62,000 veterans wander America’s streets homeless and every day, 5,000 junior enlisted military families eat meals purchased with food stamps; yet, The NY Times thinks it’s a good idea to cut military pay and benefits…
The Joint Chiefs believe current military pay and benefits are unsustainable in a sequestered budget climate that requires the DOD to slash $1 Trillion from its operating costs within the next ten years.
However, The NY Times isn’t calling on Congress to end the Sequester and actually pass a military budget instead of piecemeal continuing resolutions (as Congress has done since Obama took Office).
Furthermore, the Times’ editorial team isn’t calling on Obama to endorse and sign a proper military budget either.
Instead, they are encouraging the Joint Chiefs to: raise the age for military retirement, decrease how much money retirees receive, and while they’re it, also propose substantive cuts to military base pay, housing allowances, and bonuses.
The Times’ editorial staff also thinks military commanders should be advocating for dramatic increases in military healthcare co-pays to attain parity with civilian medical care in the new healthcare marketplaces.
Perhaps this kind of un-American sentiment has something to do with the paper’s continuing decline in daily readership.
The kind of Liberalism for which The NY Times has become known over the last few years also might have contributed to last year’s loss 1/5 of the paper’s net worth in a single day of stock trading and could also partially explain why The Times hasn’t stopped struggling financially ever since.