It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Bush administration slashes veteran’s benefits
By Dave Lindorff | 11.26.03
Woody Powell, executive director of Veterans for Peace and a veteran of the Korean War, says these White House efforts should be viewed as attacks against American soldiers. “I don’t think they see it as attacking them,” he says. “They see it as saving money. But it’s the wrong thing to be cutting, just like cutting education is a bad thing.”
Increasingly, veterans, troops and their families are getting angry. Army Times, a newspaper widely read in military circles, ran a June 30 editorial saying: “President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap and getting cheaper by the day, judging by the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.” Ronald Conley, commander of the conservative American Legion, also recently blasted the White House for VA budget cuts and surcharges, saying: “This is a raw deal for veterans no matter how you cut it. The administration is sending a message that these vets are not a priority at all.”
Advocates for veterans decry fee hike
By Marsha Austin
Denver Post Staff Writer
More than half of Colorado's 430,000 veterans would pay double for prescription drugs plus a $250 fee to access their medical care under President Bush's proposed 2006 budget.
McNulty opposes cuts to vets' health care
By: Robert Cristo , The Record
At a time when the nation's leaders are asking troops to risk their lives overseas, many are wondering why President Bush is looking to cut health care payments for veterans.
After warning during his State of the Union address last week that he would make drastic spending cuts to nearly 150 federal programs, more specifics were revealed Monday in his $2.57 trillion budget for 2006 that increases military spending but asks some veterans to double their co-pay for prescription drugs.
The proposal, which is expected to draw heavy fire in Congress, would also require some veterans to pay a $250 annual fee for their federally delivered health care.
After attending a morning ceremony honoring three wounded local Army National Guardsmen at the state Division of Military and Naval Affairs in Latham, Rep. Michael McNulty, D-Green Island, called the proposal an "outrageous" slight to veterans who fought for their country.
"I just came from a Purple Heart ceremony for three injured soldiers. ... The last thing I want to see happen is cuts in services for these or any other soldiers," said McNulty. "I vehemently disagree with the way he's (Bush) going with the budget, and I hope even old-line conservatives will also disagree."
What Bush and the GOP REALLY think of our veterans!
The details obtained Saturday are the latest in a budget that will also seek savings from programs ranging from Amtrak and farmers' subsidies to Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor and disabled.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is scheduled to get a $519 million spending increase in 2005, to $29.7 billion, and a $910 million cut in 2006 that would bring its budget below the 2004 level.
By Rose Aguilar, AlterNet
Posted on February 8, 2005, Printed on February 9, 2005
Herold Noel served his time in the military, including the first five months of the Iraq war in 2003 as a fuel handler for the military. He returned from Iraq in August of that year to Brooklyn, N.Y., hoping for a welcome and a helping hand from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), something he had been told to expect. That was not to be.
"The government says one thing, but does another," says Noel. "I came back to New York thinking there would be support; that I would have a job, but I was sadly mistaken." After eight months of cold sleepless nights in his car, the 25-year-old veteran finally has a place he can call home. If it weren't for an anonymous donor who paid for a year's rent, Noel would still be on the streets of Brooklyn, unable to see his wife and four kids.
Originally posted by marg6043
because now this morning in the news they are trying to sugar coated with, "to the wealthy vets"
I really think that the media thinks that Americans and specially the vets, old and disable are that dump?
Wealthy people does not used vet hospital or Medicaid or vet benefits, they pay for it.
Iraq War Vet Arrested After Standoff With Police
Wednesday, February 9, 2005
A man who once served in Iraq is in trouble after a three-hour standoff with police.
Police say it started Tuesday afternoon when they got a domestic disturbance call from a quiet neighborhood in Saraland. But when they got there they discovered much more.
Saraland's Public Safety Director says after three hours of negotiating, Charles LaPorte finally surrendered. When they got to the home police say they found LaPorte armed with guns and a full clip of ammunition.
White House Turns Tables on Former American POWs
Gulf War pilots tortured by Iraqis fight the Bush administration in trying to collect compensation.
By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — The latest chapter in the legal history of torture is being written by American pilots who were beaten and abused by Iraqis during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. And it has taken a strange twist.
The Bush administration is fighting the former prisoners of war in court, trying to prevent them from collecting nearly $1 billion from Iraq that a federal judge awarded them as compensation for their torture at the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime.
The rationale: Today's Iraqis are good guys, and they need the money.
The case abounds with ironies. It pits the U.S. government squarely against its own war heroes and the Geneva Convention.
Many of the pilots were tortured in the same Iraqi prison, Abu Ghraib, where American soldiers abused Iraqis 15 months ago. Those Iraqi victims, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said, deserve compensation from the United States.
But the American victims of Iraqi torturers are not entitled to similar payments from Iraq, the U.S. government says.
Originally posted by marg6043
Well ECK this does not make sense if they can not hold Iraqi government accountable then who they should hold accountable their own American government?
Critical Republicans Look to Cut Bush's $82 Billion War Request
By Mike Allen and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 17, 2005; Page A04
House Republican leaders said yesterday that they may cut some of the nonmilitary parts of President Bush's $82 billion budget request for Iraq and anti-terrorism efforts because they are not emergencies.
The sharp comments they made in challenging the budget request marked an abrupt departure from the deference the Republicans have shown Bush on earlier war funding. Party members said they are determined to reassert their authority over the budget at a time when the White House is accusing lawmakers of being big spenders.
Rumsfeld was peppered with questions about the propriety of the request from Republicans and Democrats during two appearances on Capitol Hill. At first Rumsfeld said he and the Pentagon were not directly responsible for the spending submission -- that it was a matter left to the White House, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress.
"This issue of what goes in a supplemental is something that really is beyond my pay grade," Rumsfeld told the Senate Appropriations Committee.
At the Appropriations Committee hearing, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) berated Rumsfeld for not including any funding for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the supplemental request, calling it a troubling omission in the president's budget and in the additional request for war funds. She said she is going to introduce a $2 billion amendment to offer help to veterans.
"There is no mention in here of our responsibility to pay for the continued emotional and physical costs of war," Murray said. "It's as if once these brave men and women leave the service, they're no longer considered an essential priority for the administration."
Originally posted by darth ruin
Ah shucks.....maybe you not only hate yourself......you hate the fact that you have a small penis and you blame....wait.....George W. Bush for that too.