Bush always praised Veterans, but does he really care?

~In 2002, the White House threatened to veto a bill to allowvets disabled in service to collect disability pay without forfeiting an equal amount of their retirement pay

~Bush's 2003 budget proposal provied $2 billion less for veterans' health care than vets groups said needed. Moreover, $400 million the administration called a funding increase was to come out of vets' own pockets, mostly in the form of increased co-payments. "The President promised an historic increase in the veterans budget in his State of the Union address," noted Rep. John Dingell (D-MI). "Today, we see only smoke and miirors, and accounting gimicks."

~The administration refused to reverse a 1995 government decision to rescind a promise of free lifetime health care to veterans who had served twenty or more years. Vets could still be treated at VA hospitals- where, a 2002 report said, more than 300,000 veterans nationwide were waiting for primary care appointments. (In August 2003, the Veterans Affrairs Department propsed closing seven VA hospitals across the country and reducing services at dozens of others)

~Bush's 2004 buget proposal disquialifed veterans making more than $24,000 a year- an estimated 173,000 vets nationwide- from enrolling for health care benefits

I leave you with this quote, "Promises made to our veterans will be promises kept."- George W. Bush, January 2000

vet health benefits have risen more under george bush than any pres in the history of the va its the facts look it up

Bush has given back to the military already what Clinton took away. And Kerry and edwards are always voting against the military, see there past votes @ www.congress.org.

I guess the ones voting for Bush don't care if we have A VA or benefits in the future. Bush is cutting them and cutting them and cutting them. There is so little staff at VA's it is a wonder anthing gets done.

Changes to VA under George Bush's watch:

Categorizing Veterans... Whats this?
well, now some vets take presidence over others. Didn't we all join under the same oath? He is pitting us against each other and forcing veterans out of the VA healthcare system.

The majority of closings are mental health facilities. What about PTSD patients, where will they go, under bridges?
There are already enough homeless and substance abuse veterans.

Last year the VA closed off services to anyone who had not already enrolled in VA from previous service like Viet Nam, Korea, WWII or anyone who got out more than 2 years ago and never enrolled.

The VA budget is to be cut by 4% by 2005 let alone not be mandatory which Kerry has sponsored from day 1, yes he is on the bill as a sponsor from the day it way presented.

Secretary Principi, appointed by Bush, has been on C-span proposing a cut in disability pay to offset the funding for concurrent receipt. Rob peter to pay paul comes to mind on that one. He says the money has to come from somewhere to pay for the additional retirment pay. He wants the full 100% to be about $1,200.00. In the end there won't be an increase in money received. Those only receiving disability will suffer greatly.

Current Veterans have 2 years to service connect a disability or they will be put into category 8 which depending on their income may or may not allow them to receive health care at VA regardless of the nature of the care after the two years. Everyone knows 2 years will not be enough to process a fair claim for most and some disabilities won't even show within the two years. Are they trying to keep service connection from being obtained?

Health fairs have stopped dead because they can't keep up with the patient enrolloments.


Some may think Kerry is not the best choice but Bush is clearly decreasing VA benefits so it is obvious he is not good for veterans.


These are FACTS not guesses or predictions, but cold hard facts about the direction VA has gone since Bush got in office. If anyone wants to know how I know it. I research and I worked at VA during most of Bush's seat. I saw the changes personnaly.

I was a Bush supporter until I worked at and saw every day what he is doing to VA healthcare and benefits.

All I am saying is if you send men and women into harms way, you have a responsiblity to take care of them after and he is not living up to that obligation and I won't vote for someone who cares so little for the service men and women I admire so much.

uz

I voted for Bush. He brought in a very needed breath of freash air. However his Administration's actions have NOT been friendly to the Military. The information is out there. Navy Times, MOAA, American Legion, The Naval Reservist, US News & World, as well as the news media. One only needs to keep an open mind.

Everytime the Congress wants to do something for not only the active side but also the Veteran and Retiree He threatens to Veto the proposed action, Of course, his party holds the majority, so seldom does the military get a fair shake, Regretable.

Will I vote for Bush again. ...NO.

I may just miss the Presidential vote this year. First time in 40 years or more.

True: The Bush administration has not supported Vet matters as strongly as most of us would like.

