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

by Joel Wendland
(Tuesday 25 January 2005)


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.

Despite Republican pretense that spending increases for the VA budget under the Bush administration have been large, new spending neither has matched inflation over the same period, nor does it keep pace with growing need.

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.




http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/12861

I assume they'd prefer them all to die in glorious battle?

they trot them out during elections, promise them that they'll take care of them then crap on them afterwards and so many of the dumb bastards just can't figure it out. Maybe this time they will see just how badly they screwed themselves and wake up to the Bushit.

Smart voting/smart decisions

Dumb voting/dumb results.

I follow their thinking. If you don't have a "rich" daddy to buy you out of the carnage, you should just "suck it up."

won it, with all the "freedom this" and "military that" in the Coronation, the MSM whores would be repeating it daily. The silence on the issue is deafening.

benefits and pay. They always have. Most of the pay and benefits the military enjoys today are as a result of demo administration's efforts.

buy the GOP's Bushit about 'taking care' of the vets.

I guess that rightwing attitude is hard to kill off even after they leave the military.

out of the military who are very pro GOP. Officers are a minority though in the military as a whole. Officers get more face time in front of reporters and generally have more money available to them as individuals then enlisted folks. They are generally more concern with tax cuts which perserves whatever wealth or money they do have.

It's early and I know this is all jumbled up I hope you get where I'm going with this.

in those polls that 'prove' the military is pro-Bush.
They're the bulk of subscribers to the military rags for retirees and active duty officers that get polled on the question.

is like a big corporation with the officers as executives reaping more, looking for tax breaks and conerned more about the their own bottom line and the enlisted folks busting their asses and getting the peanuts. Look inside any big corp and you will have your crossovers and misguided in the same numbers.