I'm nobody's idea of a super-patriot, but you'd have to be dead in your soul not to be outraged by the actions of the House of Representatives that have betrayed our soldiers even as they fight and die in Iraq at this very minute.

"Betrayed" too strong a word? How else would you characterize THIS:

The Republican majority on the House Budget Committee has just rammed through a resolution that would cut $844 million from veterans' medical care for next year. (Yet somehow, the robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul Republicans have already come up with $900 million handy to give to Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton and a few other big Republican sugar daddies for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq.)

Over the next ten years, the Republican changes would cut $24.7 billion -- billions with a "b" -- for veterans' medical care, disability compensation and other benefits. In other words: at the very moment men and women in the armed forces are being sent into military action, the Republicans back home are cutting their current and future benefits -- including payments to their families, should they be killed in action.

The source of this information came from The Nation magazine. I was stunned, but somewhat dubious because of the publication's well-known liberal slant and anti-Bush philosophy. Well, I'm a liberal too and anti-Bush as well, but I decided to verify this from other sources.

Today, I called my U.S. Representative in Congress and spoke to a polite, but not very helpful representative of my Congresswoman Deborah Pryce
(R-Columbus). I expressed my shock and disbelief that the House would do such a thing to hurt veterans while our soldiers were in harm's way. She took down my response and said someone would get back to me next week.

I then called a local chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars whom somewhat sadly confirmed that the budget cuts were true. Finally, I went to the of The American Legion, where a joint press release is available from The American Legion, VFW and Disabled American Veterans.

It is available to read here:

http://www.legion.org/pub_relations/2003_r..._budgetcuts.htm

EVERY AMERICAN whom is concerned about our veterans at home and our troops in Iraq should be shocked, disgusted and appalled that the House and the Bush Administration apparently considers a tax cut for the wealthy more important than protecting the benefits of those whom have given everything to preserve this democracy.

The needs of veterans is not exempt from budgetary considerations. However, there is something profoundly disturbing to me that Congress would attempt to pay for President Bush's tax cut by taking money from a group that has given all to preserve democracy.

Throw in the fact that this occurred on the same day when the war began in Iraq (and created an entire new group of veterans that will need benefits) and the insensitivity in the timing of this cut becomes almost obscene.

We talk about "supporting our troops and preserving their morale." Well, is what the Congress is proposing to do right, proper and justified or exploiting the troops at the exact time when they should be rewarded for their service rendered to our nation.

Are they being stabbed in the back by the politicians that sent them to Iraq to fight?

nighttimer

I put this question to another forum after I read your post, since $27 Billion strikes me as a lot of cash.

The only answer I received was that the US budget is so large that it considers $27 Billion, chump change (not my expression).
Do you happen to know just how much the US government actually spends on veterans?. Just how big a cut is $27 Billion?

This is what I got from the White House web page concerning the Veteran's Affairs portion. It starts off with this brilliant piece of neo-con english:

I know it's in there but I can't find the actual cuts anywhere on this page. This page has some interesting info. but I couldn't find anything specifically related to large cuts.

Joe. Doesn't the US government publish its budget spending?

I'd want to see the actual numbers before I could say much: the Democratic prediliction for characterizing any increase that's less than projected as a "cut" makes me too suspicious otherwise. But if it is actually a cut, and not just a slower rate of increase, then yes, it is very bad timing.

I called my Congresswoman's office Friday, so I should be receiving some sort of clarification next week.

I'm hopeful that this is not as dire as it appears at the moment.