Cutting Funds For Veterans

[Guest guest]

> J

> Thu, 26 Aug 2004

> CUTTING FUNDS FOR VETERANS

>

>

> The Truth About Bush's Support for Our Soldiers &

> Veterans

>

> CUTTING FUNDS FOR VETERANS MISTREATMENT OF IRAQ

> TROOPS

 

> Bush's FY2004 Budget Cuts Fund to Military Family

> Housing/Medical Facilities. Bush's FY'04 budget

 

> proposes a $1.5 billion reduction in

> funds to military family housing/medical facilities,

> amounting to a 14 percent cut. [bush FY2004 Budget]

 

> Army Investigating Complaints of

> Poor Treatment for Iraq Veterans. UPI learned that

> " hundreds of sick

> and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served

> in the Iraq war

> are languishing in hot cement barracks while they

> wait, sometimes for

> months, to see doctors. The National Guard and Army

> Reserve soldiers'

> living conditions are so substandard, and the

> medical care so poor,

> that many of them believe the Army is trying to push

> them out with

> reduced benefits for their ailments. One document

> shown to UPI states

> that no more doctor appointments are available from

> Oct. 14 through

> Nov. 11, Veterans Day?.

 

> One month after President Bush greeted

> soldiers at Fort Stewart as heroes on their return

> from Iraq,

> approximately 600 sick or injured members of the

> Army Reserves and

> National Guard are warehoused in rows of spare,

> steamy and dark

> cement barracks in a sandy field, waiting for

> doctors to treat their

> wounds or illnesses. " [ United Press International ,

> 10/17/03 ,

> 10/20/03 ]

 

> Bush Administration Has Continued Delaying,

> Extending

> Troop Deployment Timetable. Troops were first told

> they'd be going home in

> May, then in early July, then late July, and then

> Rumsfeld said

> August. Then officials changed the story yet again,

> saying they could

> make no hard promises.

 

> Then the Pentagon announced for the first time

> since Vietnam , they might have to start serving

> back to back

> overseas tours of up to a year. And now the Pentagon

> acknowledges

> that the Untied States will have to provide the

> overwhelming majority

> of the occupying troops indefinitely. [ABC News,

> 7/16/03 ; USA Today

> , 8/24/03 ; New York Times , 10/27/03 ]

 

> On NBC's " Meet the Press "

> with Tim Russert, President Bush said: " Any time you

> commit your

> troops into harm's way, they must have the best

> equipment, the best

> training, and the best possible pay. That's where we

> owe it to their

> loved ones. " In war it's impossible to foresee and

> meet all needs.

 

> But when compared to the Bush Administration's blank

> check policy

> with Pentagon contractors, how can the failings

> listed below be

> explained? Nearly 25 Percent of U.S. Troops Weren't

> Issued Appropriate

> Body Armor Due to Pentagon Oversight, Delays. It was

> reported in

> October 2003 that nearly one-quarter of the 130,000

> U.S. troops in

> Iraq still hadn't been issued a new type of ceramic

> body armor strong

> enough to stop bullets fired from assault rifles.

 

> Delays in funding, production and shipping meant it

> would be December before all troops

> in Iraq would have the vests. The military's

> Interceptor vests,

> introduced in 1999, include removable ceramic plates

> in the front and

> back that can stop bullets such as the 7.62mm rounds

> fired by

> Kalashnikov rifles common in Iraq and Afghanistan .

> [ Associated

> Press , 10/13/03 ]

 

> Soldiers Paying $650 Out of Their

> Own Pockets to

> Buy Body Armor. An October 2003 House Appropriations

> Committee report

> on how poorly-equipped America's soldiers were noted

> that " the

> committee has learned that some active-duty soldiers

> and reservists

> are spending as much as $650 out of pocket to buy

> Interceptor Body

> Armor vests and Small Arms Protective Insert plates

> to replace the

> Vietnam-era flak vests issued when they arrive in

> Iraq. " [ Defense

> Week , 10/14/03 ]

 

> Many Soldiers Arriving in Kuwait

> Hadn't Been Issued

> Essential Combat Gear, Paid for Equipment

> Themselves. As was reported

> in Defense Week and many other publications, many

> soldiers arriving

> in Kuwait before the start of Iraqi Freedom had not

> been issued

> essential combat gear, from desert boots and

> hand-held Global

> Positioning System locators to extra pistol magazine

> and

> Camelback-style canteens. The troops often paid for

> such equipment

> out of pocket. [ Defense Week , 10/14/03 ]

 

> Administration Failed to

> Provide Funds for Portable Radio-Frequency Jammers

> That Could Foil

> Attacks. An October 2003 House Appropriations

> Committee report noted

> the lack of portable radio-frequency jammers that

> can foil some kinds

> of command-detonated explosives. Army leaders have

> acknowledged that

> " improvised explosive devices, " usually artillery

> shells, mortars or

> grenades rigged to detonate on roadways, were a

> major threat to U.S.

