Democrats: Bush Plan Is Blueprint for Reelection : Reaction: Lawmakers say tax cuts are too small to spur economic recovery. Budget uses accounting gimmicks to conceal deficit increase, they charge.

Democrats charged Wednesday that President Bush’s new budget is a buy now, pay later “blueprint for reelection and not recovery” that employs a variety of accounting gimmicks to conceal an increase in the long-term deficit.

While Republicans on Capitol Hill appeared overjoyed that Bush has come up with a plan to fight the recession months after the hard times settled in, the harsh Democratic criticism indicated that his proposals may run into tough sledding in this election year.

The chairmen of the Senate and House Budget committees said in a joint appearance that Bush’s recommended tax cuts unduly favor the rich and are far too small to spur the weakened economy into renewed growth this year.

They also described the President’s proposed cut of $50 billion in military outlays over the next five years as “minuscule” and signaled that Democrats would press for much greater savings in Pentagon spending now that the Cold War is over.

The instant indictment of the Bush budget was presented at a news conference by Sen. Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.), head of the Senate panel, and Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Carmel Valley), the chief budget specialist in the House.

At least one other Democrat was far less critical. Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) said that he believes the President’s controversial plan to reduce taxes on capital gains will be approved by Congress, despite the opposition of Democratic leaders in both chambers. Hollings said that he also supports a freeze in domestic spending and a 10% reduction in federal employees to go along with the President’s objectives of reducing the size of government.

By contrast, Republicans seemed to be unanimously supporting the main outlines of the President’s plan as Bush made a rare visit to Capitol Hill to meet with GOP members of the House and Senate, as well as with Democratic leaders in both chambers.

“We’re going to stick together,” said Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), speaking for 43 GOP senators. “I get the sense that we are on board for the duration.”

As Dole gave the President an “A-plus” for his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, House GOP leaders said that they would seek to get congressional action on Bush’s plan by the March 20 deadline that he set for the lawmakers.

House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), however, said that Bush’s proposals deserve a flunking grade because they would not promote long-term investments.

“It’s more trickle-down, supply-side economics that failed in the 1980s,” Gephardt said in an NBC-TV interview.

“Big tax cuts for the rich, sacrifices for everybody else,” summarized Panetta, who is regarded as one of the less partisan Democrats on budget matters. “The President’s budget reflects the short-sighted priorities of the 1980s . . . and it will increase deficits as we did in the 1980s.”

Panetta said that the net effect of the budget would be an increase ranging from $70 billion to $100 billion in the deficit over the next 10 years, despite Bush’s more optimistic projections. Sasser said, however, that he sees “the germ of a bipartisan program” in the President’s approach.

“There are proposals in this budget that at least appear to be aimed at middle-income tax relief, helping first-time home buyers, a needed expansion of unemployment benefits and some increased investments in Head Start, WIC (the Women’s, Infant and Children’s nutrition program), child immunization and community health centers,” Sasser said. “On those issues, we welcome the Administration to the fight.”

But both Sasser and Panetta contended that the budget for the year starting Oct. 1 proposes either to cut programs or raise taxes in ways that have been rejected time and time again by Congress in the past.

“Who do they think they’re kidding?” asked Panetta, terming such budget items “highly unrealistic.”

Sasser said that a complicated shift to accrual accounting in the new budget was used to justify a claim of $39 billion in savings over five years, adding: “Overall, we calculate the total gimmicks . . . to exceed $61 billion over five years. And that’s just on a quick perusal.”

Panetta said, however, that House Democrats will cooperate with the President’s request for fast action this year.