Also True: Expect even less from Kerry.

...but Kerry voted against pork barrel projects.

Could you guys be more specific about the things Bush has or hasn't done vis-a-vis VA? My impression is that he was slashing VA health care left and right (check out, e.g., http://www.senate.gov/~dayton/releases/2003/02/2003203915.html), but I'd like to hear what the real deal is. However, it's not helpful just to say things like "Kerry votes against the military" without getting into specifics.

They are closing some hospitals but opening clinics to replace them, more clinics than hospitals that were available. I have been to several of the clinics already open, much better than some of the va hospitals, not so crowded as well

Bush gave much back that clinton took away , including retirement.

www.congress.org.
www.numbersusa.com/fax

I have sent this letter to all Senators and Congressional Reps who would accept letters from outside their districts and to every newspaper that I found the address for. I would highly suggest that you do the same (use my letter or better yet, write one of your own) if you have any interest in your military benefits, current and future:
I stay visually fixed on what takes place on “Capital Hill”, very carefully I read everything that pertains to the Military Veterans, since it addresses the Bush administration’s goal to saddle veterans with more costs. I find it interesting that a group of people that always talks a good game about how much we owe our servicemen and women continues to finds ways to place more of the budgetary burden on them. President Bush seems intent on forgetting commitments to those of us who have served the country. I also find it interesting the “politically beneficial” programs like better office buildings for our representatives, foreign aid, etc.; seem to be worthwhile initiatives that just get funded as needed. Frankly, I am tired of veterans getting the short end, and think it’s time to start pushing and protecting our benefits through another avenue of political leverage by promoting the “Veterans Party of America” http://www.veteransparty.us
I remember very clearly, President Bush’s remarks before the American People on national TV, “Promises made, will be promises kept”, during his campaign for President. After winning the election, promises were just promises “made”. The exact campaigning procedure that “all” politicians use to abuse the “Veteran”.
Our most revered Founding Father George Washington gave an eloquent warning, saying, “The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.”
There was a time in past years, which I strongly promoted serving “the country” to all young people. Now, I cautiously warn them of the “political” dangers for serving “the country”, as all my comrades are doing.
We “veterans” know very well that you can implement again the draft, but, to do so, will cripple America as you will never have the technical and experienced warriors from years of military service again, as most will only stay for the period drafted and have no interests in honing their military skills.
President Ronald Reagan echoed the wisdom of our first president’s remarks when, in signing legislation that established the Department of Veterans Affairs, he said, “America’s debt to those who would fight for her defense doesn’t end the day the uniform comes off. For the security of our nation, it must not end”.
At a time when troops on the ground are protecting our security and defending our cherished freedom, I’m concerned that leaders in Congress are set to test the wisdom of those two great leaders.
I’m reminded of the great poem “Tommy”, “for its Tommy this and Tommy that and chuck him out the brute, but he’s the savior of his nation when the guns begin to shoot”.
With today’s rapid technology on the home computers and e-mail just a few seconds away, leaders on “the hill” should know that it’s almost impossible to hide what goes and what does not go on behind closed doors.
As recently as last year, we were told that this year’s budget approved by Congress was adequate. It’s not true. News reports from across the country give clear evidence that VA is straining and failing to make ends meet. It took an emergency budget meeting to approve enough money to get VA’s operating costs current, not any surplus to continue operations.
In complete candor, I cannot tell you that in these past months, or under the present circumstances, we are comfortable with the direction taken by our congressional or executive leadership.
