President Strikes Responsive Chord

President Reagan’s hopeful State of the Union address struck an emotional chord on Capitol Hill Tuesday night, but congressmen of both parties quickly pointed out that the vague goals outlined by Reagan have uncertain prospects in the face of hard reality.

“As usual, President Reagan hit all the right notes--touching the primary concerns of the nation and Congress,” Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.)said in a statement issued shortly after the speech. “But let’s face it: The Administration’s agenda is jam-packed with thorny issues. . . . They’ve got their work cut out for them.”

And despite the speech’s conciliatory words toward Democrats, House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr. (D-Mass.) noted: “The President failed to define concrete proposals for meeting the challenges of trade, farming and the continued tragedy of those who are left behind economically.”

Added Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.): “The ‘disconnect’ in the speech is between reality and the vision. What I don’t hear is the way we are going to get to that future.”

One of the President’s biggest challenges will be forging a budget agreement with Congress that will meet the deficit-reduction goals mandated by a new budget-balancing law without raising taxes.

Among those expressing skepticism was Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), who said, “I just don’t think we can get there,” particularly if Reagan stands by his goals of raising military spending and leaving Social Security benefits untouched.

Some Republicans saw hope in the speech that Reagan was ready to work with Congress for a budget compromise.

“He laid down the gauntlet, more or less, but in a conciliatory way. He said, ‘We’ve got to work this out together,’ ” House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.) said.

Key Republicans were supportive of the general tone of the speech, saying it accurately reflected prospects for the year ahead.

“It set the proper tone for a year which will be a year of choices, but also of opportunity,” said Rep. Trent Lott of Mississippi, the House’s second-ranking Republican.

Democrats, however, noted that Reagan made his brief, upbeat speech only hours before he was to submit a budget that is expected to include proposals to finance growth in military spending through sharp and unpopular cuts in domestic programs.

Few members of either party on Capitol Hill said they expect Congress to follow the spending priorities outlined in the address and in the budget, but this year Democrats hope to draw more attention to them as a means of discrediting Reagan’s policies.

While Congress in the past few years has dismissed the White House budget proposal as “dead on arrival” on Capitol Hill, “this year the President’s budget is going to be aired,” O’Neill said, adding that he intends “very definitely” to bring it to a vote on the House floor.

Reaction to other initiatives outlined in the speech was guarded. California Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), chairman of a House subcommittee that plans to draft its own version of the catastrophic health plan mentioned by Reagan, said he hoped the ultimate White House proposal would not take a “narrow view.”

California Rep. Augustus F. Hawkins (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, dismissed Reagan’s proposal to overhaul the welfare system as a gimmick, saying the Administration’s earlier politices have shown “bitter hostility and near total disregard for the social well-being of the nation’s poorest families.”