Expected Public Backlash Mild--at Least for Now : Reaction: Industries and groups that would be hardest-hit are grudgingly going along or responding cautiously.

The public backlash against the new White House-congressional budget accord may be less vehement than expected--at least at the start.

An informal survey of industries and groups that would be hardest-hit by the proposed $134 billion in higher taxes and $40 billion in spending cuts shows that many key groups are either grudgingly going along or being extremely cautious in their responses.

Despite direct hits on their pocketbooks, groups such as the tobacco and alcohol industries, the American Assn. of Retired Persons and even General Motors are all adopting a wait-and-see posture.

“With so many targets hit all at once and with so little time to influence the debate, maybe there’s a sense of resignation out there,” said Gary Burtless, a Brookings Institution economist.

“And it’s getting pretty late . . . not to take a decisive position,” Burtless added.

President Bush and the congressional leadership have expressed the hope that Congress will pass the new budget by Friday, when a continuing resolution to keep government running expires. Burtless predicted quick action since “Congress wants to adjourn so they can all go home and run for reelection.”

He and other analysts said that GM’s stance, for one, is noteworthy because, in the past, the giant auto maker has vigorously opposed any gas tax increase earmarked for budget deficit reduction.

William Noack, a company spokesman, explained: “This is a complex package, and we are studying it. We’re not going to rush it.”

The oil industry-sponsored American Petroleum Institute, facing two tax hikes of 5 cents a gallon each, actually seemed to support the budget agreement.

“We recognize that the nation needs to reduce the U.S. budget deficit,” an API official said. “While we have concerns about some of the individual components of the agreement, we believe it is in the best interest of the nation to return to fiscal responsibility.”

Ford Motor Co. executives said that they would not oppose the gas tax.

But not everyone was ready to roll over.

Representatives of the elderly were outraged by the deficit-reduction package, which calls on the 34 million Medicare beneficiaries to pay significantly more for the coverage that helps pay physicians’ bills.

On Capitol Hill Monday, a coalition representing 125 senior and disability organizations vociferously expressed their unhappiness with the budget deal.

“Those who predict a firestorm of protests across the country are absolutely correct,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a senior-citizens advocacy group.

He said that the budget negotiators had “unfairly and disproportionately” singled out the elderly, adding: “Those that wage this war shouldn’t expect older Americans to be pacifists on Election Day.”

Pollack said that his organization already has launched an extensive grass-roots lobbying campaign to fight the cuts.

Most other groups hard-hit by the proposals were less passionate. Peggy Laramie, a spokesman for AARP, said that the organization of 32 million members “is relieved that Social Security was not in the mix. But we are very concerned about Medicare.”

She said that AARP’s 22 board members are studying the details of the budget accords and do not plan to take a public stance until Friday.

A Tobacco Institute official said that the industry is “extremely disappointed” by the package’s call for a 4-cent-per-pack cigarette tax increase on Jan. 1, and another 4 cents in 1993. “But the magnitude is certainly much better than the previous proposals,” which called for increases of 16 to 25 cents per pack, said Tom Lauria, of the Tobacco Institute.

“It could have been so much worse,” he said. “We may not have any choice but to go along. This is a broad-based proposal. Few industries are not getting hit with something.”

Officials of the wine, beer and hard liquor industries said that they plan to study the proposals further before adopting a position. The budget agreement would double the 16-cent per six-pack tax on beer, raise the tax on wine by 24 cents per bottle and raise the tax on hard liquor by about $2 a fifth. According to Burtless, federal taxes on alcoholic beverages for decades have lagged well behind the rate of inflation.

The budget agreement also would strike at U.S. farmers by proposing to cut $13 billion in commodity subsidies over the next five years.

But the American Farm Bureau Federation said on Monday that it is not ready to take a firm position. “It does trouble us. And we’re very disappointed,” said spokesman David Lane. “There are a number of items in there that will hurt farmers and agriculture. But as far as coming back with a substitute or alternative, we haven’t developed one yet.”

Among the most severely affected would be the nation’s wheat farmers, according to Carl Schwensen, executive vice president of the National Assn. of Wheat Growers.

He said that his group will lobby Congress not so much to do away with subsidies cuts, but to spread them out more evenly throughout agriculture.

“We want the cuts to be made so that no one commodity takes a heavier hit than another. All we’re looking for is fairness and even-handedness.

“I think most interested parties do feel resigned to accept the numbers that the summit arrived at,” Schwensen said.

Times staff writers Tom Redburn and Jennifer Toth contributed to this story.