What we see and hear disturbs us, because it is clear to veterans that if congressional leadership cannot arrange priorities within a $2.6 trillion budget to meet the benefits veterans earned and richly deserve something are wrong with the priorities being chosen.
In reading last year’s appropriations, I see that there is enough money to spend on Ground Hog Day, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and more than 13,000 lesser priority, non-veteran pet projects. While individually each of these earmarks may account for a small fraction of federal spending, the total cost to taxpayers for these projects in fiscal year 2005 is $27.3 billion.
Incredibly, there is more. Congress last year approved a four-year $1 billion program to pay the medical-care costs of treating illegal immigrants. What signal is being sent, when budget priorities allow health care for illegal immigrants to trump care for veterans?
The priority given health care for illegal immigrants is a stark reminder that this budget proposal is bad news for the nation’s veterans, especially when our courageous troops are engaged in battle overseas.
Oh No, there is more – with the insistence and pressure from DOD, The Pentagon and The VA, Congress approved the FERES Doctrine (go to http://www.veteransparty.us click on “opinions and polls”, click on Feres Doctrine), prohibiting military personnel from seeking legal representation in matters involving the violation of their Constitutional Rights, Bill of Right and Civil Rights. Criminals who commit crimes at all levels including the most heinous are guaranteed legal representation even if the court presiding over them appoints legal counsel at a costs to taxpayer’s.
Whereas, the public record clearly establishes the Feres Doctrine allows widespread corruption and abuse of power within the United States Armed Forces and prevents said corruption from reaching the public domain and is confirmed by the dissenting opinion of Supreme Court Justice Scalia who stated in Johnson v. United States (1987): “Congress’s inaction regarding this doctrine and its doing little, if anything in the way of modifying it to prevent Constitutional claims is clearly unjust and irrational. Again, allowing such power to military leaders can and does result in abuse therefore, where are the checks and balances on the military.” Again, what is the message being sent to the Veterans?
In addition I’m also a victim of the "Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act" (USFSPA). In case you are not familiar with this act, please go to web site http://www.usfspa-lawsuit.info and read about this injustice being done to veterans. Briefly, this law was passed by Congress in 1982 and backdated to 1981 in order to nullify the US Supreme Court's decision in McCarty vs. McCarty that held a military service members retirement compensation could not be considered as property divisible for equal distribution in divorce cases. The US Supreme Court upheld that military disability compensation could never be garnished for any cause whatsoever.
The USFSPA was attached as a rider to another bill by former Congresswomen Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) and was passed in the middle of the night. This law effectively places military retired service men and women in financial servitude to ex-spouses for the remainder of the retiree's life without consideration of circumstances for the divorce, such as adultery, abandonment, abuse, etc. This law is a windfall for both ex-spouses and their attorneys and gives state court judges free reign on garnishment of military retirement compensation and allows them to further garnish military disability compensation.
As a retired military disabled combat veteran, I have made a solemn oath to stop every young person who appears to be between the ages of 17 and 30, at each opportunity, to tell them as Paul Harvey would say, “the rest of the story”. Many hundreds of my comrades have made the same solemn oath.
The underlying fact remains – we’ve earned what the nation promised, and so have the new generations of heroes who have stepped forward to serve our country.
Veterans all across the nation are calling on Congress to provide adequate resources to care for America’s veterans, keep the promise and support veteran’s benefits. Repeal discriminatory rules and regulations. Some will say as Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Dr. David S. C. Chu, “we can’t afford it; it costs too much”
We believe that the price is not too great for the value received.

