Local Congressmen React to Clinton Plan Along Partisan Lines : Politics: Democrat Anthony C. Beilenson calls the program ‘a very good job.’ Republican Elton Gallegly says the package will ‘kill jobs’.

WASHINGTON — Splitting along partisan lines, Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills) praised President Clinton’s sweeping economic program Thursday as fair and credible while Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) blasted the proposed tax increases and spending cuts.

Beilenson, whose 24th District includes most of Thousand Oaks, said Clinton was the first President in 12 years to address the enormous national debt candidly and courageously. He expressed support for the $496 billion in tax increases and spending reductions and predicted that his constituents would follow suit.

“I give him an enormous amount of credit for doing in totality what is a very good job,” Beilenson said. “I think and hope that the great majority of people back home will think that the President--and me and those who are supporting him--are proposing a rational and balanced plan that will be good for them and good for the country.”

Gallegly, like most of his Republican colleagues, expressed immediate opposition to the plan.

“Tax increases don’t create jobs, they kill jobs,” the four-term lawmaker said. “If this is his plan for economic recovery, this is going to make Herbert Hoover’s Depression look like an economic bonanza.”

He vowed to work to defeat “President Clinton’s proposed middle-class tax increase”--a reference to a proposed broad-based energy tax. This would add about $118 a year to the expenses of a family of four making $40,000 a year--which Gallegly said would hit car-dependent Californians particularly hard.

Clinton had called for a middle-class tax cut during the campaign but said he had to jettison the pledge because the projections for the deficit had climbed since the election.

Gallegly expressed skepticism that the $253 billion in spending cuts that Clinton has proposed over five years would ever be enacted by Congress.

Gallegly indicated that he wants to see the deficit reduced through more dramatic cuts in federal spending but he did not specify any reductions. Instead, he expressed opposition to the $76 billion in cuts in defense spending that Clinton seeks over the next four years.

“One of the main reasons California’s economy is in such bad shape is the sharp defense cuts of the past few years,” Gallegly said. “The President’s proposal would only make our economy worse.”

Beilenson, a member of the House Budget Committee and a longtime deficit hawk, strongly disagreed. He said the proposed tax increases were generally progressive--aimed at those with household incomes exceeding $140,000--and the energy tax would not be an onerous burden for the middle class.

“Some of our Republican colleagues are challenging the fact that people are being asked to pay $150 to $200 a year in energy taxes,” Beilenson said. “If that’s not worth doing to help save our country and straighten out our economy, I give up.”

He expressed concern about the impact of steeper-than-expected defense cuts in Southern California but said the reductions were justified by the greatly diminished threat from the former Soviet Union. He challenged Republicans to come up with specific spending reductions to trim the deficit by more than Clinton’s goal of $336 billion over the next four years.

“The truth of the matter is that, both politically and morally, it’s often easier to raise taxes than to cut spending,” Beilenson said. “There’s very little reason why people should have problems with those proposed tax increases.”

Gallegly’s offices received 84 calls against the plan Thursday and 28 in favor. Beilenson’s Thousand Oaks office reported 32 calls supporting Clinton’s plan and 11 opposing it.