> forces. " The capability of currently fielded

> portable radio jammers

> does not provide effective defense against remotely

> detonated

> explosives being used increasingly against American

> soldiers, " the

> report said. [www.house.gov; Defense Week ,

10/14/03]

 

> Soldiers Forced to Fly Helicopters Without Basic

> Missile Defense Systems. " So the

> whistle blowers were right, " said a November 2003

> Peoria Journal Star

> editorial titled " First-Class Soldiers Deserve

> First-Class

> Protection. " " A Peoria-based Illinois National Guard

> unit got

> second-class equipment to protect itself in

> Iraq? Accounts differ as

> to why six of the 14 helicopters belonging to the

> 106 th Aviation

> Battalion flew all summer without the basic missile

> defense systems

> considered standard in regular Army choppers, or the

> more advanced

> systems that represent the new standard? If the Army

> intends the Guard

> members and reservists being called to duty to be

> treated like

> first-class soldiers, then it owes them first-class

> protection. " [

> Peoria Journal Star , 11/12/03 ]

 

> Bush Gives Veterans Administration

> $1.2 Billion Lees Than it Requested. In a rare move

> by a Cabinet

> member, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi

> told a House

> Committee in February 2004 that he had sought $1.2

> billion more than

> President Bush was willing to put in his budget. " I

> asked OMB for

> $1.2 billion more than I received, " Principi said,

> referring to the

> White House Office of Management and Budget. Bush's

> $2.4 trillion

> budget sent to Congress on Monday proposes $65.3

> billion for the

> agency, including a 1.8 percent increase in

> discretionary spending to

> $29.7 billion, which pays for veterans medical care.

> [ Associated

> Press , 2/4/04 ]

 

> Veterans Groups Said Bush Budget

> Does Little for

> Veterans Medical Care. Veterans groups have been

> unhappy with the

> President's proposed budget for the Veterans agency,

> saying it

> provides little increase for medical care in an

> election year and at

> a time when the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have

> created a new

> generation of veterans in need of services. [

> Associated Press ,

> 2/4/04 ]

 

> Bush Actively Opposed $1.3 Billion for

> Veterans Emergency

> Health Care Funding in FY04. In fall 2003, the Bush

> administration

> fought, unsuccessfully, in the end, a bid to add

> $1.3 billion in

> emergency health care funding for veterans in fiscal

> 2004.

 

> According to Steve Robertson, legislative director

> for the American Legion,

> many veterans were displeased that the

> administration's budget

> request would have raised the annual enrollment fee

> in veterans'

> medical facilities and increased their co-payments

> for pharmaceuticals and doctor visits. [ Charleston

> Daily Mail , 12/27/03 ]

 

> Bush VA Spending Failed to Grow with Health Care

> Costs. Despite

> Bush's claims, " the annual percentage increase it

> requested for

> veterans' health care is 5.4 percent, hardly a

> windfall considering

> that the consumer price index for medical care was

> 13 percent during

> the fiscal year 2002. VA officials have testified

> that it would take

> a 13 to 14 percent hike in the VA's health care

> budget just to

> maintain the status quo. " [ The Hill , Rep. Evans

> op/ed, 9/17/03 ]

 

> Bush Proposed Doubling Costs of Prescription Drugs

> for Veterans. In

> 2003, Bush proposed increasing prescription drug

> costs for veterans.

> The Bush plan would have included a new $250

> enrollment fee and a

> co-pay increase from $7 to $15 for veterans earning

> over $24,000.

 

> On July 21, 2003 , the House Appropriations

> Committee agreed to a

> Democratic amendment to reject the Bush fee

> increases and recoup the

> $264 million in costs by reducing administrative

> funding for the

> Department of Veterans Affairs. [ Reuters , 7/14/03

> ; Washington Post

> , 7/22/03 ]

 

> Bush Decided to Cut Benefits for

> Middle-Income Veterans.

> On January 16, 2003 , the Bush Administration

> announced it would cut

> access to health care benefits for 160,000

> middle-income veterans due

> to budget constraints. " On one hand, we're sending

> our sons and

> daughters out to war and possibly to die, yet on the

> other hand we're

> punishing a certain class of veterans who've made

> money in the lives.

> The government made a promise to us. What they're

> doing now is

> wrong. " [ Associated Press , 1/16/03 ; The Daily

> Oklahoman , 1/18/03 ]

 

> SERVICE MEMBERS AND FAMILIES FACE DEVASTATING CUTS

> UNDER BUSH

> Pentagon Planned to Cut Pay of Troops Serving in

> Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

> In April 2003, the U.S. Senate unanimously voted

> to increase pay

> for soldiers in imminent danger areas by 50 percent.

> The increase was

> the first to imminent-danger pay since the first

> Gulf War, and the

> first to families since 1997. The increases were

> temporary and set to

> expire at the end of the current fiscal year on

> September 30.

 

> Bush's Defense Department effectively decided " to

> cut the pay of its 148,000

> U.S. troops in Iraq , who are already contending

> with guerilla-style

> attacks, homesickness and 120-degree plus heat " by

> opposing renewal

> of the pay raises. After criticism, the Pentagon

> announced that

> current salaries for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

> would not be cut,

> but such efforts may come at the expense of troops

> serving elsewhere.

> [ Knight-Ridder , 4/5/03 ; Los Angeles Times ,

> 4/3/03 ; CQ , 4/16/03

> ; San Francisco Chronicle , 8/14/03 ; Army Times ,

> 8/13/03 ; 8/20/03 ]

 

> Army Times Called the Pay Cuts " Maddening. " The

> Army Times , an

> independent paper distributed to Army personnel,

> criticized Bush,

> saying, " The bottom line: If the Bush administration

> felt in April

> that conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan warranted

> increases in danger

> pay and family separation allowances, it cannot

> plausibly argue that

> the higher rates are not still warranted today. " The

> Times said the

> Bush administration " undermined " support for the

> troops, and called

> the pay cuts " maddening. " The Atlanta

> Journal-Constitution called the

> Pentagon's plan " heartless " and " simply

> unacceptable. " [ Army Times ,

> 8/18/03 ; San Francisco Chronicle , 8/14/03 ;

> Atlanta Journal-Constitution , 8/15/03 ]

 

> From <http://moveon.org/>moveon.org