Foley Calls for Change From GOP Economic Policies of ‘80s : Democrats: ‘When the economy is wrong, nothing else is right,’ Speaker says. He says his party will cooperate, but will not compromise its principles.

Responding to President Bush’s State of the Union address for the Democratic Party, House Speaker Thomas S. Foley called Tuesday night for fundamental change from Republican economic policies of the 1980s to “get this nation moving again.”

In a speech highly critical of Bush, Foley said Democrats would cooperate but would not compromise their principles.

“In short, we seek a fundamental change from the unsuccessful economic policies of the past 12 years,” the Washington state Democrat said in his address, prepared for broadcast on national television immediately after Bush’s address. “For when the economy is wrong, nothing else is right.”

Foley’s tone reflected a new confidence among Democrats that Bush, weakened in the polls as the economy remained mired in recession at the end of 1991, might be vulnerable this election year.

Foley said the Democrats would fight an across-the-board cut in capital gains taxes--a centerpiece of Bush’s tax proposals--and would seek to raise taxes on the wealthy to offset the revenue loss from a middle-income tax cut that Democrats favor.

“When we say a middle-class tax cut, we mean exactly that,” Foley said. “Not more of the tax cuts of the 1980s, which gave most of the benefits to the very few and left most of our people actually paying more in taxes.”

Without mentioning Bush by name, Foley accused the President of refusing to act when the economy flattened out. “So the urgent, overriding task of 1992 is to restore growth and jobs,” he said.

Foley said Democrats would fight for fundamental changes in health care for “as long as it takes” to provide coverage for all Americans and to control soaring costs.

Alluding to Bush’s widely reported proposal to provide tax incentives for purchase of health insurance, he added: “It is not enough to make minor repairs--to tinker at the edges while tolerating basic flaws. We want to replace the status quo, not protect it.”

Although Bush’s address did not mention his opposition to abortion, Foley said Democrats “will stand--and we will fight--for a woman’s right to choose. If the Supreme Court removes the guarantee of choice from the Constitution of the United States, this Congress will write it into the laws of the United States.”

The President’s speech drew responses from other Democrats, who challenged the President to double his planned cuts in military outlays and gear a tax cut more to middle-income Americans than he was expected to do.

A few prominent Democrats--such as Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.)--reserved judgment on Bush’s address earlier Tuesday.

“We are ready to work with the President for a well-conceived plan of economic recovery and long-term growth,” Mitchell said in a statement. He and other Democrats, however, already have proposed more far-reaching defense cuts and larger tax cuts for average Americans than the President was reported likely to seek.

Sen. John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) advocated a comprehensive approach to health care legislation. The public was demanding change and Congress was poised to act, he said, but “the single, final barrier to health care reform is George Bush. If his proposals sap our momentum with empty symbolism and incremental change, we must fill the floor of the Senate with our outrage and we must lead our constituents to light up the White House switchboard.”

Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.) struck a more conciliatory note, saying that many of Bush’s proposals were likely to be “the recycled Democratic agenda of 1991” and present a possibility of more bipartisan compromise this year.

But Bentsen’s statement, released Tuesday morning about 12 hours in advance of the President’s speech, also contained several partisan barbs.

“In the competition for ideas, the Democrats have a clear advantage because we recognized the existence of the recession a year ago and came forward with a program to combat it,” he said.

“It was not until unemployment, stagnation and plunging polls became undeniable that the Administration faced up to the fact of recession and promised answers for Jan. 28.”

Bentsen said there was every reason to believe that the President would be responding to Democratic calls for tax fairness, deficit reduction, economic stimulus, health care reform, education and a better trade policy.

“I sincerely hope that the President will not be satisfied with easy, short-term, election-year, sound-bite answers,” Bentsen concluded.

Sen. Albert Gore Jr. (D-Tenn.) said Bush has failed to provide leadership on environmental issues and urged him to attend an international “Earth Summit” to be held in June in Brazil to make up for his alleged neglect.

Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.) said it was unlikely that the President would propose adequate measures to improve education. “If the last several years are any indication, however, it is clear that leadership in education will continue to be associated with the Democratic leadership in Congress,” Pell said.

In his statement, Senate Democratic Leader Mitchell refrained from sharp criticism of the President but urged him to support federal grants to state and local governments that Bush appeared unlikely to endorse.

Mitchell also advocated a comprehensive program of conversion from Cold War military outlays to programs for civilian purposes--another proposal that the White House so far has not embraced.

“Every part of the country will feel the economic fallout of defense job losses, base closings or contract cuts over the next few years,” Mitchell said. “A plan to utilize efficiently the people and expertise that will become militarily redundant will give hope and confidence to the affected communities and individuals.”