House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) yesterday indirectly accused President Reagan of placing "arbitrary restraints" on his budget negotiators as deficit reduction talks between the Reagan administration and congressional leaders appeared to have bogged down.

White House negotiators are insisting that Congress agree to deeper cuts in domestic spending and smaller tax increases and defense spending reductions than Capitol Hill is prepared to accept to cut the deficit by the $23 billion both sides have set as a goal.

"Until there's more leeway {within the administration} the talks are not going to get anywhere," said one person familiar with the closed-door negotiations. "They're not going to break down, but they're not going to go anywhere."

During a session that lasted only about an hour yesterday, senior administration officials told congressional negotiators that the president is willing to accept about $8 billion in additional taxes and user fees and is asking that the bulk of the remaining $15 billion in deficit reduction come from domestic spending cuts. The president is unwilling to accept much more than a $3.5 billion cut in defense spending, sources close to the talks said.

The president might agree to tax increases above $8 billion, but only if they are matched dollar-for-dollar by domestic, not defense, spending cuts.

The White House bargaining position, firmed up in a meeting between the president and his negotiators yesterday morning, runs counter to what congressional leaders felt was an understanding that the $23 billion in deficit reduction would be achieved by equal amounts of higher taxes and spending cuts.

Speaker Wright said yesterday, "My feeling is there still must be a demonstration of good faith by the administration." He said the White House negotiating team "must be free to consider everything on the table uninhibited by arbitrary restraints." White House chief of staff Howard H. Baker Jr., Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III and budget director James C. Miller III represent the administration in the talks.

"It is vital," continued Wright, "that if the administration sends up its representatives purporting to be free to talk and negotiate with everything on the table except Social Security, then they have to be free to consider suggestions that are made and not arbitrarily banish them as beyond the scope of the negotiations."

In kicking off the talks that began last week, Reagan said he was willing to lay "everything on the table" except Social Security cuts.

An administration official said yesterday that there are differences of opinion over a number of issues in the talks, including what is defined as revenue in the 50-50 split, and how savings in defense spending authority translate into actual outlay savings in a given year.

But the major problem, according to the administration official, is coming up with needed savings in entitlement programs because the White House wants to protect defense spending and Capitol Hill wants to shield discretionary domestic spending.

"If they want real taxes, there has got to be real entitlement savings," said the official. Entitlement programs automatically confer benefits to recipients who meet tests under the law. Entitlement programs include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and farm subsidies. In discretionary spending, Congress has to appropriate on an annual basis.

A report yesterday in The Washington Post that negotiators had discussed a possible 2 percentage-point cap on annual cost-of-living increases for Social Security and other retirement programs, plus changing the indexation of individual income taxes, has apparently hampered the search for significant entitlement savings among negotiators.

Disclosure of the discussion of what is called the "2 percent solution," said the administration official, probably eliminates "forever" any chance of reducing Social Security cost-of-living increases.

Congressional leaders involved in the negotiations were equally skittish about the talk of Social Security curbs, long considered a political unmentionable.

Though Wright said he is "not ruling out anything," he made it clear that any discussion of Social Security would have to come from the president.

White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater, meanwhile, reiterated the president's position "that Social Security is not one of those programs that we should be tampering with." Fitzwater said Social Security "is not on the table."

House Majority Leader Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), disputing the Post report, said Social Security cost-of-living reductions have "not been the subject of a proposal for deficit reductions."

Other lawmakers conceded, however, that the subject had come up for discussion, though was not part of any formal offer.

"You can't avoid having some words escape from your lips," said Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.), adding that "everything gets discussed."

Johnston said Social Security is such a politically troublesome issue for elected officials that the only way cuts in the program could become part of a deficit reduction package is if it is agreed to "by acclamation," rather than by roll call vote.

Asked whether he supports the idea, Johnston said: "I would be strongly against it unless it is in the national interest."