Veterans' Benefits "hurtful" to National Security, says Pentagon

Veterans' Benefits "hurtful" to National Security, says Pentagon

By Joel Wendland
The Wall Street Journal describes the pittance set aside for veteran's benefits as "Congress' generosity," even as the Republican-controlled Congress and Bush Pentagon get set to slash billions more from Veterans Administration's (VA) programs. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (1-25-05), Pentagon official David Chu, in a mockery of the contribution of veterans, defended a new round of cuts by ironically describing funding for programs like veterans' education and job training, health care, pensions, VA housing and the like as "hurtful" to national security.

(snip)

For example, as private sector health care costs skyrocket, veterans are more and more turning to the military's health insurance program, Tricare. Retired service members account for half of the people covered by Tricare, whereas just five years ago they accounted for only 40 percent. The Bush administration wants to find ways to stem this tide – none of which have anything to do with keeping private sector insurance affordable. The slow rate of VA spending growth enforced by Bush and the congressional Republicans over the last four years won't cover growing deferred benefits, such as education, housing, retirement, health care and so on, promised to current service members or that are supposed to be available for new enlistees.

Slow spending growth isn't even the biggest immediate problem for vets. In the last two years, Bush ordered the closing of several VA hospitals in different parts of the country, pushing waiting lists for medical services for veterans as high as six months for about 230,000 vets. These closings followed in the wake of the congressional Republican's concerted drive in 2003 to cut $15 billion from VA spending over the next ten years.

And, since his razor thin victory over Senator Kerry and his claim of "political capital" to rule as he sees fit, President Bush, according to an Associate Press story about a leaked White House Budget Office memo, plans to slash veterans' health care benefits by over $900 million and veteran's housing programs by $50 million in 2005 alone. A Center for American Progress analysis says, "President Bush's 2005 budget would increase prescription drug co-pays from $7 to $15 for many veterans. In 2002, the co-pay went from $2 to $7." This co-pay increase would have the biggest impact on "near-poor" veterans whose incomes are just high enough to require that they pay the new premium.

(snip)

http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=437&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

to themselves, in the service of their country?

These conservatives really don't seem to have any humanity sometimes.

Let's remember the Veterans "Bonus March" on Washington during the Hoover Regime. Let's remember MacArthur leading the military attack against the veterans, killing three and injuring 56.

Congress had overridden Herbert Hoover’s veto of a veterans’ compensation act early in 1932, which provided some relief for ex-servicemen, but also fueled sentiment for having payments made in cash. Such requests were swiftly rejected by Republican leaders who believed that such irresponsible action would only deepen the nation’s woes.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1513.html




After forcing the veterans out of Washington, MacArthur's troops crossed the 11th Street bridge and, using gas grenades and wielding bayonets, drove the marchers from their Anacostia camp. (National Archives)


In 1924, Congress had voted to award to some 3.5 million veterans what were called Adjusted Compensation Certificates—basically bonds masquerading as one thousand dollar bonuses due to mature in 1945 (or upon the death of the holder). For some it was the only asset they possessed. As America entered the 1930s, the bread line and the soup kitchen had become national symbols of the Depression, and joblessness, unrest, and privation became the catalyst for the Bonus March on Washington in the summer of 1932. The veterans believed their government had betrayed them by failing to pay the promised compensation for their World War I service. But an unsympathetic Hoover administration turned a blind eye to the plight of the former servicemen and never considered paying the bonus. When the veterans began to mount organized protests, they were stonewalled in the ill-advised belief that to react would inevitably lead to even further unrest.

More than ten thousand veterans, calling themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Force, converged on Washington to lobby Congress, some with their families, virtually all with no place to live and no money to afford food or accommodations. A few squatted in unoccupied, condemned buildings along Pennsylvania Avenue not far from the White House, but the largest contingent created an enormous shantytown in the Anacostia mud flats, unofficially known as "the Flats" or "Hooverville." Violence broke out the morning of July 28, 1932, when District of Columbia police attempted to eject the squatters from downtown. Exceeding Hoover's orders merely to clear the protesters, the War Department called out armed troops on that fateful July afternoon. Although Eisenhower attempted to dissuade him, MacArthur elected to personally direct the operation dressed in full uniform.

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mhq/blmacarthur/index1.html

They use people up like toilet paper and toss them as if flushing them into a septic tank is too much trouble. To what lows will they reach up to rationalize their pathetic, amoral agenda?

