More Than a Homecoming for Tyson : Economics: She returns to UC Berkeley, where she once taught, to promote President’s package. Students voice enthusiasm over plan.

It was a cheerful mix of homecoming day and economics 101 here Thursday as Laura D’Andrea Tyson, the UC Berkeley professor who now chairs the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, returned to campus to promote President Clinton’s economic program.

It was certainly an easier audience than she faced earlier in the day, when business executives at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club grilled her about controversial tax increases.

On campus, Tyson, a professor of economics and business administration, was not only among friends, but speaking to an audience that will give up relatively little--and potentially gain a lot--if Clinton’s economic program succeeds.

“I think the plan is great,” enthused freshman Susan Peirce, who said she felt “robbed” by Republican administrations that only looked out for the older generation. “I’m so glad somebody is finally taking responsibility” for long-term economic problems, she said.

Peirce and many other students were especially enthusiastic about the proposed national service program, which would provide young people an alternative for financing a college education. “I’m glad that they have that in place, at least in the abstract,” said Jeff Birkeland, a senior who’s wondering how he will pay for law school.

Clinton thus far has provided few details about the national service program or other proposals that directly affect students, such as reform of financial aid programs. And Tyson didn’t shed any new light on these issues as she gave a plain-spoken tutorial on the logic behind the Clinton plan.

But most of the Clinton supporters in the standing-room-only crowd of more then 2,000 jammed into Zellerbach Auditorium were content with the generalized commitment to invest for the future--even though few expected immediate, concrete benefits.

“We’re the lost generation--maybe the younger people will see some results,” sighed Ben Carroll, a 22-year-old German major. Still, he held out some hope that health care reform would eventually ease some of his worries about starting a family.

“Ideally, it seems like (the Clinton program) would benefit me, but it’s really trial and error,” said Seema Mehta, a 19-year-old sophomore from Chicago. “I supported Clinton,” she added, “but a politician’s a politician.”

Richard Cummings, a senior from Rancho Cucamonga, added: “The twentysomething generation has to be the cleanup crew . . . it’s our only hope to do something now.”

Of course, the diverse Berkeley student body is hardly unanimous in its support of the Clinton program. Several students said the President had already betrayed them.

“I think Clinton’s a bald-faced liar,” said Freddy Zelaya, a 19-year-old sophomore from Castro Valley who voted for Clinton. “In the third debate, he said ‘I will not tax the middle class.’ Now he’s talking about an (energy) tax that will hurt the middle class. I would like the cuts to go first, then the taxes.”

Dawn Bycher, a Los Angeles native who heads the Berkeley chapter of Ross Perot’s organization, United We Stand, America, Inc., had much the same view. “Just taxing people and throwing (the money) to Congress--that won’t work. It’s people doing their share but not the government doing its share.”

But Bycher was eager to hear Tyson’s explanation--she was first in line to get into the auditorium. Even the angry Zelaya was pleased that one of Cal’s own was on the inside.

And it was thus fitting that Tyson got her biggest laugh when she ad-libbed about how the Administration was cutting out official perks.

“My predecessor--from Stanford--got door-to-door limousine service. I rode to the airport in a taxi.”