Balancing the budget on the backs of veterans

I was in the room, back in August, 2010 when the president told the American Legion Convention in Minneapolis that he wasn’t going to balance the national budget on the backs of the military and veterans. Well, at that very moment, his Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta was planning exactly that. By that time, retirees had already seen two years with no Cost of Living Allowance increases despite the rocketing costs of gasoline and food. Last year, DoD tried to ram through increases in premiums for the military healthcare system, which were blocked in Congress. I’ll remind you that those increases were being shepherded by the Administration despite the fact taht there was a $770 million surplus in Tricare – which DoD promptly raided. Now it seems that the Administration is once again trying to fore go their committment to veterans as well as the active duty force according to the Army Times;

The Pentagon again is seeking increases in Tricare fees with a revamped and more expansive proposal that would touch all beneficiaries but would fall hardest on working-age retirees under 65.

For Medicare-eligible retirees in the Tricare for Life program, the budget proposes an annual enrollment fee based on a percentage of retired pay. For 2014, the fee would be capped at $150 for family coverage for most retirees and $200 for retired flag and general officers.

And, oh, by the way, they capped pay increases for the active force at 1% – about half of what Congress had proposed. And they’re looking for more base realignment – while I agree that there are probably things they could do to save money, at some point, to keep hacking away at the Defense Department has to begin affecting national security – and hacking away at bases will have that exact effect.

And if you think that the Chiefs of Staff are going to pull our fat from the fire, think again;

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said the budget proposal “lowers manpower costs, reduces excess infrastructure, and makes healthcare more sustainable.”

“Most importantly, it protects investment in our most decisive advantage — our people,” he said. “It treats being the best led, trained, and equipped military as a non-negotiable imperative.”

I wonder how the reporters heard Dempsey when he, obviously, was under the President’s desk in the Oval Office.

While I understand that the budget needs to be trimmed, manpower costs and legacy costs are not the place to do the cutting – since that will affect future abilities of the government to attract a volunteer force. But, then that’s probably what they’re shooting for – a seriously weakened defense structure – regardless of the fact that national defense is one of the things that the Constitution says that government does, not all of that other meaningless bullshit that isn’t on the chopping block.

Thanks to Chief tango for the link.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Big Army, Military issues