- Gentlemen, start your drones: Judge’s ruling opens door for commercial use
- Soldier who hid, bragged about not saluting flag to be punished — in secret
- ‘Maverick’ of the seas: ‘Top Gun’ school for U.S. ship officers to launch
- Putin declares Sochi Paralympics open amid Ukrainian protest
- ‘In Jesus name, we pray’ sparks ire at Ohio council meeting
- Navy’s first laser weapon ready for prime time; drone killer to deploy this summer
- Billionaire backer: Rick Santorum ‘needs to be heard’ in 2016
- Obamacare fallout: 49 percent pessimistic; 45 percent ‘scared’
- DHS accused of holding U.S. citizen at airport, using emails to pry into her sex life
- Seattle socialist: Minimum-wage discussion skewed by ‘right-wing’ GAO analysis
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Upping TRICARE cost adds insult to injury
Combat operations in Iraq may have concluded and the effort in Afghanistan may be on a politically driven timeline to completion, but American service members now find themselves fighting off a new attack - one from their own government.
TRICARE, the military’s medical program, is in the cross hairs of the Department of Defense. Citing proposed cuts as “a tough and challenging responsibility,” Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta recommended to the House Budget Committee a TRICARE fee increase of upward of 345 percent. Let’s talk numbers.
In 2010 the Defense Health Program (DHP), of which TRICARE is a component, cost taxpayers a total of $48 billion. Out of a 2010 federal budget of $3.5 trillion, DHP therefore accounted for a mere 1.4 percent. And yet since 2009, the Obama administration’s funding for welfare has ballooned to more than $430 billion, a 49 percent increase. Perhaps Mr. Panetta should harken back to those heady days when he served as President Clinton’s chief of staff. Surely he remembers that Mr. Clinton, forced into pragmatism by a Republican Congress, instituted the most sweeping reforms to welfare in the nation’s history, resulting in an astonishing drop in those living off the largesse of others.
Armed with those data, Mr. Panetta could actually take a stand on behalf of those whom he was appointed to lead. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “I think … we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.” When a nation looks back over the past decade, there has been no greater display of industriousness than the labors of our service members - many of whom sacrificed all on Lincoln’s “altar of freedom.”
So it comes down to this: Why not reduce funding to those who have contributed nothing in order to sustain those who have contributed much? Unfortunately, given this administration’s ideology, I think I know the answer.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
TWT Video Picks
Taxpayers must pay the freight for over-budget train projects
Get Breaking Alerts
- CPAC 2014: Rand Paul urges conservatives to fight for liberty
- Putin has transformed Russian army into a lean, mean fighting machine
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Soldier who hid to avoid saluting the flag to be punished in secret; Army won't release details
- EDITORIAL: Connecticut revolts against gun controls that could criminalize 300,000
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
- High schooler suing parents for money shot down by judge
- MILLER: Donald Trump says hes a Tea Party member
- Couple from Ethiopia begin new life in Dubuque
Recent Letters to the Editor
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Time for feckless president to show resolve
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Obama reserves 'Chicago way' for GOP
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Public education would wither in free market
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Turkey not committed to Cyprus peace
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Spoiled-kid culture creates greedy adults