Support the troops? Honor our veterans? No so much for today's
austerity warriors.
Determined to avoid spending reductions that would hit troop numbers, aircraft, ships and weapons, Levin, McCain and other lawmakers are urging budget-cutters to scrutinize the military entitlement programs.
Putting defense contractor welfare above personnel, Congress and the Defense Department are doubling down on the Simpson-Bowles recommendations for catfood for veterans.
Republicans and Democrats alike are signaling a willingness — unheard of at the height of two post-Sept. 11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — to make military retirees pay more for coverage. It's a reflection of Washington's newfound embrace of fiscal austerity and the Pentagon's push to cut health care costs that have skyrocketed from $19 billion in 2001 to $53 billion.
The numbers are daunting for a military focused on building and arming an all-volunteer force for war. The Pentagon is providing health care coverage for 3.3 million active duty personnel and their dependents and 5.5 million retirees, eligible dependents and surviving spouses. Retirees outnumber the active duty, 2.3 million to 1.4 million. [...]
The debt accord reached this past summer between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans set in motion some $450 billion worth of cuts in projected defense spending over 10 years. It's a reality check for the Defense Department, whose budget has nearly doubled to some $700 billion in the 10 years since the Sept. 11 terror attack.
That amount doesn't include the trillion-plus spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The very least that this nation could do, particularly for those veterans who served in the war of choice in Iraq that has helped to bankrupt this country, morally as well as fiscally, is make their health care affordable for the rest of their lives. Instead, as is now in vogue for lawmakers, they want to shift the costs out of government and on to the people who can often least afford it.