WSJ: As Benefits for Veterans Climb, Military Spending Feels Squeeze

[question everything]

Balancing Act

As Benefits for Veterans Climb, Military Spending Feels Squeeze
Congress's Generosity May Hurt Weapons, Other Programs; Lobby Group's Power Grows Trying to Find $100 Billion

By GREG JAFFE
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
January 25, 2005; Page A1

WASHINGTON -- With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan badly straining its forces, the Pentagon is facing an awkward problem: Military retirees and their families are absorbing billions of dollars that military leaders would rather use to help troops fighting today. Congress, pressured by veterans groups, has in recent years boosted military pensions, health insurance and benefits for widows of retirees. Internal Pentagon documents forecast that the lawmakers' generosity since 1999 will force the federal government to find about $100 billion over the next six years to cover the new benefits.

(snip)

Rising veterans' benefits are a big factor behind the billions of dollars in weapons cuts to be proposed when President Bush unveils next year's budget blueprint early next month. New retiree entitlements also are crimping the Pentagon's ability to increase incentives for enlistment at a time of dangerous, yearlong Iraq deployments.

The military's budget woes are similar to the broader problem facing the U.S. government, as spending on aging baby boomers -- in the form of Social Security and Medicare -- squeezes out funds for other programs, from health care for the poor to scientific research. The pinch is exacerbated by Mr. Bush's campaign promise not to raise taxes. The private sector, particularly auto makers and the steel industry, is being similarly squeezed. Many companies are holding the line and in some cases cutting spending on pensions and health care for future retirees. The Pentagon, which faces an increasingly aggressive and effective veterans lobby, doesn't have that luxury. The main force among veterans groups has been the Military Officers Association of America, an Alexandria, Va.-based group boasting about 400,000 dues-paying members and a board packed with retired generals and admirals.

(snip)

The politics of veterans benefits, meanwhile, are roiling the Republican Congressional majority. Earlier this month, the House Republican leadership took the unusual step of stripping New Jersey Rep. Christopher Smith of his chairmanship of the Veterans Affairs Committee. Mr. Smith had irked House leaders when he pushed so aggressively for veterans benefits that he at times threatened to oppose their spending plans -- and President Bush's -- unless more retiree benefits were included.

(snip)

Write to Greg Jaffe at [e-mail]

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110661195353434665,00.html

[Career Prole]

1. Oookaayyyy!

Let's set up a whole new generational battle! SS isn't enough?

[happyslug]

2. You will see more of this.

Bush is looking everywhere to cut cost EXCEPT in the military. Thus you see the pressure to cut Social Security, Pensions and all of the remaining Big items in the budget (Do not think in terms of Welfare, that was so cut in the 1990s their is very Little left to cut). It is the popular programs that have to be cut to produce ANY real cost savings.

[MADem]

3. This is egregious!

The GOP is irritated by those pesky vets and retirees....how DARE they get wounded, how DARE they complete their service and expect the promised pension and/or benefits?

We are living in an insane time, when those who served are considered an irritant, a drain on resources. This administration sucks out loud!

[NNguyenMD]

4. There is a very realistic and unselfish solution to all of this, repeal

the tax cuts. Oh I forgot, that'll permanently kill Bush's remaining popularity even though its the right thing to do.

I guess we'll just have to take consolation in the fact taht we get to watch his administration slowly breakdown, policy by policy.

[asjr]

5. That last paragraph speaks volumes.

To deny benefits to the men and women this administration sent to war on lies is one of the most horrific things to come from the Republicans. They are worthless.

[atreides1]

6. Maybe This Will Be A Wake Up Call

Perhaps this will make some of the military retirees who voted for Bush, think about how they may have screwed themselves.

My wife retires in September after serving in the USAF for 20 years, and like all retirees she has earned the pension, this shows that the Republicans care nothing for this country or for the people that have served in the military.

Personally as long as any Republican supports BushCo without question, to me they are no better then the Nazis. So for any lurkers out there who support this thing, you are nothing more then traitors, you are not Americans, you are Republicans.

[Spinzonner]

7. There's a very simple solution to this problem

Just stop-loss all the retirees due to 'Military Necessity'
I'm sure we can find sendentary jobs for them to free up more troops for Bush's adventures ...

[oscar111]

8. VA cut, not expandd: 12%/patient cut. Not to mention vets totally tossed

out of the VA system by the method: "only service-connected injuries get you any help." At one time, any injury got them VA help.

NOW THE MAIN PART OF MY TITLE
VA got more money, but the number of woulded vets has upped the patient load.. result, a cut of twelve % per patient.

The first paragraph did not mention that in its false picture of money showering on vets.

BENEFITS UP?
note, that vets with a combat-amputated leg are homeless.
See the pic on a thread right here at DU.... use Search function if you have it.

Vets getting benefits are a misleading PART of the total picture. Lieing with Half-truths is typical of the MSM.

[oscar111]

9. 105 trillion is US wealth: Plus, a look at how Truman solve vet problms

www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/accessible/l5.htm

see bottom line there.

TRUMAN IS A FEW LINES DOWN...
BUT AN ASIDE FIRST
here is the end of the url, which software here chops off...

accessible/l5.htm

note that the last part is an L, not fifteen. L5, with a small L.

NOW LOOK INSTEAD, AT GDP AND TRUMAN. IGNORE WEALTH.
Ignoring wealth for a moment, looking at only GDP.. Truman's top rate of ninety percent, would add 2. 7 trillion to the fed budget.

TRUMAN BROUGHT PROSPERITY, REAGAN: HOMELESSNESS
we had prosperity under truman's non-Reaganomics tax structure.

reaganomics only sparked mass homelessness and mass hunger.

wages are lower now than when reaganomics began... adjusted for inflation.

TOSS REAGANOMICS
Toss reaganomics. Fund the vets, and all other dem programs. Reaganomics will end ALL dem programs soon.

FOUL FRIEDMAN, GURU OF THE GOP
Milton Friedman:"gov has only three functions: army, treasury, and the courts". No ss, no college aid, no medicare, no welfare, no cops, no pothole repair, no libraries.
Long ago, you had to pay cops for service if you needed it, in NYC. ------------------

Truman kept the middle class healthy and educated, kept the infrastructure repaired... middle class produces all. That is how Truman created prosperity. And why Reaganomics does not.

[Robbien]

10. People are getting hurt and are using services, but WSJ says

benefits climb? How about using the real term, costs!

Costs are climbing because of our invasions, benefits are are such a small part of the budget.

[Mountainman]

11. Stop fighting your useless G.. damned wars and you would have less

need for vet benefits with less vets and less need for military spending.

This is just like everything else the right says. The war is the most important thing and every other expenditure should suffer.

Military spending goes to Bush's supporters and that is the only reason they start these wars. A bunch of Daddy Warbucks want more money so they tell us we should give up freedoms and benefits so they can fight wars to protect us from a non existent foe.

American people are the dumbest group of folks on the planet right now.