Oil Fee Opposed by Top Reagan Economic Aide

White House chief economic adviser Beryl W. Sprinkel, releasing a report staking out a strongly free-market position, told a congressional committee Thursday that the oil import fee President Reagan has decided to consider would harm the economy.

Sprinkel, who called the proposed fee “anti-growth, anti-free trade . . . a protectionist measure,” appeared to be putting himself at odds with an Administration endorsement this week that would allow the fee to be included in a tax revision package if it does not raise the overall tax burden.

Signs of Dissatisfaction

Although Sprinkel carefully hewed to White House positions in his testimony on Reagan’s annual economic message to Congress, his statements suggested that he is dissatisfied with several recent policy initiatives by the Administration.

However, as chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, Sprinkel seems to be having little success in winning converts to his viewpoint.

He is convinced, for instance, that the Federal Reserve has been too lax recently in controlling the money supply, but Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III, the Administration’s top economic policy-maker, said Wednesday that the Fed “has been doing a good job recently.”

In addition, Sprinkel has been rebuffed for his opposition to any government intervention in foreign currency markets. Reagan, in his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, endorsed the possibility of convening an international conference aimed at restoring more stability to the U.S. dollar.

Defends Growth Estimate

In his testimony Thursday, Sprinkel vigorously defended the Administration’s prediction that the economy will accelerate strongly this year to a 4% growth rate from last year’s sluggish 2.4%. He listed recent evidence suggesting that the economy is emerging from its doldrums and trumpeted the recent decline in oil prices as giving him added confidence in the Administration’s official forecast.

But Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, challenged the forecast, predicting that weaker growth could add as much as $20 billion to the deficit next fiscal year. This, Obey said, would make it far more difficult to meet the $144-billion deficit ceiling of the new Gramm-Rudman budget-balancing law.

“I hope all your numbers are accurate,” Obey said, “because, if they’re not, all hell’s going to break loose.”

The economic report, also signed by council member Thomas Gale Moore, outlined the Administration’s forecast and presented a number of separate arguments for drastically limiting government intervention in the economy.

Trade Deficits Downplayed

In arguing a belief widely held among economists that protectionism for troubled industries does more harm than good, the report downplayed the importance of the record trade deficits experienced by the United States in recent years.

It cited evidence that goods-producing industries continue to keep pace with the overall economy, attacking the idea that a “de-industrialization of America” is under way.

Sprinkel suggested that the Administration’s recent proposals to dispose of federal property and transfer some government services to the private sector are just a first step toward “privatization”--the sale of government assets to the private sector. In his endorsement of further such efforts, he urged an end to the Postal Service’s monopoly on regular mail service.

But, in a briefing for reporters, Sprinkel acknowledged that selling federal assets to raise cash--as proposed in the budget Reagan released Wednesday--would not help limit the drain of federal borrowing on the nation’s pool of savings.

“Someone has to buy the assets, so those savings would not be available” to support private investment, Sprinkel said. However, he endorsed disposing of government assets anyway, arguing that private owners could use them more efficiently than the federal government.

Inflation Blamed

The report argued that most of the economy’s problems in recent years could be traced to rising inflation, which had required the Fed to tighten up, raising interest rates and plunging the economy into a recession.

Sprinkel warned government officials not to be complacent about the dramatic drop in inflation over the last several years and said that Reagan wants to lower inflation still further. He acknowledged that the Administration is forecasting a modest rise in consumer prices this year, but he said it is important to prevent “the inflation genie (from) getting out of the bottle again.”

For that reason, Sprinkel said, Reagan is opposed to prodding the Fed to loosen its monetary reins in an effort to counter the fiscal restraint certain to arise from Gramm-Rudman cutbacks.

However, other Administration officials have suggested privately that the Fed should ease its policy further this year to ensure that deficit cutting for fiscal 1987, which begins Oct. 1, does not weaken the economy.