Battle Lines Form as Democrats and GOP Come Out Punching : Reaction: Majority party aware it mustn’t break ranks if the most controversial programs are to pass.

Democrats cheered lustily and Republicans occasionally jeered Wednesday night as President Clinton unveiled a program designed to spur economic growth in the short run and cut the budget deficit through spending cuts and higher taxes, mainly on the well-to-do.

Clinton was applauded more than 70 times and lawmakers, usually Democrats, jumped to their feet for standing ovations two dozen times during his remarks.

Occasional catcalls and derisive laughter came from the Republican side of the aisle but Clinton’s Democratic colleagues roared their approval of the President’s first message to a joint session of Congress--and the first by a member of their party in 12 years.

“We’ll pass the program in its overall dimension,” House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) predicted even before the speech. “In great substance, it will be enacted.”

But Republicans had a different view of its fate. “I’m disappointed,” said Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.). “This is principally a tax increase plan . . . 76 cents in cuts, mostly in defense, for every $1 in new taxes . . . I doubt it will be passed.”

The obvious political polarization--with about half of the House Republicans sporting red buttons mocking the President’s plan as “Tax and Spend--Again” or (in a comment that mocked Clinton’s campaign phrase) “It’s Spending, Stupid”--indicated that Democrats would have to stick together to get the program through the House and Senate.

“It was obviously a good speech but it takes a lot more than a speech to swallow that much castor oil,” observed Larry J. Sabato, professor of government at the University of Virginia.

“He’s going to have to form majorities from his own party since he’s going to get very few Republican votes.”

House Democrats, in a show that they are also willing to sacrifice, announced that they would cut House staff and administrative costs, just as Clinton did at the White House. The House will cut spending 4% the first year and 14% over four years, they said.

In California, Gov. Pete Wilson said Clinton “hit several notes that resonated with me” but said he was “extremely skeptical” that Congress would approve the spending cuts Clinton proposed.

“He was right to emphasize deficit reduction,” Wilson said. “It’s simply that those, particularly in his own party, have failed to give the support (for spending cuts) in the past. Perhaps he can get it. If he can, more power to him.”

Wilson said the energy tax would hurt California because so many people drive long distances to work. But he added:

“There are probably no good tax increases. Let’s be fair to him and say his choice was an unpleasant one for him to have to make. I think his options are all unpleasant.”

California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown acknowledged that some steps outlined by Clinton, such as defense cuts and higher business taxes, could hurt a state already struggling under the weight of a three-year recession. But he held out hope that other commitments, like increased aid to students, would offset any damage.

“I do believe that his idea for doing something about the whole question of students and the assistance that goes to them in the field of education will affect California more than any other place,” Brown said. “I also think that his statement of what he intends to do about families and all the prospects of retraining, those kinds of things and military conversion directly affects California.”

In the House, Foley led the way for Democrats, saying Clinton had devised a “cohesive” combination of spending cuts, public investment and tax increases aimed primarily at wealthy individuals and corporations rather than at the middle class.

Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) called Clinton’s plan a “tough, fair and bold proposal” that relies on realistic estimates rather than the optimistic figures employed in the past, which masked rising deficits.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) called the speech a “bold challenge to the American people” and added: “All of us thought it would be a tough sell but he did an excellent job.”

Sen. Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.) praised the President for “profound courage and leadership” for tackling the massive budget deficits inherited from the Ronald Reagan-George Bush years.

“I know the task will not be easy,” Sasser added. “The guardians of gridlock are gathering against the President even as the echoes of his challenge are fading. . . .”

A few Republicans said they hope the Democratic President succeeds in his efforts to turn the economy around. “I give him credit for his willingness not to brush the deficit under the rug,” Rep. Michael N. Castle, the former Republican governor of Delaware, told the Associated Press.

But most Republicans scoffed at the President’s plan.

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) declared: “President Clinton has just proposed the biggest tax increase in American history. . . . The American people were hoping for significant cuts in federal spending but instead the President offered only symbolic nicks.”

Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) termed Clinton’s plan “the wrong medicine” and added: “We’re going to strangle the economy in the crib if we accept it.”

Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) accused the President of “cooking the books” by forecasting higher deficits than would be allowed under current law and then claiming “savings” from the inflated estimates.

The Republicans also charged that the President has broken a pledge to middle-class Americans by raising their taxes.

“Raising taxes on the middle class again isn’t patriotic, it’s idiotic,” said Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) in a reference to Clinton’s suggestion this week that supporting his program is a form of patriotism.

Foley, reflecting the distress expressed by many in his party, complained that the media had overemphasized the tax increases in the President’s package. Rep. Vic Fazio (D-West Sacramento) said the media focus on taxes “doesn’t help us get off to a fast start.”

The Democrats, however, were not unanimous in their praise of Clinton’s plan. Many voiced some misgivings, and the Democratic leadership, working to keep the members on board, launched a damage control operation.

Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) said she hopes “the spending cuts are bigger than we hear they are” and she voiced concern about the amount of tax increases.

Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) spoke for several Senate Democrats when he cautioned: “People back home want to see more (spending) cuts.” One Democratic leadership aide, recognizing the President’s potential difficulties with members of his own party, said Clinton “has to sell his plan in a way that will convince Democrats to go home to their districts and sell it in turn to their constituents.”

An aide to Foley said Democratic leaders are trying to clear up three commonly held misconceptions about Clinton’s plan.

First, they told rank-and-file members in advance of the speech that households with taxable incomes of $30,000 to $50,000 would not pay higher income taxes. A family of four in that income range would see their total tax bill rise just $25 to $30 per person over a year because of the proposed energy tax.

Second, the leadership said, the proposed tax increase on Social Security benefits would apply only to incomes above $32,000 for couples or $25,000 for individuals and would be phased in gradually.

Third, they argued that cuts in Medicare would be aimed at doctors, hospitals and other providers, not at benefits provided to the elderly.

Times staff writers Cathleen Decker, in Los Angeles, and Daniel M. Weintraub, in Sacramento, contributed to this story.