The Abominable Dr. Chu: DOD Attack Dog
By Thomas D. Segel
April 16, 2007
Page 2 of 4
Says Northington, "Dr. Chu deserves all the scorn military retirees and dependents heap upon him. The many ugly and hurtful remarks he has made and the way he has said them in public needs to be erased."
"Let me make a few comments that may shed some light on why Dr. Chu has been so ugly and nasty toward retirees and dependents", he says. "Basically it stems from the budgetary process and power of the Office of Management and Budget. (The White House office responsible for the President's budget) There is not much the other bureaucrats can do to persuade OMB to revise or loosen up their budgetary dictates. As an example, we all know that recent legislation 'requires' that certain funds for retirees be funded from the Treasury. Regardless of this requirement OMB dictates that the funds continue to be paid out of the DSOD budget...
"So where can DOD go for relief? " asks Northington. " One way is to secretly appeal to Congress. This sometimes works. A second way is to threaten certain vocal groups and interests. This is an old remedy used at all levels of government. For instance, if I tell my wife that she has to cut back on her household spending, the first things to go are my favorite foods, drinks, activities, etc. For cities it is the most visible and necessary programs, like fire fighters, police, parks and swimming pools in the summer.
"What I suspect is that top bureaucrats in DOD may be using retirees and dependents as their whipping boy, in an effort to get us to attract the attention of Congress to the shortfalls and what may be given up."
The case for attracting the attention of Congress is debatable. The case for arousing anger in the military community is not. What causes this anger? According to Colonel Harry Riley, U.S. Army (ret), it is because Mr. Chu, without rational justification, makes broad and sweeping statements identifying military retiree benefits as the enemy of our active force."
Chu has testified, "Benefits that apply mainly to retirees and their families are making it harder for the Pentagon to afford financial incentives for today's military." Other remarks include, "Congress has gone too far in expanding military retiree benefits." Because of this burden he says "They are starting to crowd out two things: First, our ability to reward the person who is bearing the burden right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Second, they are undercutting our ability to finance the new gear that is going to make that military person successful five, ten, fifteen years from now."
Another trigger for retiree anger is Chu's recommendation that Tricare fees be raised from 50% to 270% for those under age 65 and raise pharmacy co-pay by 67% for all beneficiaries.
Retired Air Force Master Sergeant Jim Whittington asks, "Where was Chu 24 years ago when I raised my right hand and swore to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I ended up serving 20 years in assignments both overseas and stateside. During that time I moved my family eight times and was separated from them due to deployments for nearly four years. Now having served my hitch, and seeking the benefits promised and contracted to me, Chu labels me a burden and obstacle to current readiness."
>> Continued -- Page 1 2 3 4
| 
