Re: “Smith: Cut port or risk hollow force” (TNT, 5-2)
The headline on the print version of the Associated Press article is misleading and cannot go unchallenged. Since when do military benefits such as health care, housing and commissary – all part of the total compensation package for active duty and retired members – qualify as “pork”?
“Pork (barrel)” spending typically refers to federal dollars appropriated for unwanted or unnecessary uses to provide a political incentive. It’s just plain wrong to imply that military compensation is “pork.”
A quick Internet search for the same article at other news sources finds it under the title, “Top Democrat chastises parochial move on defense” or similar. Further, the article makes no mention of Rep. Adam Smith actually referring to military benefits as “pork,” contrary to The News Tribune’s subtle inference. Unfortunately, it appears the TNT editors used a very poor choice of words in their local title.