Lately, I’ve noticed many allegations from AD members about a cut in veteran’s benefits.

The question here is short and sweet:

Can someone please show me where this administration has cut veterans benefits?

Might I suggest searching Google before starting a thread demanding evidence?

-One
-Two
-Three

And just for fun

Here is a link to a press release from The American Legion:

http://www.legion.org/index.php?section=pu...hyear=July,2003

Lawmakers on the House Appropriations Committee slashed $1.8 billion for veterans’ medical care in fiscal year 2004. “This is blatantly wrong,” Ronald F. Conley, national commander of The American Legion, said.

pennDerek,

Might I suggest taking a class on manners? I really do not appreciate your condescending tone.

Did it ever occur to you that I may have already performed MANY Google searches on this issue? In case you haven’t figured it out, I rarely question someone's statement unless I am ready to refute them. I never start a thread in which I do not have an opinion.

VA Secretary Decries Myth of Budget Cut

Forgotten Vets?

The VA Secretary:



GASP. The Congress wants to eliminate waste. They want to cut spending by 1%!! They hate veterans!! they hate the poor!! They hate our military!! They hate trees!!

The American Legion, et al. links talk about proposed cuts by the admin. in the 2004 budget over the next decade. The "refuting" links talk about funding only up to 2004. I can't imagine why they'd adjust the cuts to only go in to effect after 2004 , but neither response addresses the future cuts directly. Additionally, I'm all for cutting "waste", but I don't think paying the doctor's bill for soldiers who are mutilated defending our country from a supposed threat is "waste". The separate 1% across-the-board cut was a dodge by some Repubs to prevent making any tough decisions that would stand a better chance in reducing our debt.

Even if the refutations did address the same topic, it's a little selective to trust the word of an Admin. official over that of the American Legion and The Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. I suppose both are now part of a liberal media conspiracy?

We are not talking about two different issues. We are both talking about the law changes in the 2004 fiscal budget.



Sure, you have two links that talk about proposals and one that makes the assertion that this "cut over decades" is truth, but I still see nothing to back that claim up. Where is proof that veterans benefits will be cut over the next decade?

My link, the one from the Secretary of the VA that states there was no budget cut period, in fact there was an 8-percent increase over the fiscal year 2003 budget goes on to say:

In Beltway speak, a reduction in the increase of a program is a cut...

Anyhow, going to the source (the OMB):
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


The uproar over the cut in Veterans' benefits was a well orchestrated (and deceitful) campaign to sway veterans and military members against the President.

It has no basis in fact. The discretionary spending for the VA is INCREASING by 11% from FY 2003 to FY 2004. Table S–6. Percentage Year-to-Year Growth in Discretionary Budget Authority
[about a quarter way down the page, Table S-6]

So you do think the American Legion has suddenly become part of a "vast, left wing conspiracy" along with the Republican Chair of Veteran's affairs. How far does this conspiracy go? Is Cheney in on it, too? Am I? Are non-Administration sources you've posted being deleted by the CIA?

I don't claim to have gone over every provision of the budget-final and proposed- with an accountant. But I'm not seeing how so many competent, Bush-friendly groups would raise this allegation if it wasn't based on truth. At the very least, Bush failed to use his influence to protect veteran's health care from cuts he knew were being proposed, when he knew there would soon be many more veterans in need of medical care.

Increasing spending is not the same thing as increasing or even maintaining the elegibility to receive that money. Perhaps we need to know if that 11% increase in funds is tied to increases in elegibility requirements. If people are suddenly blocked from receiving VA aid, then maybe for them it's a cut.

These veterans' groups were fed a bogus line and they fell for it hook, line and sinker. Now, they would look uninformed (not to mention a little stupid) to reverse their position.

These groups are misinformed, and the bad information was purposefully passed along to erode Bush's support among these groups. Sad, really, that it seems these people can't do their own research and figure out that an 11% increase is not a cut...

The Bush Administration still continues to treat the troops as little more than assets to be used and disposed of like so many Kleenex.

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is formally opposing a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health insurance system, jeopardizing the plan's future and angering supporters.

The proposal would give more than 1.2 million Guard and Reserve members the right to buy health coverage through the Pentagon, even when they are not on active duty. The Senate has attached the plan to a nearly $87 billion bill to pay for fighting and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A recent General Accounting Office report estimated that one out of every five Guard members has no health insurance at all.

The administration, in stating its objections, said the health care proposal is too expensive. It would cost $400 million each year. The administration also said the proposal did not belong in the Iraq bill.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?pag...a17_guardhealth

So the Administration thinks $400 million for healthcare for soldiers is too expensive, huh? I wonder if the terrorists shooting at our troops in Iraq make a distinction between active duty soldiers and reservists?