They just do what they want. We are held in utter contempt by this bunch of scum.

...the vaginal canal, the culture of life bullshit is OVER--they only care about the little farkers when they still have attached umbilical cords. Once that is severed, they are servile fodder to be used, abused, and discarded by the elites.

You can't treat people like this for long, revolution comes eventually.

Life Does Not End at Birth, and the Catholics have figured this out. Now if we could just get the Republicans and the the fudies to get it.

A Catholic moral framework does not easily fit the ideologies of "right" or "left," nor the platforms of any party.... Our responsibility is to measure all candidates, policies, parties, and platforms by how they protect or undermine the life, dignity, and rights of the human person, whether they protect the poor and vulnerable and advance the common good.
- from "Faithful Citizenship," issued by the United States Catholic Bishops.

It is a common misperception of politicians seeking office that the Catholic vote can be courted by addressing a narrow range of issues. In reality, the great majority of Catholics in the U.S., in agreement with the U.S. Catholic Bishops, will vote for candidates based "on the full range of issues, as well as on personal integrity, philosophy, and performance" (Faithful Citizenship, U.S. Catholic Bishops, 2004).

Members of the media - and indeed a few of our own religious leaders - do a great disservice to our church and nation when they attempt to use one or another issue as the benchmark for Catholic identity. "The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church's social doctrine does not exhaust one's responsibility toward the common good" (Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, November 24, 2002, and approved by the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II).

The Catholic Church teaches that all life is sacred. A candidate for office must understand that the Church stands against any policy or course of action that diminishes life, dignity or the rights of the human person: abortion, capital punishment, war, scandalous poverty, denial of healthcare, mistreatment of immigrants and racism, to name but a few.

There are 60 million Catholics in the U.S. We take the responsibility of voting seriously. Each of us will evaluate candidates based on what our conscience - formed by reading the signs of the times in light of the example of Jesus in the Scriptures and the teachings of our Church throughout the ages - demands. We will examine the broad range of issues, measuring "all candidates, policies, parties, and platforms by how they protect or undermine the life, dignity, and rights of the human person, whether they protect the poor and vulnerable and advance the common good" (Faithful Citizenship, U.S. Catholic Bishops, 2004).

This just takes the mustard, eh? Words fail me; the degree of duplicity and exploitation involved in this really is beyond description....

"When the last hare is caught, the old dog goes into the soup pot."

But I suppose that is less important.

"We know that in a culture that does not protect the most dependent, the handicapped, the elderly, the unloved, or simply inconvenient become increasingly vulnerable."
George W. Bush
Telephone Call to "March for Life" Participants
January 24, 2005

http://www.billmon.org/

I'll add billmon's own collection of absurd contrasts in the bastard's own words...

President Bush's choice to take over the Department of Health and Human Services steadfastly refused yesterday to rule out budget cuts for Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor.
Washington Post
Leavitt Won't Rule Out Medicaid Budget Cuts
January 20, 2005


The Bush administration is preparing a budget request that would freeze most spending on agriculture, veterans and science, slash or eliminate dozens of federal programs, and force more costs, from Medicaid to housing, onto state and local governments, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.
Washington Post
Bush's Budget Expected to Be Aggressive
January 12, 2005


The cuts will come on top of a tough fiscal 2005 budget that held government programs outside of homeland security and defense to an average 1 percent increase. Congress froze funding for grants to college students and reduced outlays for programs that help localities hire police officers and maintain sewer systems . . . The Housing and Urban Development Department saw cuts in programs for maintaining public housing and providing down-payment assistance to low-income workers and aid to the homeless and people with AIDS.
Government Executive
White House set to propose lean budget
January 18, 2005


By 2009, funding for non-entitlement programs in areas such as national resources and the environment, veterans’ health benefits, health, and agriculture would be 10 percent to 20 percent below the 2004 funding levels, adjusted for inflation. Transportation programs, as well as education, training, and social services programs, would be cut by 7 to 8 percent over this period . . . Moreover, the Office of Management and Budget’s own documents show that the administration’s proposed tax cuts would cost more than these and other budget cuts would save. As a result, the cuts in domestic discretionary programs would be used to help finance tax cuts, not to shrink the deficit.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Deep, widespread cuts in domestic programs
Over next five years under administration budget
January 18, 2005


You know, I'm mindful about — when I submit the budget, we've still got a war to win. But we'll send a tough budget up, that really says to the American people, we're going to be wise about how we spend your money.
George W. Bush
Interview with USA Today
January 13, 2005

military as "fungible goods", just like corn and coffee beans.
:argh:

wealthy is more important then the terrible situations they are imposing on the veterans, the poor and struggling, and the middle class.

