NYT’s Stunning Claim: Military Retirement and Health Programs = ‘Big Social Welfare System’

[Geee]

Big Peace:

It seems President Obama, his Department of Defense, and the New York Times have found something in the budget they think is worth cutting: military retirement and healthcare programs. In a stunning article, the NYT went so far as to call the current programs a “big social welfare system.” These programs are certainly not welfare by any means, but by calling them such, the NYT is only embarrassing itself and showing its usual disdain for the men and women who bravely serve their country.

Even if one were to make the argument that these programs are a form of welfare, isn’t it a bit ironic that the NYT would show such contempt toward them? After all, isn’t the Grey Lady normally cheerleading big government welfare programs and big government spending? Apparently not so much when the “welfare” benefits those who have actually worked for it, shed blood for it, and even sacrificed life and limb to receive it.



I wrote about current efforts to restructure the military retirement system last month: Revamping The Military Retirement System: A High-Stakes Jenga Game. The Defense Business Board has recommended creation of a 401(k) style retirement system to replace the current one that provides servicemembers a retirement check for life upon completion of 20 or more years. In short, the DoD is recommending “privatizing” the military retirement system.

Interestingly, whenever Republicans talk about privatizing Social Security, the left flips its noodle. The New York Times’s Paul Krugman typically goes on a rant whenever the discussion flares up. In 2005, when a GOP President occupied the White House, Krugman smugly referred to talk about privatizing Social Security as a “borrow, speculate, and hope” strategy.


When the left wants to privatize the military retirement system, Krugman is not only silent, but his colleagues come out swinging for it. One of the NYT’s journalists who wrote this piece about privatizing the military retirement system seemed to speak ill of privatizing Social Security in the past. In 2003, Mary Williams Walsh referred to such efforts as “gambling,” using a term her mentor Paul Krugman is fond of tossing around when the subject of privatization surfaces.

[SrWoodchuck]

Geee!

 

Apparently not so much when the “welfare” benefits those who have actually worked for it, shed blood for it, and even sacrificed life and limb to receive it.

 

The difference to me, is contributing to a pension & benefits, as opposed to earning them; and it is a difference of degree, I suppose. A contract with the government should be secure, instead of cointinually negotiable. Oblamer pension policy seems to be etched in soup, instead of substance; unless you've got the union label on it.

[Valin]

When the left thinks about cutting government spending there is only one place they look....the DoD.