WASHINGTON —
In the politics of defense spending, cutting expensive weapons programs plays the role that taxing the wealthy plays in the overall fiscal debate. Though undoubtedly necessary to any credible plan, it is far from sufficient. Yet advocates often talk as if reining in Pentagon spending is all about wasteful weapons.
In fact, weapons programs account for only about a third of defense spending, and the Obama administration is already planning significant reductions. The costs of operations and personnel make up the majority of the defense budget, so any balanced approach must deal with those as well.
Here, too, the administration plans cuts, including shrinking the Army and the Marine Corps. This is risky, given the potential threats the United States faces. Unfortunately, Congress is compounding the problem by protecting expensive items that inflate personnel costs without any corresponding payoff in defense readiness.
We refer to the Senate Armed Services Committee's refusal to accept an administration proposal to trim Tricare, the military health-care program for which 9.7 million active and retired military personnel and family members are eligible. Obviously, those who serve or served their country deserve generous health benefits. But Tricare goes well beyond that. The service is free for active-duty service members and their families except for some prescription copayments. For retirees under the age of 65, many of whom are in the work force and eligible for employer-provided benefits, Tricare costs at most $1,000 per year out of pocket — less than a fifth of civilian plans, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Tricare's costs have surged in recent years, from $19 billion in fiscal 2001 to $52.8 billion in fiscal 2011. Much of the growth was driven by Congress' 2001 decision to add what is essentially a free Medigap plan for retirees over 65. But the main issue is the ultra-low fees and deductibles — which give retirees still of working age little incentive to economize or choose employer plans.
President Obama's budget plan would save $12.8 billion over five years by gradually increasing working-age retirees' annual enrollment fees, with lower-income retirees paying the least, and then adjusting them according to national health spending growth thereafter. The maximum fee would quadruple to $2,000 — still far less than most civilian plans. Most beneficiaries would not pay even that much.
The Armed Services Committee, however, voted to forbid any Tricare increases greater than the annual cost-of-living adjustment in military retiree pay. No doubt America's military retirees are a powerful lobby, their might enhanced by the basic justice of their claim to have given much to their country. At the moment, however, debt is one of the main threats to future U.S. national strength and security, and it makes no sense to deal with it in ways that would also undermine military readiness.
The modest cuts in Tricare benefits that Mr. Obama seeks are abundantly justified by the national interest. His Office of Management and Budget announced Thursday that the president's advisers will urge a veto of a defense bill without Tricare reform; they would be right to do so.
Opinion
EDITORIAL: The Washington Post: Time to rein in Tricare
- Opinion
-
-
COMMENTARY: Are households better off with one parent at home?
And sometimes when both parents are sitting down to do these at the end of the day one does start to wonder whether it might be easier if one parent did the working and the other did everything else.
-
COMMENTARY: How Nonprofits Came to Acquire Their Tax-Exempt Status
The uproar over allegations of politically motivated investigations by the Internal Revenue Service shouldn't be surprising given Americans' long love affair with nonprofits and their strong disdain of partisanship, especially within bureaucracies.
-
Editorial: Seizure of AP phone records insult to independent press
This amounts to spying on an American news organization -- common practice in dictatorships but scary conduct in a democratic system that prizes the public value of an independent watchdog press.
-
EDITORIAL: The IRS' Turn to Answer Questions
Washington is now sinking its teeth into a real scandal: the Internal Revenue Service using ideological criteria to choose the targets of its attention.
-
COMMENTARY: Slate: There Is Only One Kermit Gosnell
Kermit Gosnell, the notorious Philadelphia late-term abortionist, has been convicted.
-
COMMENTARY: Liberals Fulfilling Caricature in Flextime Fight
It didn't get a lot of attention. It happened the same day as hearings on the Benghazi attacks and the announcement of a verdict in the Jodi Arias trial.
-
COMMENTARY: Slate: Let Nurse Practitioners Do Primary Care on Their Own
As of early April, you can walk into Walgreens in 18 states (plus D.C.), and along with a gallon of skim milk, a pair of photo mugs, a six-pack of toilet paper, and a flu shot, you can meet your new primary care provider, get your cholesterol checked, pick up your statin, and schedule a return visit.
-
COMMENTARY: Slate - The basketball bully
The firing Wednesday of Rutgers basketball coach Mike Rice, for shoving players around, firing basketballs at them and screaming that they were "faggots" and "fairies," reflects universal condemnation.
-
COMMENTARY: Who's to blame for our politics? Don't ask
There is a classic "Doonesbury" cartoon, published soon after the Vietnam War ended, in which the antiwar activist Mark Slackmeyer is arguing with his pro-war father.
-
COMMENTARY: Healthful Logic Leads to Paid Sick Days
Ian Rizzio was a 24-year-old mechanical engineering student in Portland, Ore., managing a sandwich shop to pay his tuition. One day he woke up sick but went to work anyway, as he later testified to the Portland City Council.
- More Opinion Headlines
-
COMMENTARY: Are households better off with one parent at home?