Go back and re-read your Bible, Georgie. You seemed to have missed the general jist of the book.
:grr:

Paying "mercs" $120K, give or take, per year advances the wealthy elites' security.

Providing our soldiers rather meager benefits somehow threatens national security?

If anyone has any doubts about whose interests these war-mongers serve,...s/he simply is NOT paying attention.

I hate those warmongering fucking puppets of this misadministration, Rumsfeld should be assfucked by 10 thousand donkeys with spiked dicks, while being beaten senseless with a newspaper, probably the Guardian(papercuts ;)), than have some rabid dogs go after his naked ass in a field filled with poison ivy. Godsdamn all those assholes.

I am so fucking pissed at this story that I am speechless. These dickheads are the biggest bunch of hypocrites I have ever seen. They got what they needed out of the vets...time to toss them aside.

Fuck all of these assholes -- they don't give a shit about the troops or vets. Chickenhawk dipshits...

tell us how you really feel about Rumsfeld.

If I did, then I would be sent to Gitmo, by that two faced, good for nothing, slimeball. I want to shove a lit roman candle up his ass and hear him scream.

Why do you hate the humble, decent, hard-working donkey? Don't they suffer enough?

cock pieces that for their pleasure and not Rumshits. BTW: Yes I am this evil :evilgrin:

I stand in AWE

I probably won't recreate word for word here, but for the Torturer General, He a motherfucking asshole who should have a 7 ft steel rod shoved up his ass and up through his mouth, roasted lightly over a spit, and then while still alive, thrown to the vultures in the desert. Bush's punishment was much worst, but I forgot what I said, no search function. :(

is that it should be Elephants, not Donkeys! ;-)

instead of the other way around.

no surprise here - afterall, this is just another "entitlement" program.

we all knew this was going to happen and it's only going to get worse.

but it's what they want .... now those veterens need to find jesus, so they can get some help from the faith based org's that have some of the money


it's really sad that there are people out there that can't see this - they just love the bush - he can do no wrong

when he started his pre-emptive war of choice against Iraq (with plans of pre-emptive wars of choice against Iran and North Korea).

Does Bush really believe his own bull crap?

on their vehicles would think about this... or would they even believe that their administration acts to "support our troops" by under planning/preparing (leading to more injuries) and then cutting services available to the troops when they return. Surreal.

These hypocrites are uncaring, ignorant or both.

I've never understood this dichotomy, especially coming from the chickenhawks; their supposed "support" for the troops, while the troops families are mired in poverty, get a pittance if their soldier dies, and then when the soldier gets back, somehow the fact that they are now a "veteran" seems to put them into a second-class citizen status with the repubs.

Their hypocrisy know no end

I think it is more uncommon to not know... or to try to stay in denial when confronted with the reality of how awfully this administration is treating those that they are "supporting".

For about 20 years, conservatives have decried the size of government, entitlement programs especially. One of their long-term strategies, often called "starve the beast," is to cut taxes (and whip the foolish middle class and working poor into believing that tax cuts are in their own interests too).

Bush's 2 rounds of irresponsible tax cuts set the stage we will soon face: we will not be able to sustain our level of spending for the most basic federal programs for any civil or modern society, including health, education, and transportation.

This has always been Bush's radical agenda. It's not an accident.

2 sources:

1) "The Tax-Cut Con," by Paul Krugman, New York Times, 9/14/03

2) Worse Than Watergate, by John Dean, a recent book

to the whitehouse. seriously. they are easily removed. and fit inside a standard envelope and can be posted for the first class rate of a mere US$0.37!

mostly of the Vietnam era and post-Vietnam conflicts. It sounds like it may well become even worse.

By the time Limbaugh and Fox echo this latest outrage down the line, the Kool-Aid crowd will be "amening" right along. This is a soulless junta, broadcasting their agitprop from the world's biggest radio to a blinkered flock of sheep. All pretense and empty, flag waving rhetoric. They don't give a good god damn who they put in harm's way, and when they come home broken and scarred, they want them to scrounge the dumpsters or die quietly in the gutter. Hey, it was good enough for the Viet Nam vets.

