Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is sounding increasingly alarmist about cuts to the military budget. For example:
He went even further on Thursday, using arguably the strongest rhetorical weapon in his arsenal. Mandatory defense cuts, he warned, would weaken the armed forces to the point that enemies would be emboldened to attack the U.S.
“In effect, it invites aggression," Panetta said during the new conference, just his second since taking office in July.
Pretty stark stuff. One has to make assumptions about what Panetta means when he means that the armed forces would be weakened by cuts. Does he mean that troops would not have ammunition? Does he mean there would be no fuel for armored vehicles? Does he mean that the United States will lose advantages in weapons technology or advanced research? I suppose he would say all of it. Logically, one has to assume that he means cuts in military pay or military benefits would hurt recruiting and retention, a necessary THE necessary component of any fighting force.
Considering Panetta's dire rhetoric about cuts, it is surprising to learn things like this:
In what he described as the most sensitive of the potential cuts facing an all-volunteer force, Mr. Panetta said the Pentagon was considering raising fees for the military’s health insurance program, Tricare.
Or this:
The Marine Corps announced Tuesday it has slashed tuition assistance by 80 percent for servicemembers who take classes on their off-duty time.
The change went into effect immediately and reduces the maximum education assistance available from the Department of Defense standard of $4,500 per year to just $875 per year for Marines — about enough to cover two university courses, according to a service-wide bulletin.
And this:
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday that overhauling the military's retirement benefits system is "the kind of thing you have to consider."
Check: "Cutting the military" is something that will make us vulnerable to attack, but cutting health and pension benefits for the people who actually do the work is "the kind of thing you have to consider."
To be sure, the Obama Administration has a pretty good record with respect looking after veterans. The President has signed numerous measures into law for veterans. He has been an advocate for wounded warriors and has appointed a Secretary for Veterans Affairs who has been very dedicated to the job and is doing good work, possibly the best to every serve in the position. He has taken some action on the crisis of unemployment among veterans. And he has been uniformly presidential in his rhetoric, even yesterday:
As Commander-in-Chief, I want every veteran to know that America will always honor your service and your sacrifice – not just today, but every day. And just as you fought for us, we’re going to keep fighting for you – for more jobs, for more security, for the opportunity to keep your families strong and America competitive in the 21st century.
So then why all the talk coming from the Pentagon about cutting benefits? Either the Pentagon civilians are going out of their way to undermine the President's words, or we are getting double-talk from the White House. Especially when things like this are attested to:
Mr. Panetta said he had met regularly at the White House with President Obama about the reductions to Pentagon spending. He described the president as closely involved and said Mr. Obama had met recently with the four armed services chiefs to discuss budget and strategy issues.
Let's get down to brass tacks: either the President is committed to protecting veterans and seeing to it that their families are strong, or he isn't. There isn't any middle ground here. Not to those who have done their duty, sometimes giving the last full measure. Either the Administration is going to cut benefits, or it isn't. It is time to make it plain.
There are significant political advantages to making it plain, too. Make no mistake, veterans groups across the country are well aware that the Administration and Congress are, unbelievable as it may seem, contemplating cutting benefits right when veterans are going to need them most. It seems like political malpractice to allow a consistent wave of stories about benefits cuts to keep landing and causing massive public backlashes. Like the one that quickly caused the Marine Corps to quickly cancel the massive cuts in tuition assistance. The first person running for office in 2012 who says that there will be no cuts to veterans benefits is going to lock in a lot of votes from voters whom other voters look up to.
One can only imagine the massive political upheaval that would take place once the Administration actually announces cuts in veterans benefits. The public's grass is bone dry right now. Starting a bonfire in the middle of if is probably not smart politics.
It is time for the President to match his actions to his rhetoric and put a stop to any consideration whatsoever of cutting veterans benefits. He doesn't need any approvals from Congress to do that. One speech in the Rose Garden and a memo to Panetta should take care of it. With all the things the Pentagon spends money on to defend America and project power abroad, the one thing I believe all Americans agree on is that servicemember benefits should remain sacrosanct.