Clinton Faces Dilemma on Base Closings in State : Politics: President could lose California in 1996 reelection race if he shuts the facilities. But he could be branded an opportunist if he keeps them open, aides say.

Aides to President Clinton are urging him to reject the findings of a federal base-closing commission over fears that the planned closures in California could play havoc with his reelection strategy.

White House advisers are debating how best to deal with the panel’s recommendations, which sparked outrage last week over the recommended closure of McClellan Air Force Base, Long Beach Naval Shipyard and other military installations in the state.

With California as a key battleground in the upcoming presidential campaign, letting the closures go forward could be politically disastrous, according to a high-level Clinton aide.

But the situation poses a dilemma for the President: If he moves to lessen the blow to California, he will be branded a political opportunist; if he does nothing, he risks losing a state whose 54 electoral votes are essential to his retaining the White House.

“The President is concerned about some of the recommendations that the base-closing commission made,” White House spokesman Mike McCurry said Monday.

If the base-closure recommendations are approved, they would translate into 18,000 lost jobs in California, a state already hit hard by defense cuts. California accounted for 88,000 of the 150,000 jobs lost nationwide because of base closings in the past seven years, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, a GOP presidential hopeful, said over the weekend that he would be “shocked if, for political reasons going into this election,” Clinton rejected the list.

“I think it is irresponsible to not go forward with the process, and I don’t have any doubt in my mind the President’s going to go forward with it. I just don’t think he has any choice,” Gramm said.

Clinton also faces a budget problem. The base-closing process is designed to eliminate excess defense infrastructure that is draining funds that the U.S. military would rather spend on personnel and training.

Most of the interest is focused on the sprawling McClellan base, the largest California base targeted for closure and the target of the most controversial action taken by the commission last week.

The Air Force wanted to keep McClellan open, but the commission rejected its recommendation and voted 6 to 2 to shut it.

McClellan supporters cite the economic impact that the proposed closure would have on the Sacramento region. About 14,000 jobs are at stake, and the area has been hit hard in previous base closings.

Clinton said last week that he will rely heavily on the recommendation of Defense Secretary William J. Perry before making up his mind on the base closures.

White House political aides are hoping for more than that. If the Pentagon develops a strong argument to spare McClellan, Clinton would be able to present his case as a military necessity.

Perry on Monday expressed alarm over some of the commission’s actions.

“I’m concerned about the significant number of changes made by the base-closing commission relative to the recommendations that we made,” Perry said. “We’ll be performing the sort of cost-benefit analysis on their recommendations that we made on our own. I’ll make a recommendation to the President. . . . I would not want to forecast what decision he is likely to make.”

Perry himself remains undecided, according to aides, and will await the findings of the Department of Defense review.

White House aides and Pentagon experts downplay the possibility that Clinton will reject the entire set of recommendations. The more likely path would be to send the report back to the commission with recommendations for limited but specific changes--resurrecting McClellan, for example.

But the commission, the reasoning goes, would be unlikely to bow to presidential demands, unless confronted with new information.

“I would be very surprised--unless there’s new and convincing evidence--that the commission would change any of those recommendations,” said Paul Taibl, an economist with Business Executives for National Security, a Washington think tank specializing in defense matters.

More likely, Taibl said, is a politically significant gesture.

“Clinton could send the report back to indicate his displeasure with the list,” Taibl said. “When it comes back to him again [unchanged], he resigns himself to the fact that the process is working, he did what he had to do, and then he sends it on to Congress.

“The overriding point is the whole defense program is predicated on reducing infrastructure and getting some savings out of these base closures,” Taibl said. “The President’s own budget is based on savings from closed bases. Derailing the whole process at this point would fly in the face of logic.”

The commission is still compiling its official report on the 138 actions that it took during two days of deliberations last week and hopes to deliver it to the White House on Friday. Under law, Clinton has until July 15 to accept or reject the recommendations or send them back to the commission with specific objections.

Since the 1990 base-closing law was enacted, no recommendation of the commission has been rejected or sent back.

Gov. Pete Wilson has criticized the commission’s findings, and Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Feinstein have urged the President to throw out the panel’s work entirely. Rep. Vic Fazio (D-West Sacramento), whose district includes the threatened Air Force base, wants Clinton to send the report back and ask the commission to redraft it without the McClellan closure recommendation.

The California senators and members of the Sacramento-area House delegation in Congress are seeking a private meeting with Clinton to make their case that the state has been affected disproportionately by the base-closing process.