Thanks for Dying for us......

Remove all ads!

For some people who think our soldiers are treated kindly by Bush, heres a short list of the "kind" things that have been done to them.

With 130,000 soldiers still in the heat of battle in Iraq and more fighting and dying in Afghanistan, the Bush administration sought this year to cut $75 a month from the “imminent danger” pay added to soldiers’ paychecks when in battle zones. The administration sought to cut by $150 a month the family separation allowance offered to those same soldiers and others who serve overseas away from their families. Although they were termed “wasteful and unnecessary” by the White House, Congress blocked those cuts this year, largely because of Democratic votes.
This year’s White House budget for Veterans Affairs cut $3 billion from VA hospitals—despite 9,000 casualties in Iraq and as aging Vietnam veterans demand more care. VA spending today averages $2,800 less per patient than nine years ago.
The administration also proposed levying a $250 annual charge on all Priority 8 veterans—those with “non-service-related illnesses”—who seek treatment at VA facilities, and seeks to close VA hospitals to Priority 8 veterans who earn more than $26,000 a year.
Until protests led to a policy change, the Bush administration also was charging injured GIs from Iraq $8 a day for food when they arrived for medical treatment at the Fort Stewart, Georgia, base where most injured are treated.
In mid-October, the Pentagon, at the request of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, announced plans to shutter 19 commissaries—military-run stores that offer discounted food and merchandise that helps low-paid enlisted troops and their families get by—along with the possiblility of closing 19 more.
At the same time, the Pentagon also announced it was trying to determine whether to shutter 58 military-run schools for soldiers’ children at 14 military installations.
The White House is seeking to block a federal judge’s award of damages to a group of servicemen who sued the Iraqi government for torture during the 1991 Gulf War. The White House claims the money, to come from Iraqi assets confiscated by the United States, is needed for that country’s reconstruction.
The administration beat back a bipartisan attempt in Congress to add $1.3 billion for VA hospitals to Bush’s request of $87 billion for war and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In perhaps its most dangerous policy, the White House is refusing to provide more than 40,000 active-duty troops in Iraq with Kevlar body armor, leaving it up to them and their families to buy this life-saving equipment. This last bit of penny-pinching prompted Pentagon critic and Vietnam veteran Col. David Hackworth to point to “the cost of the extraordinary security” during Bush’s recent trip to Asia, which he noted grimly “would cover a vest for every soldier” in Iraq.

Also interesting is how much Bush wants reporters to talk to soldiers.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_2455047,00.html

 

What more do you need as a proof that he is running an election campaign? He is too occupied with that.

 

The administration is also not allowing reporters to photograph soldiers' coffins. How this is possible in this country is beyond me; why don't reporters just do it anyway? Cher actually had to point out military hospital conditions on MSNBC! But little Bushie can don a flight suit and pretend he ever served in the military while he's wasting lives for oil. No other president, including those who actually served in the military rather than partying all day, has ever worn a military uniform while in office. By the way, the statute of limitations hasn't run out on Bush's going AWOL during his supposed term with the National Guard. He's committed plenty of treason, but this is the easiest one to pin on him. If there were an attorney general with guts out there.

 

Well that is an interesting question. How would anyone feel seeing a guy who went awol to avoid even the "difficult" serving time in a reserve status, and when he managed to get in a seat of authority is wearing in any chance given military clothes. Me personally i would think very low of him ( i am picturing some of our brave politicians). I would even consider spitting on him.
But it seems that this image make him look more vigilant and corresponds better to his war against terror attitude and campaign so he disgraces her

 

Considering the leftist slant of the one political commentary you did cite, I'm more the skeptical about the sources for your claims about the others.

And you don't seem to know very much about VA hospitals.

 

I'd be interested in a source as well.

I checked snopes and didn't come back with anything for or against the facts cited. I know that earlier this year the Democratic staff on the House Appropriations Committee released a report with similar facts and the Democratic National Committee has a page of similar facts. Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry in particular is thought to be considering trying to use these facts as a platform should he achieve the nomination (which doesn't look promising at the moment) and you can see reports on this by doing a Washington Post search.

I suspect the facts are true in so far as they go but are perhaps not the full story. According to the Washington Post in an article discussing these things there has also been a 15% pay raise to troops and housing has been privatized in many areas reducing costs. Bush also proposed the highest increase in history for discretionary spending for the Veteran's Administration in his 2004 budget.

