Bush supports wounded troops by drastically cutting their health care.

How many American military members have been wounded in the Iraq war? Oh yea, over 23 thousand. And that's just those who were wounded in action - if you count the military members who were also hurt on the job while in Iraq the number increases.

One of the reasons why I left the military at my 10 year (and 11 months) mark was because I had researched what kind of life I would have as a military retiree. The answers I found were not very encouraging. VA centers and hospitals around the nation were closing, veterans were camping out in tents and RVs for days or weeks at the campsite at Nellis AFB, Las Vegas just so they could meet a "space available" medical appointment at the local hospital.

I wasn't impressed for the way our country was treating veterans who had given up limbs or organs in the line of duty.

And now Bush wants to cut that. Now that literally tens of thousands of wounded veterans are returning from Iraq. For some reason Bush thinks the way to balance the budget is to cut health care to the same people who sacrificed their health to follow Bush's order to fight in a war that wasn't necessary.

From the Yahoo news article:
Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly — by more than 10 percent in many years — White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends — its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Bush took office — sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.

"Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care," said Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA's budget. "Or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions."

Edwards said that a more realistic estimate of veterans costs is $16 billion higher than the Bush estimate for 2012.

In fact, even the White House doesn't seem serious about the numbers. It says the long-term budget numbers don't represent actual administration policies. Similar cuts assumed in earlier budgets have been reversed.

The veterans cuts, said White House budget office spokesman Sean Kevelighan, "don't reflect any policy decisions. We'll revisit them when we do the (future) budgets."
As a Veteran, I have to say that I'm extremely unimpressed with our Commander in Chief. As we said in the military, I respect the rank of his office, but I have no respect at all for the holder of said rank.

I'm sure Bush's rich friends appreciate him putting wounded troops on the back burner so that they can keep their tax cuts.

Isn't it bad enough that private organizations have to form to help out those vets who are already under served by their country? How can anyone say that they are "supporting the troops" if they let the President drop Veteran's health care? It's time to rip off that dollar store yellow ribbon from your SUV and get on the stick people.

The article points out that the GOP isn't really serious about the budget, that they'll change it later. Excuse me? Why even bother to make a budget then? Didn't I just watch Bush on TV crowing about how this new budget would put us back into the black? If it isn't worth the paper it's written on, then why be so happy with it?

Bah. Bush is either evil, or an idiot. Anyone who hasn't realized that by now is also an idiot.


AmberKatt said...

Au contraire -- he is both evil and an idiot. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Isn't it bad enough that private organizations have to form to help out those vets who are already under served by their country?

But see, that's the whole point of the Bush Crime Family and all their NeoCon supporters -- privatize everything so that it doesn't cost them anything. And then they can loot the treasury with all the tax cuts for bazillionaires.

Anonymous said...

You're right, I'm making the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. No reason why Bush can't be evil and stupid.

Perhaps I'll even admit to him being smart in a criminally cunning manner.