330,000 Troops May Be Cut in Budget Trims, Pentagon Warns

The Defense Department will be forced to trim 330,000 troops from the armed services unless Congress retreats from an order to reduce the military payroll, Pentagon officials warned Thursday.

Faced with a congressionally imposed May 1 deadline to trim $2.9 billion from the Pentagon budget account devoted to pay for active-duty troops, reserves and retirees, the Defense Department has submitted two plans that would shave the retirement benefits given to future volunteers.

But it has said it approves of neither proposal and is instead suggesting that it would have to fire troops on active and reserve duty. There are 2.1 million active-duty troops and another 850,000 on reserve.

‘Devastating Effect’

Chapman B. Cox, assistant defense secretary for force management and personnel, said in testimony before a House Armed Services subcommittee that the active-duty troop cuts, along with a reduction of 176,000 reserves, would “have an immediate and devastating effect on readiness.”

Under one plan submitted by the Pentagon, the average pay given to retirees after 20 years of active duty would be reduced from 50% of active-duty salary to 43%. A second plan would make similar cuts and trim cost-of-living increases. Neither plan, which the Pentagon contends would shave 16% from retirement pay of future military personnel, would have any impact on current retirees or troops now on active or reserve duty.

“We don’t think any of the alternatives are appropriate because they don’t take into account the impact on readiness, and we didn’t endorse any of the alternatives,” Pentagon spokesman Robert B. Sims said.

Specific Directions

Predicting a solution before May 1, a House source, speaking on the condition that he not be named, said that Congress would enact legislation by May 1 with specific directions to the Pentagon on how to trim the $2.9 billion, “so nothing is going to happen” to troop levels.

Referring to the deadline given to the Pentagon to make the reduction, the source said: “We put this Damoclean sword hanging over their head so they couldn’t stonewall or so the President couldn’t veto the legislation.”

Cox told the House subcommittee on military personnel and compensation that the Pentagon submitted the retirement pay options “only to comply” with the congressional mandate. “We remain vitally concerned about the negative effect a 16% reduction in military retirement would have on the long-term viability of our career forces,” he said.

“Even though the changes are prospective only and current personnel are grandfathered, there is evidence of concern among the current force that current benefits are not guaranteed from erosion,” he said. “This perception could result in near-term downturns in retention” of troops.

‘Means Firing People’

Sims acknowledged that, if the reduction in troops is carried out, attrition would help meet the goal.