The Gore plan, Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less, borrows heavily from previous proposals made throughout the Reagan and Bush years, proposals that were strongly opposed by Clinton's Democratic allies in Congress, including then-Senator Gore himself.

       This does little to lift the credibility gap hanging over the plan. According to the National Taxpayers Union, Gore was one of the all-time biggest spenders in Congress. Worse, early bungling and mismanagement have plagued the Clinton White House.

       A little-noticed report by the General Accounting Office, the chief investigating and auditing arm of Congress, found numerous personnel irregularities and slipshod business practices throughout the White House's operations. Some 25 employees were paid double for a time, and there was illegal backdating of pay raises, among other shady practices.

       The GAO report, issued in September, was the third government report this year that criticized White House operations. An earlier report said Clinton's staff failed to follow accepted procurement procedures to acquire a new computer system. And a White House inquiry into the controversial firing of its travel office staff found that numerous mistakes in judgment and procedural irregularities had been made throughout the affair.

       SAVING GRACE

       The plan borrows most heavily from Reagan's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, otherwise known as the Grace Commission. But the Gore plan to "reinvent government" lacks the hard-nosed proposals on spending and cost-cutting made by the commission.

       The plan would save $108 billion over five years, but that is about 1 percent of all government spending during this period. By comparison, Reagan's governmentwide Grace Commission study estimated at the time that its proposals would save taxpayers more than $424 billion over three years, or 14 percent of spending during that period. The Hoover Commission proposed 10.5 percent in budget savings.