I'm a little rusty on American politics, but I thought Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the executive branch, thus the budget. So why are military retirees being blamed for the explosion in the Pentagon budget?
Link: The New York Times: A New Call to Arms: Military Health Care.
Like corporate America, squeezed by the growing costs of health plans and pensions for graying workers, and like the rest of the American government, cringing at the coming Social Security and Medicare bills for aging baby boomers, the military is recoiling at the costs of keeping promises to its people.
Tricare for Life is one of a long list of assurances, like prescription drug benefits for the elderly, that Washington is making to American citizens at a rate of more than $1 trillion a month. The government's unpaid-for promises grew by more than $13 trillion last year, a sum larger than the nation's 2004 economic output, and they now surpass $43 trillion, said David A. Walker, comptroller general of the United States. Last year "was arguably the worst year in our fiscal history," said Mr. Walker, who runs the Government Accountability Office, the budget watchdog of Congress. "It seems clear that the nation's current fiscal path is unsustainable."
Shorter Mr. Walker: "Our account is overdrawn, thanks to old geezers who once fought for our country."
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is "very concerned with the growth" of new benefits and entitlements "that accrue principally to those who've left service, especially the retired community," said David S. C. Chu, the under secretary of defense for personnel. "The nation adopted them for good reason, but they are causing a significant cost issue for future defense budgets."
Longer Donald Rumsfeld: "It's those pesky military retirees who insist on the government keeping the promises it made to them when they signed up to serve their country, even when they're no longer serving! Whoever heard of such nonsense!"
There's a horrible dilemma here," Mr. Wheeler said in an interview. "As the top line for the Pentagon slows down, the defense health program will start to consume the rest of the defense budget. And every time the Pentagon tries to slow its growth or cut its cost or talk about co-payments, M.O.A.A. goes bananas, and Congress slaps the Pentagon's hands away and increases the benefits. What we have is a retired-military and veterans' community conspiring with Congress to morph the defense budget."
Shorter Mr. Wheeler: "Next thing you know, those whiney soldier-types will insist on having their vehicles armored!"
What I want to know is, why is this presented as a choice between the needs of the active duty, versus the promises made to retirees? Why is it military contractors like Halliburton (also included in the morphing Pentagon budget) can afford to pay their employees retirement health benefits, as well as executive pay packages worth millions, but men and women who've risked their lives have to compete with their active duty sons and daughters for health care benefits?
I guess they just haven't realized the real purpose of the defense budget is to line the pockets of defense contractors and their stockholders, who would "go bananas" if their favorite weapon system were cut.
And in other news, recruitment levels are down. But I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the Pentagon's pants are on fire.
