After voting for an across-the-board cut in almost all items, an action that cut spending and the deficit by $2.5 billion, the House last night passed its version of the budget by a 220-to-184 vote.

Though it was feared the half-percentage-point cut might cause enough liberal and moderate Democrats to vote against the budget to jeopardize its passage, that did not happen. The budget measure was opposed by 134 conservative Democrats. Nine Republicans and 211 Democrats voted for it.

Budget Committee Chairman Robert Giaimo (D-Conn.), although calling the $2.5 billion cut a "very drastic and harsh reduction," urged support of the measure because the deadline for passing the budget is today.

After adopting the $2.5 billion cut proposed by Rep. Joseph Fisher (D-Va.), the budget measure adopted by the House set a deficit of $20.8 billion. Budget authority was $605 billion, outlays $529.8 billion and revenues $509 billion.

The House Budget Committee had proposed budget authority of $608.4 billion, outlays of $532.7 billion and a deficit of $24.9 billion with revenues of $507.8 billion.

The Senate has passed a measure with a deficit of $29 billion, though it used different economic assumptions to arrive at that figure so that it is not directly comparable with the House figure. The Carter administration had proposed a deficit of $28.4 billion.

The $2.5 billion cut affected all spending items except interest on the debt, allowances and undistributed offsetting receipts.

It was adopted by a 255-to-144 vote.

But Giaimo, after warning members of the kinds of cuts they were making in such categories as defense, health and education, asked for another vote. However, he failed 212 to 128 to turn the action around. After that failure he pleaded for passage of the bill.

Fisher called a vote for his amendment, "a vote for a significant reduction to signal to the authorizing and appropriating committees . . . we should keep the pressure on for tightening up on programs."

Up until passage of Fisherhs amendment, which came just an hour before the final vote, the House appeared to be rejected all attempts to cut or increase the budget and appeared to be sticking with the Budget Committee's proposal despite a marathon session that lasted nine nine days and saw more than 50 amendments offered.

For instance, the House had last week rejected an amendment by Reps. Margorie Holt (R-Md.) and Ralph Regula (R-Ohio) that would have brought only a slight lower deficit figure of $18.7 billion.

Analysts explained the House's action as conservative Democrats dividing their votes among various Republican attempts to cut the budget, but finally coalesing around a Democratic attempt. The result was to keep credit for lowering the deficit and spending within the Democratic Party and deprive the Republicans of being able to claim that they wrote the budget.

"Democrats are coming together more than normal," Giaimo said before the final action.

Before adopting the Fisher amendment, the House had refused several attempts to increase spending for both defense and social programs, making it appear the committee's resolution might pass.

During debate yesterday the House rejected an attempt by Rep. Charles Bennett (D-Md.) to raise federal and military pay raise ceilings from 5.5 percent to 7 percent, an action that would increase spending and outlays by $200 million, according to Barnes.

Barnes argued that federal workers were being made a scapegoat in the fight against inflation whilw members were allowed to exceed the president's 7 percent wage increase guideline.

Analysts explained the House's action as conservative Democrats dividing their votes among various Republican attempts to cut the budget, but finally coalesing around a Democratic attempt. The result was o keep credit for lowering the deficit and spending within the Democratic Party and deprive the Republicans of being able to claim that they wrote the budget.

"Democrats are coming together more than normal," Giaimo said before the final action.

Before adopting the Fisher amendment, the House had refused several attempts to increase spending for both defense and social programs, making it appear the committee's resolution might pass.

During debate yesterday the House rejected an attempt by Rep. Charles Bennett (D-Fla.) to increase defense authority by $1.7 billion and outlays for defense by $59 million. The vote was 209 to 188.

The House also rejected an attempt by Rep. Michael Barnes (D-Md.) to raise federal and military pay raise ceilings from 5.5 percent to 7 percent, an action that would increase spending and outlays by $200 million, according to Barnes.

Barnes argued that federal workers were being made a scapegoat in the fight against inflation while members of the Teamsters union and others were allowed to exceed the president's 7 percent wage increase guideline.

Giaimo said Barnes' amendment would actually add $853 million to the budget and said "if we want to surrender to the pressures of inflation right now, then vote for this amendment." Federal employes were not being mistreated, he contended.

The House rejected the amendment by a voice vote.

The House also turned down, 222-to-179, an amendment by Rep. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) to add money to a program to provide aid so low-income, elderly and handicapped persons can pay their fuel bills. The amendment would have increased budget authority by $210 million and outlays by $164 million.

It defeated an amendmant to increase money for mass transit by $132 million, an amendment its author, Rep. Hamilton Fish (R-N.Y.), said should be added because of the shortage of gas and the new energy crisis.

And it turned down an attempt by Rep. Andrew Jacobs (D-Ind.) to cut $400 million in outlays from water project funding, a cut that would amount to about 10 percent of the money for water projects. The vote was 45-to-14.

Giaimo said yesterday the debate had dragged on because members wanted to protect their pet programs from being cut in the appropriations process and were trying to offer amendments to the budget as a message to the Appropriations Committee that the House endorsed their projects.

The Budget Committee cuts into item reductions.

Giaimo said he was disurbed that the budget process, supposed to deal in macroeconomic figures, had turned into a microeconomic process. He said he had asked the Rules Committee to look into what could be done aboutit.