I hope people read this piece and laugh. I hope what I'm going to say is so blindingly obvious that people will wonder why I bothered writing it.

The basic principles of our national debt are not difficult: anyone who has taken Ec 10 should understand them. Yet there seems to be a lingering--and dangerous--misconception about President Clinton's plan to deal with it.

This column is intended as a wake-up call for Americans who believe that our national debt will be lower after Clinton's first term. Until recently, I was one of those people. With all the calls for sacrifice, it seems that many of us have slipped into the belief that the country is finally tackling the debt.

We aren't. Even if the Congress gets on its collective knees, kisses the president's feet and makes all the cuts he is requesting, our national debt will be substantially higher after his first term.

The reason is simple. When Clinton talks about the sacrifice we all must make for the good of the country, he is not talking about reducing our national debt. He is talking about reducing our national debt. He is talking about reducing the budget deficit. The deficit is the yearly difference between the government's expenditures and income. Currently, our government is running about $300 million further into debt each year.

If Clinton's plan passes smoothly through Congress (the idea almost seems like a fantasy) and fulfills all of its goals, it will reduce the yearly deficit to $200 million per year.

To put these facts into Perot-speak, the U.S. is like a college student who is already far behind on credit card payments and yet continues to charge $30 per day. Clinton's plan would not begin to pay off this student's debt--or even keep that debt from growing. It will merely limit the student's expenditures; instead of blowing $30 a day, our friend might only spend $20. Not too encouraging, eh?

Of course, the Clinton plan is a positive development. Cutting the deficit is an obvious first step toward eventually reducing the national debt. Slowing our plummet into the red is something two Republican administrations were unable to do--President Bush certainly wouldn't have done it if he had been reelected.

But the Clinton's plan has been dangerously obscured by the overwhelming hype that surroundis it. In his address to Congress, the President linked support of his plan to patriotism. As soon as he finished his speech, Clinton's cabinet fanned out around the country lobbying business, labor and other groups that would be affected by the proposal.

Since then, the airwaves have been flooded with Clinton administration officials' pleas for support. Amidst all that noise, it's difficult to pinpoint the core of the plan.

In reality, Clinton's formula is a very moderate effort to reduce the deficit without disrupting the economy. Proposed spending cuts nip at the fringes of the government's massive spending package; huge items like entitlements remain untouched. New taxes, while very visible, amount to only a slap on the wrist. Energy duties are minuscule in comparison to those Europeans have to pay. Clinton's plan is hardly radical, and as it passes through Congress it will likely become even less so.

But the problem is less Clinton's plan itself than his presentation of it. The president is deceptive--even deceitful--when he insinuates that if Americans sacrifice for a brief period, we can solve our debt problem.

Under the pretense of being tough and honest with the American people, Clinton is really just replacing one myth with another. The Republicans tried to make the country believe that the national debt was not a problem, that we would "outgrow" it. Clinton admits that the debt is a problem, but pretends that it is easily solvable--with his plan, of course.

In reality, it will take us several rounds of more serious "sacrifice" to get to the point where we are not adding to our original debt. And it will take massive doses of Clinton's "economic patriotism" to erase that debt completely.

The term "sacrifice" is itself misleading: it suggests a quick-and-easy, one-shot solution. In reality, our country needs an extended process of belt-tightening. The inconvenience of the Clinton plan should only be the starting point.

This new financial austerity will need to continue into the next several administrations. That it will is by no means certain. If public pressure wanes, it will be easy for the government to lose its footing on the difficult climb. But if the American public is to keep the pressure on government, it must understand where the nation stands; the Clinton administration is not helping.

Honesty has clearly been beyond the capabilities of recent administrations. Clinton, as a self proclaimed Agent of Change, was supposed to be different. His economic plan is different, encouragingly so. But his refusal to level with the American people sounds all too familiar.