If there's a hell, I hope it's good and hot.

STOP HAVING WARS!!!
just a thought.

local VFW club and say that. Denizens of the VFW clubs I have known are war mongers, Bush supporters to a man.

Must have a war all the time to create new members so they will not lose a cheap place to drink.

180--- VFW member at large because my politics are not allowed in my local VFW club.

180

No. Republicans must go. America needs a Democratic government again.

I tried, but couldn't figure out how to do it. He promotes wars and then chooses to ignore the results it ticks me off.

can't the citizens in OUR country who support Mr. Disaster's train wreck see this bulls^&$%#?it.

These Vets deserve every measly benefit there is!:wtf: :mad: :grr:

And most this country doesn't give a damn. Why am I forced to hate my own country. crying too much can't see to type lol

shouldn't it read -

"Pentagon "hurtful" to National Security, says Veterans whose face cuts in benefits" ?

as long as gays can't marry :eyes:

I guess no armor means less vets getting benefits. Perpetual war saves money, huh? As long as they all die....

Vet benefits are a hurtful to national security...what kind of fucking logic is that?....

I'm livid.

so what else do you expect from them. They're PATRIOTIC!!!!!!!!!!!

Support our troups, my @ss.

The Italian customs officers called their disputes work according to the regulations.

The Pentagon scum has looted all the money, given NOTHING to the troops and now they basically are calling them "terrorists" if they use their benefits.

Anyone who doesn't fall within the top 2% of wealth is worthless to the majority of republican representatives.

The neoCONimperialists especially despise 98% of Americans UNLESS they can "capialize" off their blood & treasure.

Disgusting.

Legless, shellshocked veterans in wheelchairs are "hurtful to national security," and you know what OTHER types of people are "hurtful to national security," don't you?

Maybe this is why they're expanding the Gitmo Gulag...send all those embarrassing reminders of the failure of bushboy's crusade somewhere we won't have to see them.

That would solve the "pictures of coffins" problem too, wouldn't it?

I don't know how much more I can take. Why isn't the VFW throwing an apoplectic fit over the fact that the government is equating veterans with terrorists?

Redstone

I am so angry. :kick: I just found a word to express what I think : UNCIVILIZED!!!

from the American Legion...
snip>
"His remarks about veterans' pay and benefits that 'the amounts have gotten to the point where they are hurtful...they are taking away from the nation's ability to defend itself' is a slap in the face to every veteran who took the oath to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies," Cadmus wrote in a letter to the editor of the Journal.

"Our country cannot separate military retirees from veterans -- a veteran is a veteran!" asserted Thomas P. Cadmus, national commander of The American Legion. "When their country called all gave their best -- some gave their last -- and they deserve the best our country can give them."
...
"America has never begrudged the expense of taking care of our men and women in uniform who, as President Lincoln stated in 1865, "shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan," quoted Cadmus.

"It is a moral contract that must never be broken," Cadmus said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20050126/pl_usnw/legion_leader_decries_undersecretary_s_remarks_on_veterans138_xml

from Pelosi...
snip>
"America has a sacred obligation to honor the sacrifices of the men and women who have answered the call to duty by serving in our armed forces. This includes providing our veterans, military retirees, active duty personnel, and their families with the benefits they earned and that they deserve. That is why Democrats have fought for, and overcome Republican opposition to, ending the Widows' Tax, which penalizes aging survivors, mostly military widows. We are still fighting to end the Disabled Veterans Tax for all military retirees.

"If Mr. Chu's comments reflect Bush Administration policy, and President Bush (news - web sites) believes that military and veterans' benefits are detracting from the nation's ability to defend itself, then what cuts in these benefits can we expect to see in the President's budget?

"I hope that Mr. Chu's statement does not reflect a decision by the Administration to pit veterans and military retirees against our active duty troops in a competition for limited resources. A 'divide and conquer' approach is a harmful political ploy."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20050125/pl_usnw/pelosi__bush_administration_should_not_pit_veterans_against_our_troops157_xml

so he is currently paying $7 a month for each of his outpatient prescriptions. The payment has nothing to do with income. It's based on the percentage the veteran's disability is set at.

$15.00 a month for his two ongoing prescriptions.
(It's an extra $7.00 when they try a new pain med)
More than double the ongoing expense to $30.00 a month? - ouch

We'll find a way to do it, but I just wonder how many will have to drop vital medications due to inability to pay?

