Congressmen Follow Party Line on Clinton Economic Plan : Government: House members representing Valley districts voice strong views on the proposed tax increases and budget cuts.

President Clinton’s sweeping proposal to raise taxes and reduce federal spending is either “gutsy” or disastrous, depending on which San Fernando Valley congressman is speaking and which party he belongs to.

Democratic Reps. Howard L. Berman of Panorama City and Anthony C. Beilenson of Los Angeles, both of whom sit on the House Budget Committee, expressed overall support for Clinton’s economic blueprint, which is intended to revive the economy and cut the budget deficit.

Berman called it “gutsy” and Beilenson hailed it as “fair and creditable.”

In contrast, Republican Reps. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon of Santa Clarita and Carlos J. Moorhead of Glendale vowed to oppose the plan for failing to make deeper spending cuts and relying too heavily on tax increases.

McKeon said it would be disastrous for his district and the country; Moorhead said it would cost jobs in Southern California and elsewhere.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman, a Los Angeles Democrat whose 29th District includes part of the southern Valley, credited Clinton with making “a compelling case” for a broad budget package in a “terrific speech” to Congress on Wednesday evening and voiced general pleasure with the President’s approach. But he expressed concern over the President’s proposed cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and over additional taxes on higher-income Social Security recipients.

The comments of the five lawmakers in interviews here reflected the early partisan reaction to Clinton’s program nationally and some of the hurdles he faces to get it enacted. Waxman, for instance, is one of the party’s champions of the elderly and could help lead that potent constituency’s fight against elements of the President’s program.

Some of the congressmen said they back parts of Clinton’s plan even though they would hit many of their constituents especially hard. Beilenson and Waxman, for example, reiterated their longtime support for higher taxes on the wealthy even though their respective districts are heavily populated with the well-to-do.

Clinton proposes increasing the top individual tax rate from the current 31% to 36% for households with taxable earnings of $140,000 or more and adding a 10% surtax on taxable incomes of more than $250,000. He would also increase the top corporate tax rate from the current 34% to 36% for all taxable income of more than $10 million.

And Beilenson voiced support for the sharper-than-expected cuts in defense spending--amounting to $76 billion over four years. McKeon said he, too, would seriously consider backing steep defense reductions. Both have many aerospace jobs in their districts.

“It’s nice to have a President telling the truth about the budget deficit and I think the people have been more than ready for that for some time,” said Beilenson, who for years has spoken out about the problem of the deficit.

“To the extent that these changes help turn around the economic climate, there’s more to be gained in California than elsewhere because we’re in so much worse shape than the rest of the country.”

Berman, whose 26th District is based in the East Valley, said that he could “quibble with dozens of items. But, fundamentally, we have a massive deficit and we have an economy that isn’t creating jobs and I don’t know that I can come up with a better way to both spur the economy in the short term and deal with the deficit.”

McKeon, a freshman whose 25th District includes the Antelope and Santa Clarita valleys and part of the northern San Fernando Valley, derided Clinton’s plan as “calling for more government. People want government out of their lives.” He said Congress should be forced to cut $50 billion to $100 billion in spending before any new taxes are considered to reduce the deficit.

McKeon said that the new broad-based energy taxes that Clinton wants would hit 40,000 to 50,000 commuters from the Antelope Valley particularly hard and could force some to either give up their jobs or move to smaller homes closer to work. The tax is expected to cost a typical household $100 to $150 a year when it is fully implemented in 1996.

Moorhead praised Clinton’s ambitious rhetoric but expressed skepticism that the President would be able to find the resources to make good on his promises.

“He talked like a kid who says, ‘I’m saving my money up and I’ve got a dollar and quarter and I’m going down to buy a new bicycle,’ ” Moorhead said. “You’ve got to look awfully long and hard before you find a bicycle for that much.”

The veteran lawmaker said that Clinton has proposed far more in tax increases than he has in spending cuts and he predicted that the Democratic majority would not even enact these spending reductions. He said that he would be willing to back “a workable” program that included “somewhat higher taxes” but only if these were “balanced by cuts in spending.”

Neither McKeon nor Moorhead was able to lay out a detailed alternative. McKeon said he would eliminate the Department of Education and would support a controversial one-year freeze on cost-of-living increases for Social Security if it was part of a broader deficit-reduction program. Clinton considered this step but backed off under political pressure.

Lawmakers reported various reactions from constituents Thursday. Berman received 27 calls for Clinton’s proposal and six against. Beilenson, whose 24th District extends from Sherman Oaks to Malibu and up to Thousand Oaks, tallied 89 in favor and 58 opposed. The calls to Waxman, whose district is based on the Democratic Westside, were 71 for and 40 against.

Moorhead, whose 27th District includes Glendale, Burbank and Pasadena, got 64 in support and 60 in opposition. Glendale was heavily opposed; Pasadena supportive.

McKeon’s aides reported the most lopsided reaction: 160 against and only 10 in favor. Said an aide: “We have a rather lopsidedly conservative district.”