Here's another example of how shabby the Pentagon and Bush Adminstration regard our troops:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/10/19/sick.reservists/

Finally, here's a link to a memo from the Veterans Administraton Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Operations and Management that instructs local administrators to "ensure that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur within your networks."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/vete....affairs.1.html

This is the way the Bushies spread the message, "We're all full up. No more sick soldiers wanted!" Don't cut their benefits. Just don't tell 'em they're entitled to them.

Instead of blithely dismissing such unpleasant facts as left-wing propaganda designed to undermine support for Bush, I wish those individuals were just a tad more concerned about supporting our troops when they need help.

Then again, maybe it's just easier for those individuals to be partisan and more concerned about the reelection chances of one president than thousands of faceless soldiers.

pennDerek,

So far, the only thing we have been shown is that both parties, the American Legion, the Disabled Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Indiana AFL-CIO were upset about the proposed “reduction in increase.” That is a far cry from being involved in a conspiracy. That is a far cry from Bush proposing cuts.

That allegation is being carried forward however, by statements like this:



That being said, now that we know veterans benefits weren’t cut we must ask ourselves why people would disseminate this false information. What purpose does it serve?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Nighttimer,

I am glad you admit this administration isn’t cutting benefits.

As to your evidence of mistreatment of troops; these National Guard and Reserve members didn’t have this coverage under previous administrations. Did you cry foul then? I am completely in favor of the Guard and Reserves having access to the Pentagon's TRICARE insurance system. But I won’t lay the blame for them not currently having it squarely on the shoulders of this administration. THAT is partisan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just more food for thought:

Pretty much entirely to put veterans against Bush for the upcoming election. Kind of reminds me of the rhetoric about Newt Gingrich killing the elderly by letting them 'wither on the vine'.

And the bad line was fed to them by the Republican Chairman of of the House Committee on Veteran's Affairs? What's his motivation for eroding Bush's support? Are black helicopters involved? I'm sorry, but it seems the entire rebuttal here is based on ignoring any contradictory evidence and asserting that only the minority of sources are valid, despite greater vested interests on their part.

I'll admit I don't want to spend a long time researching different groups interpretation of the budget to find where the discrepancies are. But I also don't think it's very valid to disregard sources you don't like. If someone can present evidence that Bush's 2004 budget proposal isn't likely to result in a decrease in the quality of individual veteran's health care over the next decade, that would be persuasive. But countering accusations that funding would decrease over the next decade by showing a chart of funding over the last several years is just giving a run-around.

Beladonna, nighttimer's post addressed the fact that the Administration is opposing the inclusion of the Guard and Reservists into the Pentagon health care system. I didn't see where he asserted it was Bush and Bush alone to blame for them not being included. Granted, this isn't a cut and technically not a direct response to the question. But it does show that the idea that someone needs to manipulate allegedly incompetent veteran's groups into not trusting Bush is a bit overblown. There isn't much to show Bush's "support" for troops except a great deal rhetoric used to silence criticism.

The argument was that the Bush adminstration cut vet benefits. I posed a question asking someone to prove it. Amlord and I provided information clearly dispelling the fallacy.

Then an attempt was made to move the bar.

Who's zoomin who?

Belladonna, I don't recall if I took a stance on the extending of medical coverage to reservists during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I or Clinton Administrations. I was probably either too young or focused on other areas. A faux pas on my part, I'm sure.

But why is it relevant? It's this administration that is in charge now and the oversights of past presidencies in no way excuse the malign neglect of the present one.

I will lay the blame on the Bush Administration for opposing the extension of coverage to the Guard and Reservists because upon their shoulders is precisely where it belongs. The fact that previous adminstrations didn't resolve this issue doesn't excuse this one for opposing helping troops, while not at all shy about putting them in harm's way.

And if it's "partisan" to say the guys in charge NOW should DO something about it, then that's just too bad. I would refer you to Harry Truman's admonishment about where the buck stops.

Who's zoomin' who, indeed?

Don't try to be smug there nighttimer. You are definitely the one zoomin here.

Beladonna opened this thread asking the question about lies the administration was cutting benefits to veterans, which was proven a fallacy all along by Bela and Amlord.

You are attempting to shift the subject to that of additional coverage for the National Guard and reserves, which isn't in the topic of this debate.

Nighttimer,

The reason this conversation is relevant goes back to the intent of this thread - to stop misinformation about veterans benefit cuts. I believe that goal has been accomplished.

As to the fact that this administration is opposing allowing National Guard and Reservist troops access to the same insurance as full time military employees, I totally agree with you that this is unacceptable.

I will however point out once again that this administration has:

1) provided more for the military monetarily in the 3 years in office than all other administrations – an 11% increase.

2) is currently working with Senate members to make sure that for the first time veterans whose disabilities are not combat related receive dual benefits.

