IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE U.S.
MILITARY THERE WOULD NOT BE A UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA" QUESTIONS?
Jim
Whittington--MSGT--USAF--RET
-----
Original Message -----
From: jimw8869
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:24
AM
"IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE
U.S. MILITARY THERE WOULD NOT BE A UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA" QUESTIONS?
Jim Whittington--MSGT--USAF--RET
The Honorable
Mississippi Congressional; Delegation:
For Staff: Please pass
to the Senators/Congressmen.
Sirs;
The email below clearly illustrates the lack of
action on the part of Congress to "keep the
promise" to the military retirees of this
great country. DOD (Rumsfeld, Chu,
Winderwinkle) are asking for cuts in medical
services and increase in fees for the
retired community.
They continue to say that these cuts and
increases are needed for weapons systems.
Gentlemen, The unwarranted remarks by DOD
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are hurting
Recruiting, Retention and Readiness.
The Military are
Stressed out to the limit according to
reports by some highly placed individuals.
It has also been reported that more than
50,000 troops have been extended beyond
their original enlistment dates. To me this
is a BACK DOOR DRAFT.
Further, it has become
virtually impossible to get a message to our
Senators and Congressmen. Almost all are
using their web sites for communications. It
is very difficulty to navigate. Further is
is only available to people in the District
or State of the individual writing the
letter.
However, I remind you
that I MAY NOT BE IN YOUR DISTRICT OR STATE
BUT YOU ARE IN OUR HOUSE AND SENATE. And
regardless of what State or District you
represent, The vote you make in the House or
Senate AFFECT THE ENTIRE NATION. So your
excuses don't hold water.
The increase in the
Tricare Fees will affect hundreds of
thousands of military retires NOW AND IN THE
FUTURE.
Of course, that will
not affect none of you. But your actions put
more money in your COFFERS VIA the Lobbyist
efforts.
It has been reported
by the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE THAT the
increase cost of Stamps are because of the
Military Retirees. Gentlemen this is about
the most STUPID REMARKS that I have
heard. Please ask the Postal Service to
Rescind that statement and ask for
clarification.
Vote against these
cuts in Tricare and DO THE RIGHT THING FOR
THE MILITARY RETIREES OF THIS COUNTRY.
Gentlemen since we
can't communicate with other members of
Congress, PLEASE PASS THIS YOUR COLLEAGUES.
Jim Whittington
MSGT--USAF--RET
622 West 21st Street
Laurel,MS.
-----
Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:41
PM
Subject: (no subject)
Subject: Hikes
proposed in Tricare costs for retirees
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:38:29 +0000
Hikes proposed in Tricare
costs for retirees
By
Rick Maze
NavyTimes staff writer
January 26, 2005
A Pentagon proposal that
could triple some Tricare insurance
costs for military retirees and
their families is drawing sharp
criticism from military advocacy
groups and members of Congress. The
plan, being considered as part of
the 2007 budget request to be
unveiled Feb. 6, would increase
Tricare fees for retirees under age
65 beginning Oct. 1. Increases would
be substantial — as much as $1,200
more a year by 2009 — with no end in
sight because the plan calls for
annual rate hikes in 2010 and beyond
that would match inflation.
Details on the proposal were
provided by the Military Officers
Association of America, one of many
military-related groups mobilizing
to fight the proposal. Defense
Department officials confirmed that
Tricare fees were being considered
as part of the 2007 budget, but
would not discuss any details until
the White House releases the federal
budget plan. Senior Pentagon
leaders, both military and civilian,
know their plan will meet with stiff
opposition and are trying to prepare
a united front, defense sources
said.
The Joint Chiefs are considering
sending a rare joint letter to
Congress explaining why the fee
increases are important because they
do not see how the military can
afford needed weapons programs if
soaring health care costs remain
unchecked, sources said. A key
element of the proposal is to
discourage retirees from using the
military medical system if they have
other options, such as insurance
through a post-service employer,
because this would generate savings
far greater than any money raised
through higher enrollment fees.
“This is wrong on so many levels,”
said Steve Strobridge, government
relations director for the Military
Officers Association of America. “In
the middle of a war, with troops and
families vastly over stressed,
recruiting already in the toilet,
and retention at risk, the Defense
Department wants to pay for weapons
by cutting manpower and trying to
cut career military benefits by
$1,000 a year or more?
That's just flat unconscionable. Not
only is it grossly unfair to the
people, but it poses terrible risks
for long-term retention and
readiness. ”Strobridge acknowledged
that health care costs are rising,
but said he cant see why defense
officials are willing to accept
massive increases in the cost of
weapons but not in personnel.
“If DoD is willing to accept 400
percent to 500 percent cost growth
in weapons systems, then people are
no less important,” he said, noting
that the cost of an Arleigh
Burke-class destroyer has increased
392 percent since 1985, while the
cost of an F-22 Raptor has jumped by
526 percent. “The Pentagon needs to
acknowledge its own management
responsibility for rising weapons
costs rather than trying to stick
military retirees with the bill.”
A blow to expectations Active-duty
members would not be directly
affected by the fee increases, but
representatives of major military
associations said there is an impact
on morale. “For anyone well along in
their career who is thinking about
retirement, this is a blow to their
expectations about what the
government is going to do for them,”
said Jim Lokovic of the Air Force
Sergeants Association, who has been
traveling to military bases to
discuss changes in pay and benefits.
“Many of the people I have been
talking with have 10 or more years
of service, and remember when they
were told by recruiters and career
counselors that if they just stayed
around, the government was going to
provide them with free health care
in retirement,” Lokovic said. “Well,
we learned years ago it wasn't free,
and now we are learning that it
isn't cheap either,” he said.
“I think those who are well along
toward retirement in their career
are going to stay … but those who
are at the decision point are going
to see this as an erosion of
retirement benefits. I promise you
some are going to get out because of
it. ”Strobridge agreed. “Don't try
to tell us that a country that can
afford hundreds of billions of
dollars in pork spending and tax
cuts can't afford to pay for both
military weapons and retiree health
care,” he said
More than 22,000 members of the
officer’s group have written
Congress opposing the initiative, he
said. House Democrats seized on the
controversy with a Jan. 25 letter to
President Bush asking him to disavow
the fee proposal. “It is
unconscionable that you would even
consider a fee increase on the men
and women in uniform who bravely
sacrificed for our country,
especially during a time of war,”
states the letter from House
Democratic leaders.
“We must demonstrate our commitment
to our troops and future veterans by
assuring them that just as they
protected us, we will take care of
them when their service ends. ”They
said the fee increase not only is
unfair to military retirees, but
will also hurt military readiness
through its impact on recruiting and
retention.
“Your administration must not shift
additional costs upon veterans or
military retirees,” they wrote,
adding that to do so would be “a
national disgrace and … a pointed
rebuke to those who served and have
earned those benefits.”
|