Democrats Vow to Fight Military Jobs Cut

Senate Democratic leaders, anxious to demonstrate their commitment to a strong national defense, vowed Sunday to defeat a proposal to cut 175,000 U.S. military jobs being advocated by the Senate’s Republican leadership.

Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio), one of 37 Democratic senators attending a weekend retreat here to discuss the future of their party, said Democrats are strongly opposed to the proposal to trim military manpower in fiscal 1986, which was approved last week by a GOP-controlled Senate Armed Services subcommittee. He added that the Democrats’ position on the issue disproves those critics who contend that the party is weak on defense.

“It was the Democrats that wanted a stronger approach to manpower,” he said. “We’re the ones who are coming out with a stronger posture on national defense than the Republicans are.”

Proposed by Rudman

The manpower cutback, proposed by Sen. Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.), was adopted by the subcommittee on military manpower last Thursday in closed session as part of a plan to freeze defense spending. The subcommittee’s five Republicans voted in favor of it; the four Democrats opposed it. The matter now goes to the full Senate Armed Services Committee for consideration.

Like the Democrats, Pentagon officials have expressed strong opposition to the proposed manpower cutback. President Reagan is also expected to side with the Democrats.

Glenn, who led the opposition in the subcommittee, described Rudman’s proposal as a “meat-ax approach” that would trim 10% across the board without regard to the numbers of personnel needed to perform such crucial functions as intelligence or communications. “You can’t just go whacking 10% off of this and 10% off of that,” he said.

“If we are going to try this out, rather than try it out on something as critical as Defense, let’s try it out on Agriculture, Interior or Commerce. Let’s lop off 10% and see what it does to their efficiency.”

Predicts Proposal’s Defeat

Glenn predicted Rudman’s proposal would be defeated on the Senate floor, if not in the full committee. “We’re going to fight it on the floor,” he said, adding that he would advocate a smaller manpower cutback--if necessary--to defeat Rudman’s plan.

Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), also a member of the subcommittee, said a manpower cutback is unnecessary to achieve a freeze in defense spending in 1986. He predicted that critics of defense cuts will seize upon the idea as proof the Pentagon budget cannot be cut without endangering national defense.

In response, a spokesman for Rudman said manpower cutbacks are necessary to trim defense spending because 50% of the Defense Department budget goes to personnel costs. He said the proposal would save an estimated $21 billion over three years.

“We’re willing to work with people to meet their concerns,” said Rudman’s spokesman, Bob Stevenson, in a telephone interview. “There’s nothing magic about 10%--it could come down to 9% or 8%.”

No Party Position

Senate Democrats have not taken a party position on defense cuts sought by Republicans. Glenn, who favors cutting the growth in defense spending to 3% after inflation, noted that some Democrats want to freeze defense spending. Reagan has requested a 5.9% increase after inflation, but Republican leaders of the Senate are trying to trim the figure.

Throughout the weekend, many senators said that, in order for their party to recapture control of the Senate in 1986 and the White House in 1988, the Democrats must let people know they are not “soft” on defense matters.

“That’s one of the things that came out of the last campaign that’s the most unfair--that somehow we are less concerned about defense and the security of this country than anyone else,” said Glenn, a former astronaut who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984. “That’s preposterous.”