In November, Bill Clinton capitalized on Bush's failures, promising us hope and change. But so far, he has instilled little of either in Washington.

It's hard to be hopeful when you know the damage that large tax increases will cause. Higher taxes decrease the money that people have to spend, which is what drives the economy. Taxes also decrease Americans' savings, which are used to fund investment and growth.

And Clinton's proposed increases in corporate taxes will decrease business' incentives to grow, leaving fewer new jobs for college graduates or anyone else. Bill Clinton said he knows that the private sector creates jobs, yet his intended policies will discourage that same sector of the economy from doing so.

And what about Clinton's "change" rhetoric? The president's plan rings of Carter liberalism, and is reminiscent of the mistakes that cost George Bush an election. Sure, Clinton offers some nifty little items, like summer jobs and highway construction, that should stimulate short term growth. But that's short term fluff, not growth. It boils down to more government spending. Not much change there.

Clinton only vaguely outlined his plans to curb spending. He only specifically mentioned cuts from the Pentagon budget, and he ear-marked all of those savings to support a host of new social programs.

Bill Clinton is operating in a dream world if he thinks lobbyists are weak and members of Congress don't worry about re-election. Thirty-four of the senators that Clinton addressed last week are up for re-election this year. It is hardly in their best interests to raise taxes a great deal and cut spending.

Lobbyists for many special interest groups hold a great deal of power in Washington, and always have. After all, lobbyists finance re-election campaigns and provide many of the perks that low-paid senators and representatives have come to expect. Why does Clinton think they will suddenly become impotent? He doesn't seem to understand how Washington works.

Jimmy Carter critics said that the president stayed too long in Georgia before he came to Washington, and therefore lacked a good feel for federal politics. Bill Clinton may have remained in Arkansas too long.

Clinton is an intelligent man who seems sincerely passionate about improving this country. I want him to succeed--so do my roommate and the Globe readers on the T. But repeating the mistakes of the past will not help us. To retain our economic leadership position, we need policies based on code words like "expansion" not retrogressive terms like "sacrifice."

The President should learn from a man whom he claims to emulate in style if not in practice: Ronald Reagan. The growth in the 1980's speaks for itself. In a recent New York Times op-ed piece, Reagan laid out a lesson for the current president: "But let us remember that deficits are caused by spending. By the very terms of our Constitution, only Congress has the power to spend [or cut spending.]"

Bill Clinton should do what's right and back off of his new tax-and-spend proposals, especially now that the economy is beginning to grow. He should leave the responsibility of spending cuts where it belongs--on Congress's shoulders.