February 5, 1981

Lieut. Gov. Mario M. Cuomo had finished a speech, and a woman rose to ask a question. "Governor Como," she began, and Mr. Cuomo raised a hand. "It's Cuo-mo," he corrected her. "I'm separated from Perry Como by a 'u' and about $14 million."

There are two kinds of people in the world -- those who have horror of a vacuum and those with a horror of the things that fill it. Translated into domestic interiors, this means people who live with, and without, clutter. (Dictionary definition: jumble, confusion, disorder.) The reasons for clutter, the need to be surrounded by things, goes deep, from security to status. The reasons for banning objects, or living in as selective and austere an enviornment as possible, range from the esthetic to the neurotic. This is a phenomenon of choice that relates as much to the psychiatrist as to the tastemaker. Some people clutter compulsively, and others just as compulsively t hrow things away. Clutter in its highest and most organized form i s called collecting. Collecting can be done as the Collyer b rothers did it, or it can be done with art and flair. The range i s from oldnewspapers to Faberge. This provides a third category, or what might be called calculated clutter, nwhich the objets d'art, the memorabilia that mark one's milestones and travels, the irrestible and ornamental things that speak to pride, pleasure and temptation, are constrained by decorating devices and hierarchal principles of value. This gives the illusion that one is in control.

Last autumn, candidates for office throughout New York State received a two-page questionnaire in the mail. The first page asked the usual questions about some of the usual issues - capital punishment, welfare, the equal rights amendment, abortion. The second page of questions went beyond the routine. "What is the Bible?" it asked. "Have you ever been born again?" and: "If you stood before heaven's gate and were asked on what grounds you sought admission, how would you reply?"

Thirteen months ago the United States curtailed grain shipments to the Soviet Union in reaction to Moscow's military intervention in Afghanistan. Now President Reagan, who attacked the curb during the election campaign last fall, and again at his news conference last Thursday, as unfair to American farmers, is faced with dilemma. If he lifts the embargo as he has promised, he sends a signal to the Russians of a return to business as usual, even though his Administration has warned of dire consequences for East-West relations if Soviet troops invade Poland. If he does not lift the restriction, he appears to be reneging on a campaign promise.

President Reagan visited Capitol Hill today in search of support for his econimic recovery program, but he found instead stiffening bipartisan resistance to his request for a $50 billion increase in the Federal debtceiling. In a meeting in the seldon-used President's Room in the Capital Senate Democratic leaders told Mr.Reagan that their caucus had voted not to support the increase. Democratic Congressional leaders asked for a got a delay until Friday on the vote on the issue, a move that reflected the Democrats' intention to make the Republicans take the leadership in the politically unpopular step of increasing the Government's deficit. Lack of Support Among G.O.P. In the House of Representatives, only about 100 of 192 Republicans could be counted as supporters of the debt ceiling increase, and the White House has begun a lobbying campaign to pull recalcitrant Republican conservatives into line behind Mr.Reagan's request.