I think some of these facts may be a by-product of politics. Bush did the same thing when he was running for President against Gore. Here is an example from the Washington Post: There is funding called "impact aid" that goes to communities losing local tax revenue from tax-exempt property. Under Bush this funding has been cut approximately 100 million (635 to 535). As many people know, much of school funding comes from local property taxes and so the result of the cut in the "impact aid" is like a cut in school funding. This is the areas where Army kids go to school and so folks can say, as the Democratic report for the House did, that the administration "cut school funding for the children of soldiers."

However, the cuts in impact aid are purported to mirror an increase in the number of soldiers no longer living on tax exempt property. More and more soldiers are living off base. This means these soldiers are paying property taxes and that money is being used for their local schools. The 'impact aid' programs were designed to replace tax revenue but if the revenue is not being lost then one might wonder whether it needs to be replaced. This is the administrations postions as to why this spending was cut.

The interesting thing about that position is that it mirrors exactly the position of the Clinton administration when they made the exact same cut in its budget - a cut of the exact same amount. Bush used the same arguments against Gore saying, "he's cut the funding for the soldier's children" and it now appears that the exact same arguments are trying to be used against him.

Tit for tat it appears. I'm not sure that either the tit or the tat was much more than politics as usual though. For example, the WaPo stated that the proposed addition to the recent budget for the Iraq spending was included with the knowledge that it couldn't and wouldn't be passed and with no real hope that it would pass - however in politics you sometimes add a bill that you know won't pass and that you don't really want to pass because down the road you can say that the other guy was bad for not passing it.

*Shrug, just some random thoughts.

[ December 02, 2003, 04:07: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

There's a hela lot of issues around this one.

The thing to keep in mind is that it's not anything new. It's not like this (these) little issue popped up in the past 5 years. It's been cruising right along since the early 60's, right on schedule.

Let's say "inflation" is valued at 3.6% per year (yeah, it varies, but stay with me), for the United States. Typically, since the 60's, military pay increases around 1.2-1.8%; there's been some 2.1%'s in there too. However, all of Congress makes sure they pull in their 4.3%. And of course, 4.3% of $120,000 is considerably more than the 4.3% of $24,000 a lowly little E-3 makes.

There's some tips and tricks in there, as well. Now's a good time to point them out I guess.

One thing the government does is hold back a full 30% of the enlisted paychecks. In reality, they end up paying around 12%. But that 18% sitting in the bank draws some extra cash. And it seems like a wonderful little bonus. I've seen numbers on just how much revenue they "save" from this, and it is wicked kind of awesome. All I remember is they pull 23-25% interest from the principal.

Also, room and board is factored into the final W-2 equation. College-style dorms (circa 1955), with chilled water airconditioning, runs everyone $450 per month. Now, maybe in New York, that's probably a steal. But out in BFE, Kansas, it's another issue. Again, this is a cash flow issue. There's some other stuff, but it's the things like those two that really make the largest impact in terms of integers.

The wonderful upshot of all this is that the military "downsizing" will take care of itself.

Word gets around that the last place you want to be is the military. There will always be the psychos that are in for the killing and the fun gadgets. But Jane Schmoe that works on diesel engines and likes to help maintain morale in the barracks, after work hours, just doesn't care to do that. Grass is greener on the other side of the uniform. So not only can't they keep anyone in, they now can't GET anyone in. Which dwindles numbers. Which leads to a really massive, one time only, pay hike of ~60%.

And then the dirty bombs roll in. And the inactives are called up left and right because there aren't enough active duty to handle everything that suddenly becomes a hot-zone. Which leads to huge protests in all the big cities, and cops breaking up the looting and rioters, which opens holes (and huge masses of people) for more CBR fun-stuff while the feds are busy.




It's a learning process. Give it time.

 

I thought I recalled this. I was looking elsewhere by happenstance and followed a link to this blog:

http://www.rooksrant.com/

That blog has the same information as in the initial post, taken verbatim and credited, from this news article:

http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=465_0_2_0_C

I believe this is the source since the reports aren't entirely accurate as far as I've been able to tell. For example, the propose $250 yearly fee for Priority 8 Veterans also applies to Priority 7 Veterans but isn't mentioned in the article.

The article ends with this quote:

This nation, like all nations I suspect, has a history of not always treating veterans the way they deserve. It's sad but, I suspect, only a partisan issue in so far as it will get someone some votes - whether it be Bush in 2000 using the same line against Gore or the current crop of hopefuls against Bush.