Military Pension Costs Defended : Stockman’s Comments Start War of Words

Budget Director David A. Stockman, who accused military officers Tuesday of caring more for their pensions than the nation’s security, was the target Wednesday in a war of words --denounced by the Pentagon, retired military officers and some members of Congress but defended by Republican leaders in the House and Senate.

The White House was studiously neutral in the imbroglio as spokesman Larry Speakes declared that “the President is deeply appreciative” of the members of the military. But Speakes sidestepped reporters’ invitations to criticize Stockman. “Try as you might, you will not get a comment,” Speakes said.

Stockman touched off the uproar at a Senate Budget Committee hearing when he called the proposed outlay of $17.8 billion in fiscal 1986 for military pensions a “scandal” and an “outrage.” The military, Stockman charged, “if push comes to shove . . . will give up on (national) security before they give up on retirement.”

Furious, Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger fired back Wednesday, saying that the contributions to the nation by military personnel “over many years of service should not be defamed.” The retirement system is “fair but by no means lavish,” Weinberger said in a statement, noting that the 1986 budget would skip the annual cost-of-living increases for military retirees.

“Military people spend long periods of time away from home, lose money every time that they move, must send their children to many different schools, must serve in isolated posts without their families and very often must risk, or give, their lives for their country,” Weinberger noted.

The 240,000-member Retired Officers Assn., which includes members of all branches of service, demanded Stockman’s resignation. The budget director “insulted all military professionals, active and retired,” said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Leroy J. Manor, executive vice president of the group.

Blunt-speaking Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Stockman’s remarks were “about as distasteful as anything I’ve heard from any Administration official since I’ve been in Washington.”

‘Surely He Didn’t Mean It’

Similarly, Rep. Charles E. Bennett (D-Fla.), a decorated veteran of World War II, called the budget director’s statements “reprehensible. Surely he didn’t mean it.”

But Stockman received strong backing from two men who will play key roles in the drive to reduce federal spending, Senate Majority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) and House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.).

If Stockman “needs support, I’m happy to support him,” Dole told reporters. “I don’t envy David Stockman’s position, but I think he has to take the varnish off.”

Backing Stockman

Michel, meanwhile, said he is “not shying away” from his previous endorsement of Stockman. The budget director has “the toughest job in government today. . . . There’s no better person for the figures over these last four years than Dave Stockman,” he said.

The outspoken budget director told the Senate committee Tuesday that his caustic remarks about military pensions reflected personal opinion rather than the official view of President Reagan. In public and in private, Stockman has expressed increasing frustration about the difficulties of cutting the massive federal budget, even during a period of dangerously large deficits.

Wednesday night, budget office spokesman Edwin Dale issued a “clarification” in which he said Stockman had not intended to “impugn the patriotism or devotion of our men and women in uniform.” Rather, Dale said, Stockman was expressing personal frustration with bureaucratic resistance--not peculiar to the Department of Defense--to reform.”

Military personnel can retire at half pay after 20 years. With additional service, they can earn a pension of up to 75% of their total base salary.

Using much more diplomatic language than Stockman, Rudolph Penner, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, expressed a similar sense of frustration Wednesday. But rather than attack a specific program, Penner implored the Senate Budget Committee to chop spending whenever possible. Time and again during the 2 1/2-hour hearing, Penner declared: “Every little bit helps. . . .”

$215-Billion Deficit

The budget deficit will hit $215 billion during fiscal 1986, which begins Oct. 1, if no changes are made in current spending policies, Penner said. Reagan has proposed a budget including major cuts in domestic spending programs that would yield a deficit of $180 billion for the year.

Penner noted that the fastest-growing category of federal spending is the interest paid on money borrowed by the Treasury to finance the gap between revenues and outlays.

Interest costs on the national debt will jump by $25 billion in 1986, said Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), who advocates a spending freeze and tax increase to cut the deficit by $50 billion.

The surge in payments for interest means “we’re launching a $25-billion new spending program for nothing each year,” Hollings said. “We could be spending (this money) for cancer research, for roads, bridges and everything else.”