THE PRESIDENT’S SPENDING PLAN : Democrats Quick to Lambaste Proposal as Relic of Cold War : Reaction: Lawmakers promise to make large cuts in defense spending plan. Their response is a sign of a lengthy battle.

Leading Democrats on Monday scorned President Bush’s budget as a Cold War relic that ignored historic changes in Eastern Europe. They pledged to make sizable cuts in defense spending while resisting his planned cutbacks in Medicare and other social programs.

“The Cold War specter that no longer haunts Europe still haunts the Bush budget,” said Sen. Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.), who contended military spending would grow by $11.6 billion under the President’s proposal.

Sasser, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, urged the President to make an instant revision in the budget or face political “gridlock” with the Democratic-controlled Congress this election year.

“There’s a real chance of a stalemate,” agreed Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), ranking Republican on the Senate budget panel. He urged Bush and the Democrats to join in a compromise plan once the initial partisan rhetoric has cooled.

Domenici, however, said Bush’s proposal deserved serious consideration, adding: “It’s not child’s play--it’s tough.”

Sees Missed Chance

Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Carmel Valley), chairman of the House Budget Committee, disagreed, saying the President had missed his first chance to give bold leadership and make tough choices on defense, mandatory benefits and taxes.

“It’s another slide-by budget. We’ve started off on the wrong foot,” Panetta declared.

Bush’s remedy for the nation’s ills, he said, is like a doctor who tells a terminally ill cancer patient: “Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.”

The sharp criticism by Democrats signaled a yearlong budget battle. It contrasts with the previous two years, when top-level accords on spending and revenue sharply reduced partisan combat between Capitol Hill and the White House.

While the President was assailed for proposals to reduce Medicare outlays to hospitals and doctors by $5.5 billion and raise monthly premiums for doctor bills under Part B of the program, most of the congressional reaction focused on the $306-billion defense budget.

“If there’s going to be a ‘peace dividend’ that amounts to anything, this Congress is going to have to carve it out,” Sasser said.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) agreed, saying: “It is a Rip Van Winkle budget that has not yet awakened to the changes in the world or the major challenges at home.”

Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), a senior member of the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee, estimated that Congress would make cuts of $5 billion or $6 billion in the Pentagon’s funds.

While Republicans generally supported Bush on the level of Pentagon outlays, a few complained that he failed to take bold, realistic steps to reduce the massive federal deficit and faced certain defeat on about half of his proposed cutbacks on domestic programs.

“This is a charade,” Sen. Mark O. Hatfield (R-Ore.) said of the budget process. “It is filled with smoke, imagery and hypocrisy. . . . The important thing that is lacking in this process is guts. We’ve got to quit playing diddly-do with the deficit.”

Conservative Support

More conservative Republicans, however, backed the President’s proposed Pentagon budget.

“We cannot let dramatic changes in Europe completely turn upside down our defense planning,” said Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), ranking GOP member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

House Republican leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.) added: “I’m not ready to cut the guts out of defense until I see what’s going on at Geneva” negotiations with the Soviet Union on arms control and troop reductions in Europe.

Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) agreed, saying: “We need to understand the dividend will be peace, not money.”

But Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) termed it a “military business-as-usual” defense budget that increased spending for the Strategic Defense Initiative and mobile nuclear missiles and earmarked $5.5 billion for five B-2 Stealth bombers.

“I believe we can cut the military budget in half by the year 2000, said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). “If we spent half of that ‘peace dividend’ on the deficit and the remaining half on urgent domestic needs, we would still reduce the federal deficit by $75 billion.”

Cautious Approach

A more cautious approach was taken by Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who said Congress would be more likely to go along with the defense budget if the Bush Administration justifies its military strategy for the next five years in light of the events in Eastern Europe.

On a major domestic issue, Medicare funding, Bush’s plan was attacked by Rep. Edward R. Roybal (D-Los Angeles), who charged that it would cut the program and increase premiums for elderly participants by $51.7 billion over the next five years.

Roybal, chairman of the House Select Committee on Aging, said Bush’s proposal would raise monthly payments for doctor bills under Part B of Medicare by as much as $20 a month by 1995, or about $15 a month more than they are scheduled to increase under current law.

On other health issues, the President’s proposals for care of persons with mental disorders or problems of alcohol or substance abuse were criticized for “shocking inadequacy” by the National Health Liaison Group.

Bush’s plan to allocate $1.75 billion for dealing with AIDS was rejected as “unacceptable and woefully insufficient” by National Organizations Responding to AIDS (NORA), which said $3 billion was needed to meet needs for prevention, care and research in the coming fiscal year.