3) this administration wants to make dual benefits available to more military retirees who served in regular units and whose disabilities were combat-related but not suffered on the battlefield. They now are eligible if their disabilities are 60 percent or higher. Under the proposal, all veterans with combat-related disabilities would be eligible for dual benefits. Retirees who suffered their disabilities in combat on the battlefield are already eligible for full dual benefits.

Information obtained through various websites via Google searches.

It is disingenuous at best to have knowledge of the many wonderful things this administration has done for veterans yet use as contention one issue with which you disagree to make blanket statements like, “the Bush Administration still continues to treat the troops as little more than assets to be used and disposed of like so many Kleenex” or “the GOP led assault on veterans benefits to pay for the his tax cuts for his wealthy contributors.”

Of course you can continue making these accusations, but at least we all know the truth now.

Actually Sleeper, I'm not attempting anything. I'm merely broadening the parameters of this discussion. This place is called America's Debate, not America's Dictates or Diatribe. Apparently. the mods and admins seem to feel so far that my "shifting the subject" is still germaine to the central topic as I haven't been admonished for being off-subject.

And Belladonna, while you and Amlord have done yeoman's work in making the case that the Bush Administration isn't cutting veterans benefits, let's see what comes out of the actual budget for the V.A. when the bill comes up for a vote.

An item of interest where the Republican-led House of Representatives gives to the troops on one hand...

Lawmakers have defied the Pentagon by approving an expanded reserve health care plan as part of the $87 billion supplemental funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

...but takes away on the other.

Congressional negotiators working on President Bush’s $87 billion Iraq and Afghanistan funding request have rejected the idea of making up salary losses for federal civilian workers who are mobilized reservists.

And today the House voted 413-0 to double the death benefit to $12,000 for soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm gratified that the House acted in bipartisan way to help the families, but I still dispute that the Adminstration has done much in the way of "wonderful things" for active duty soldiers, reservists and veterans.

Please don't presume for me or anyone else on the board as to what "we all know" to be the truth.

Truth, like clothing, is rarely one size fits all.

This was the opening statement right? Ok just checking.



Notice something funny about all that above? It's talking about congress, not the 'administration', the republican led house of reps is not the same as the Bush 'administration'. Pick one man, Are you down on the administration or congress, cause last time I checked they are not the same.

You know it's funny. Bela got a few of you, she asked a question that she already knew the answer. Was it to draw out a few of you to show your blinding disregard for our president? Who knows? But it worked rather well. And now that it has been dis-proven that Bush was cutting veterans benefits you are now 'shifting' the argument over to your disapproval of congress.

Sleeper, I'm pretty sure that Belladonna did what any first year law student learns to do; ask a question that you already know the answer to.

So what? I still remain unshaken in my belief that the Bush Administration and the Republican dominated Congress has been either indifferent or openly hostile to veterans, reservists and active-duty soldiers. You are quite welcome to believe whatever you wish.

You and a few others seem to think this president cares deeply about our troops. I disagree. That's really the long and short of it. Cackling and rubbing your hands in glee at the idea that Belladonna somehow cynically baited some Bush-bashers into a honey trap may be an entertaining notion, but maybe it was just a sincere desire on her part to share information and dispel misinformation. I'm sure she's far more aware of her motives in doing so than you are, Sleeper.

As for a "blinding disregard" for your president, I plead guilty as charged. Sorry, but not really, I don't have much regard for a appointed politician whose philosophy, practices and policies show a total disregard for me.

And if you're confused whether I'm "down" on a Republican controlled Congress or a Republican President, I would suggest you read my signature and you may be enlightened.

How in the world can these actions be deemed as hostile(as quoted from Bela's post):


1) provided more for the military monetarily in the 3 years in office than all other administrations – an 11% increase.

2) is currently working with Senate members to make sure that for the first time veterans whose disabilities are not combat related receive dual benefits.

3) this administration wants to make dual benefits available to more military retirees who served in regular units and whose disabilities were combat-related but not suffered on the battlefield. They now are eligible if their disabilities are 60 percent or higher. Under the proposal, all veterans with combat-related disabilities would be eligible for dual benefits. Retirees who suffered their disabilities in combat on the battlefield are already eligible for full dual benefits.

You can be hostile to Bush all you like Nighttimer, but his actions are speaking louder than your words.

I used to not believe he would help the veterans,but I have changed my mind. I don't know much in this area,but is he eligible for benefits since he was in the National Guard from 1968-1973. Oh darn,I forgot he didn't report for duty from May 1972 to May 1973. He must have been AWOL. Oh well,I just don't know what to believe now.

popeye47,

GW Bush's supposed AWOL status would be a great thread. I'd love to debate that issue with you. Want to start a thread?

It was off-topic there too, but Bush's AWOL past was discussed a bit in the Bush on the Lincoln thread. So were his actions wrt military health benefits.