- Michigan man among first in U.S. to get ‘bionic eye’
- JetBlue pilots vote to unionize; 2 previous attempts failed
- Pentagon plans to replace flight crews with ‘full-time’ robots
- Navy’s military dolphins may meet Putin’s porpoises in Black Sea
- Forget the Porsche — it’s the guy with the Prius that attracts the ladies, poll shows
- Fired Russian Facebook CEO says site has fallen in the hands of pro-Putin supporters
- Sen. Boozman of Arkansas has emergency heart surgery
- Brazil embraces drones to save the Amazon rain forest
- Teen stowaway shows holes in vast airport security
- Supreme Court to decide if passports can say ‘Jerusalem, Israel’
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
Feds who send arms against ranch families betray American values
Get Breaking Alerts
- CARSON: When government looks more like foe than friend
- Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy hailed as patriot, renegade
- Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear
- IRS revokes conservative group's tax-exempt status over anti-Clinton statements: report
- America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds
- ORTEL: Putin sees opportunities as Obama turns away
- Inside China: Marine's comment on islands draws sharp Chinese response
- Supreme Court upholds Michigan affirmative action ban
- Michelle Obama: Obama family Sundays are more for napping than church
- Bonuses given to IRS employes who owed back taxes