Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[Mariner*]

Bush Attacks Veterans' Benefits


The U.S. requests more troops in Iraq, while in America George Bush reduces veterans' benefits and health care.
By Gerald S. Rellick
A recent article in the Washington Post about military-service families tells an uplifting story about an Army wife who had a fender bender accident and mailed the damage estimate of $500 to the driver who had hit her. When the driver learned that her husband had just returned from a year in Iraq, he sent a check for $600--and enclosed a second one for $50 with the notation, “Dinner for two.”

This is how people of character and integrity support their troops. But don’t expect this kind of patriotic, caring spirit from George Bush or Republicans in the House or Senate. Their intentions became clear last spring--just as Bush had ordered U.S. troops into combat in Iraq--when the House Budget Committee, chaired by Jim Nussle of Iowa--certainly no friend of veterans--voted along strict party lines, 21-19, to make major cuts in pay and benefits for active duty personnel as well as cuts in health benefits for veterans. Their resolution would have cut $844 million from veterans' medical care and disability payments over the following year, and $24.7 billion over the next 10 years.

Aside from the lack of merit and downright disgrace of the committee decision, one has to wonder about the sheer political lunacy of such an act and wonder if George Bush, the “war president” as he now likes to call himself, and the Republican party, with its constant theme of “strong on defense,” might be completely out of touch with the needs of the troops doing the fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. The good news is that Bush and his “patriotic” cronies in the House lost the battle--temporarily at least--when angry Democrats convinced saner Republicans to intervene and helped rescind the committee decision.

While much has happened in the following year, let there be no mistake: the Bush-GOP salvo fired off “against our troops” last spring was only the beginning. More importantly, it revealed their real intentions and forms the basis for understanding the current status of active military and veterans’ issues before Congress and the American people. The Bush Administration is not finished in its quest to reduce the V.A. budget.

Because of the complexity of the budget dealing with veterans and military personnel matters, it is easy to selectively cite instances of accomplishments. As discussed in another Washington Post article (“VA Funding Dispute Not a Simple Matter”), the administration points out that they have asked for an increase in the VA’s discretionary spending from $29.2 billion to $29.7 billion, an increase of $500 million. But, is this adequate, and is it fair?

As one measure of adequacy, this $500 million increase is $1.2 billion below what Bush’s own VA Secretary, Anthony Principi, asked for from the White House Office of Management and Budget. This $500 million is also $257 million below what the Congressional Budget Office (Congress’s nonpartisan economic and budget analysts) estimated is needed to maintain purchasing power at the 2004 level. Some Democrats argue, then, that this $500 million increase is an effective cut because it would not allow the VA to continue to provide the same level of services because of the rising medical costs and the increased demand that will come with the troops' return from Iraq and Afghanistan.

John Spratt, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, issued a memo that lists six shortcomings of the current budget proposal as it affects veterans. In addition to the insufficient budget request and the documented request for greater funds, Spratt points out new medical enrollment fees and pharmacy co-payments for certain veterans’ categories to help offset the rising costs of medical care.

But what is truly significant here is the nickel-and-diming on every veteran’s issue before the congress--at the same time as the active military and the National Guard are being ordered to undertake the largest and most deadly operation since the Vietnam War.

It will come as no surprise that the heart of the problem is money, or more accurately, the lack of money needed to run the government. With a weakened economy, exacerbated by Bush’s massive tax cuts that went predominantly to the wealthy, the country faces a budget deficit of $500 billion. So the nickel-and-diming we see is the Republicans’ efforts to whittle away at this deficit at its weakest areas, those without strong lobbies. The wealthiest wage earners and corporate America, which together form the financial basis for the Bush reelection effort, have already gained their share through the Bush tax cuts. And the pharmaceutical companies and private medical insurers have gained a windfall with the new Bush Medicare package, as have the energy companies through a weakening of environmental regulations on pollution.

So who is left to pay down the deficit? You guessed it: honest, hard-working middle class America, which includes the military--our soldiers and sailors and airmen/women and marines who are particularly susceptible to manipulation because of their strong tradition of duty and service to country. And veterans, those who have served their country and are now bombarded with appeals to their patriotism at the same time as their benefits are being cut. These are the Americans now being told they must go that extra yard--yet again--but this time to pay down Bush’s deficit and subsidize his wealthy supporters.

This is the first article in a series on the Bush Administration’s mishandling of veterans issues.

Gerald S. Rellick, Ph.D., worked as a scientist in the military space sector of the aerospace industry for 22 years. He now teaches in the California Community College system.

http://www.veteransunitedforkerry.com/vote/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&....