quote:

Originally posted by GeoVel:
I voted for Bush. He brought in a very needed breath of freash air. However his Administration's actions have NOT been friendly to the Military. The information is out there. Navy Times, MOAA, American Legion, The Naval Reservist, US News & World, as well as the news media. One only needs to keep an open mind.

Everytime the Congress wants to do something for not only the active side but also the Veteran and Retiree He threatens to Veto the proposed action, Of course, his party holds the majority, so seldom does the military get a fair shake, Regretable.

Will I vote for Bush again. ...NO.

I may just miss the Presidential vote this year. First time in 40 years or more.

I'm proud to say I didn't vote for George Bush. I've voted for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents but this last election was too important to throw my vote away on an Independent.

Ok, George Bush won and America and veterans lost. He'll give plenty to the defense industry while giving nothing to the soldier and veteran.

We don't need a "leader" who wastes our military resources on his personal vendettas while allowing America to shrivel on the vine with more expansive government, record deficits and poorly planned excursions into a country which was not threat. We need those resources to protect us. This is what they are for, not to be targets for insurgents when the solution should be political.

The military did a great job in Iraq. They won the war 2 years ago. They have been misused. Sorry you people had to go through it and I know how you have to make it just in your minds. I spent two tours in Vietnam doing the same thing. But, once you get home you can look at things in a new light. Once we are out of this fiasco and you aren't targets any more you will be able to do that.

quote:

Originally posted by scifi256:
http://www.hanoijohnkerry.com/links.html

I can only guess that you aren't aware that John Kerry and John McCain were the major drivers to have the remains of our soldiers returned from Vietnam. A little education will take the edge off your link to false claims. I'll use one example. The picture of John Kerry meeting with Vietnamese was taken when he was chairman of the Senate POW/MIA Committee. Look it up and inform yourself. He was in Vietnam to negotiate the return of US soldier's remains. No one other than, perhaps, John McCain fought as hard for Vietnam veterans, POW's and MIA's.

John Kerry fought alongside us. He was in country at the same time I was on my first tour. Stop demeaning our real heros and look at those who didn't have the guts to fight alongside us.

Look up the facts. Don't believe all the smear campaigns.

Bush...don't like the man! If you look under the Issues topic under Military Voters..."what do you think of George Bush" it's all there for the reading. I respect the office of the Presidency but do not repect the man.

You should check all that legislation the administration questioned. I would bet money that the democrats were attaching their own projects to the legislation hence the reason for President Bush's apprehension.

Also something important to note is that President Bush has only made one veto in his administration. That veto was today 18 July 2006 and was against embryonic (bad spelling) stem cell research. Something to think about.

Is it live or is it liberal media spin? I vote liberal media spin

DOES EVERYONE AGREE WE NEED SOME ONE THAT IS FOR THE VETS OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY, NOT SOMEONE WHO REFUSES TO GO TO THE SERVICE WHEN CALLED ON, NOT ONE THAT GETS PARDONS FROM OTHER HIGHER UPS BECAUSE HIS DAD KNOWS HIS,JOIN THE GUARD WHEN THE GUARD WAS THOUGHT TO BE A SAFE PLACE IN TIME OF WAR, BACK WHEN WE HAD THE DRAFT. WE HAVE SUCH A PERSON RIGHT HERE ON THESE FORUMS , HIS NAME IS DAVE BARKER YOU WONT FIND A BETTER PERSON THAT IS HERE FOR THE VETS HE HAS NOT ONLY GAVE ALL THE THE SERVICE OF HIS COUNTRY WHEN CALLED UPON HE NOW SERVES US VETS WITH OUR PROBLEMS. DAVE BARKER I PERSONALLY WANT TO SAY THANKS FOR YOUR HELP AND YES I WOULD VOTE FOR YOU IN A HEARTBEAT!!!!!!!!

You have every right to your opinions but wait until you serve under a democrat. Clinton forgot to give us pay raises, cut our rations (have you had the opportunity to try to live and provide for your family on a ration card), and decided that if you lost an extremity while serving the only thing the governemt owed you was a set of crutches. I am grateful that Bush brought the Orthotics back so we can once again provide them with artifial limbs.
Politicians are exactly that, politicians. but the democratic party as a whole is very anti-military. They pretend to support us but in the end they will be the first to abandon you.
May I suggest to Basic Trainees that they read Military Times. To clarify my point Military Times recently completed a survey. They reported the results as did the VFW magazine. It reports that the military is only 12% democrat. 12%. If democrats were so pro-military and felt the military members were as honorable as they promote don't you think they would raise their children to serve their country?
Just something to think about.

Funny, it looks as if the majority of the folks running for Congressional offices that are Vets from the Iraqistan Campaigns are running as Democrats. Explain that?

quote:

Originally posted by lhash:
You have every right to your opinions but wait until you serve under a democrat. Clinton forgot to give us pay raises, cut our rations (have you had the opportunity to try to live and provide for your family on a ration card), and decided that if you lost an extremity while serving the only thing the governemt owed you was a set of crutches. I am grateful that Bush brought the Orthotics back so we can once again provide them with artifial limbs.
Politicians are exactly that, politicians. but the democratic party as a whole is very anti-military. They pretend to support us but in the end they will be the first to abandon you.
May I suggest to Basic Trainees that they read Military Times. To clarify my point Military Times recently completed a survey. They reported the results as did the VFW magazine. It reports that the military is only 12% democrat. 12%. If democrats were so pro-military and felt the military members were as honorable as they promote don't you think they would raise their children to serve their country?
Just something to think about.