Just this small portion of announced cuts is going to hurt one whole hell of a lot of veterans. Wrap it in the bigger package, throw in Rumsfeld's 'fungible' statement, and stand back.

If he can get access to a military base, and get care at a MTF, the prescriptions there are free. The script writer has to specify that generic alternatives are OK, the drugs or alternatives have to be listed on the MTF formulary, and of course he has to have access to an installation, but if he is willing to go through the BS, he can save a bit of cash that way, if he is eligible to use a MTF.

I think any vet or retiree that has to pay a fucking dime for an aspirin is getting SCREWED by our government, FWIW (for what LITTLE my opionion is worth, actually!, according to BushCo!). It's outrageous how they skim all the geezer drugs off the formulary to make my elderly WW2 era relatives have to go either mail order, or deal with the damn copay at the civilian pharmacies. The damn drugs should be free...hell, they HOOK the geezers, they need to be good dealers and keep the price way low....bastards. Profit whores!

Tell your husband a fellow servicemember appreciates his service. Hang in there...............

security!

This is NOT my response, it's from someone who hates me and my views in general. I know I have an uncle who lives right at the poverty line. He was in WWII and needs VA bennies. He has to drive 2 hours to get to a VA hospital and then the care he receives is dismal. He has emphysema and needs meds, which he doesn't often get because they can't afford them even with VA benefits/discounts, whatever. He is NOT a 20-year career veteran but he was in WWII and I think as such he deserves better treatment than this.

_ _ _ _THE RESPONSE_ _ _ _ _

"I'm amazed that you are defending career military people who think it's more important to keep increasing payments to them, over and above what they were promised when they served, than to spend money for equipment that would make people serving today safer.

$38 a month for health-care insurance for a family?!! Compare that to what someone who hasn't served 20 years in the military would have to pay. That's fairness? Increasing the percentage of full-pay that they can retire on from 40% to 50%? AFTER they've retired?! That wasn't what was promised to them - that's just a freebie.

Comes across more like a combination of greediness and a strong lobbying effort than a question of fairness for veterans."

_ _ _ _ _

to the white house and removing those greedy pricks from within.

when the Chimperor demands that Homeland Security funds pay for the police to keep the starving peasants at bay while the lords and ladies feast.

Which is more important? Never mind, I figured it out.:grr:

Only this time, they won't call the protesting veterans Communists. They'll call them jihadists.

For those unfamiliar with this brave group of WW1 veterans who had to stand up to Douglas MacArthur's fascist tactics in protesting the denial of their deserved benefits in a quest that eventually led to the GI Bill of Rights, read this:

http://members.aol.com/vetsofamer/bonus2.htm

There are a lot of veterans who did not support the current fascist Bush.

All of these veterans have received government training on how to kill other human beings. All of these veterans keep and bear arms.

And if I am unable to push my own wheelchair, my veteran wife will be more than glad to push me.

I proudly raised my right hand and swore to defend this country.

I've never given up on that pledge.

nt

He did three tours of Vietnam and as he was dying of cancer, my family had to fight for the Army to pay their part of the medical bills. He served this country for over 20 years, took bullets and shrapnel, and this was how he was repaid. The idea that veteran benefits will be cut even more is a disgrace.

Our troops aren't even treated as actual human beings by this administration.

This administration disgusts me more and more every day.
Just when I think I've heard it all, and now this:mad:

GREEDY EVIL BASTARDS!!!!:argh:

never hear about this crap. Most troops are gung ho for the War On Terror and believe 100% that the fight in Iraq is vital to Freedom, Liberty and
Democracy. I guess they need to be true believers.

until they come home and get older. By then there may be little to no benefits at all after this administration is done with their pillaging:(

Same thought* process that gave us "Life begins at conception and ends at birth".

No longer able to kill people so we can steal their oil? Die in a gutter, then! </SARCASM>

Shut up and eat your shit sandwich - you voted for the guy!

and then deny active-duty troops body armor or proper supplies, and cut veterans' benefits to the bone. How can anyone, ANYONE, claim to be supporting the troops when they support an Administration that can so blatantly and outrageously fuck over those who've given the best part of their youth, and sometimes their health and their very lives for their country's security? This is SICK. This is WRONG. This must STOP.

which means he will smile as he slashes VA budget which NEVER has enough $$

national security.