Loud cries of “Amen,” “Yes!” and “You’re telling it right!” echoed through the sanctuary as the preacher listed the sins that mankind must fight.
All were united against adultery, greed, sloth, worship of graven images and work on Sunday. Encouraged by the unanimous approval, the pastor raised his voice to a fever pitch and wound up with a fiery condemnation of chewing tobacco and corn whiskey.
An ominous silence settled over the room. Then, one by one, men rose and left the hall.
On his way out, Wilbur turned to the altar, saw the reverend bewildered and took pity.
“Andy,” he explained, “you done stopped preachin’ and went to meddlin’”
When some brave member of Congress rises to advocate sharp cuts in military pensions and health care benefits for veterans he or she will quickly understand that preacher’s plight. There are lines U.S. Congressmen dare not cross. Meddlin’ with veterans’ pensions and health care subsidies are two of them.
But those very large and rapidly growing expenses must be trimmed along with Medicare and Medicaid to keep the budget-cutting fair and effective.
Military pensions and health care for active and retired troops now cost the government about $100 billion a year.
Under the current system, members who retire after 20 years of service are eligible for pensions equal to half of their salaries for the rest of their lives. They are also eligible for lifetime health insurance through the military’s system, Tricare, at a small fraction of the cost of private insurance. The Tricare premium is $460 a year for a family. That compares to about $4,000 a year for the average employer-sponsored plan.
The Tricare premium hasn’t increased in years, even though health care costs have skyrocketed. Today, that enormous annual subsidy is paid for with borrowed money.
AN ANALYSIS of this part of the annual $700 billion Pentagon budget in Monday’s New York Times also points out that the military pension system is not only expensive but many consider it grossly unfair because it provides no benefits to veterans who leave the service short of 20 years of service.
Because veterans who return to civilian life after serving 5,10 or as many as 19 years, are not eligible for any pension or other retirement benefit, 83 percent of those who have served are left out. Such a system would be illegal in the private sector. Critics have called for reform and propose that those who serve be given a substantial severance payment based on years of service if they return to civilian life short of 20 years.
Such a reform would only add to the Pentagon budget, however, and should be undertaken only after the bleeding is staunched in the current system. Step one would be to increase the Tricare premium. Then consideration should be given to making the retirement pension less generous. It shouldn’t be necessary to give a full pension to men and women in their 40s who have served 20 years but are young enough to start new careers as civilians.
Tackling these reforms will be politically poisonous. But if Congress can reduce Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits without being cut off at the knees, then nothing in the budget — even our men and women in uniform — remains untouchable.
— Emerson Lynn, jr.
