issue would be given undue prominence and further tar their candidate at a time when polls show that a large number of Democratic voters still harbor questions about Clinton’s personal record.

For his part, however, Brown chose not to make an immediate issue either of Clinton’s marijuana use or his handling of questions about it.

After denying that he had violated any drug laws, Brown demanded of a questioner: “Why don’t you lay off this stuff? What you did 10 or 20 years ago is not really relevant.”

But Brown himself was forced during the debate to respond to a new suggestion of impropriety in a Washington Post story detailing his ties to a company that paid a $400,000 settlement to the federal government after being accused of making exaggerated claims about a product said to help treat AIDS.

Brown, who served on the board of directors of a subsidiary to the company, Costa Mesa-based ICN Pharmaceuticals Inc., until he began his presidential campaign, said he had had “nothing to do” with the episode. He said his position gave him “no responsibility and no contact” with the parent firm.

Clinton did not press the issue during the debate, saying his own experience made him wary of “piling on.” But he suggested later in the day that justice was being done as he told a Bronx audience that “the press is finally starting to look at” a rival he believes has been treated too gently.

Clinton framed his response to the drug question during an era when the issue rose to political prominence.

In 1987, Supreme Court nominee Douglas H. Ginsburg was forced to withdraw his name from nomination after it was learned that he had used marijuana when he was a law-school professor.

But other politicians, including Sen. Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee and Gov. Bruce Babbitt of Arizona, both 1988 Democratic presidential candidates, acknowledged using marijuana while in college and suffered no apparent political consequences.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has also admitted to having used marijuana, but the issue was given only passing attention during his confirmation hearings.

Clinton, by contrast, has steadfastly refused to answer “have you ever” questions about drug use, adultery or other matters of personal conduct on grounds that they are not legitimate subjects of inquiry.

He has said it is legitimate, however, for an officeholder or a candidate to be questioned about violations of law, and has always responded to questions about his drug use by stating that he had adhered to U.S. drug laws.

Earlier in the morning, Clinton delivered what amounted to an impassioned political sermon to the enthusiastic congregation of an African Methodist church in a mostly black neighborhood in Queens.

But faced with continued criticism of his periodic use of an all-white country club to play golf–conduct that Clinton has said was a mistake–his message Sunday was in part a plea for redemption from a black community from which he has so far drawn deep support.

“I have seen myself turned into a cartoon character of an old Southern deal-maker by the tabloids and television in a total denial of my life’s work,” he said.

He told the congregation he had made “a foolish mistake.” And as he cited Scripture later, the congregation joined him in a sympathetic chorus to murmur “those who are without sin should cast the first stone.”

The hourlong debate here between Clinton and Brown, who participated via satellite from Wisconsin, was one of the better illuminations of the differences between the Arkansas moderate and the California populist-liberal.

Again and again, the two candidates clashed on issues ranging from economic policy to capital punishment to labor issues to Middle East strategy.

On economic issues, Brown advanced his proposal to overhaul the current tax systems and replace them with a 13% flat-tax as a “progressive tax” whose simplicity would “jump-start the economy.”

But Clinton, who favors a more conventional middle-class tax cut and an increase on taxes for the wealthy, again derided Brown’s idea as a plan that would benefit only the wealthy and would “triple taxes on the poor and raise taxes on the middle class.”

In answer to a question, Clinton said he favored capital punishment as well as a proposal to accelerate what is now the time-consuming process under which a death-row inmate may appeal his sentence.

But Brown described Clinton’s decision earlier this year to order the execution of a man whose lawyer claimed he was retarded as a “moral abomination.” He contended that the proposal to limit death-penalty appeals was part of a “systematic erosion of civil liberties” and said: “I would oppose it with every ounce that I have.”

Brown said he would favor a five-year moratorium on the manufacture of handguns. But Clinton, while describing himself as an advocate of gun control, said he was unsure whether he could embrace such an approach.

On Israel, Clinton defended what he described as a longstanding U.S. willingness to “wink” at Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank and criticized the Bush Administration’s recent get-tough policy. But Brown bluntly said he regarded the settlements as “a problem.”

Asked about an issue important to labor unions, the two candidates made clear that their allegiance pulled them in different directions.

Clinton said he would favor placing young people in jobs of all kinds as part of a civilian corps to give them training for the future.

But Brown warned that the low wages paid to such employees would undermine working people and suggested that any such corps be limited to outdoor conservation efforts.

DES MOINES — A new poll found support for Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton among Iowa Democrats on the upswing as the state’s residents prepare for their presidential caucuses Monday night.

Clinton was backed by 16% of the likely Democratic caucus-goers surveyed by the Des Moines Register. That is more than triple the support he received in the newspaper’s last survey in December.

The poll, published Saturday, also found support for native-son Sen. Tom Harkin dropping to 54%–down 14 percentage points since December.

Clinton was second in the new poll, ahead of Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, who dropped two points to 8%. Former California Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. and former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas both had 5%.

“We’re amazed,” said Craig Smith, Clinton’s deputy campaign manager. “If the result from Iowa is different from the conventional wisdom, it will have an impact on the race.”

Despite the large margin Harkin maintained in the poll against his rivals, his Iowa race is more against high expectations than other candidates. His own campaign had said he would exceed Jimmy Carter’s record score of 59% in 1980.

Except for Harkin, who launched a three-day campaign blitz in Iowa on Saturday, the other candidates have ignored the state because of his native-son candidacy.