buckfush

Yes, I did title this essay: "Republicans Hate Soldiers and Veterans."
No, clearly not all of them, but certainly the Republicans in office
hate soldiers and veterans. This idea dawned on me when I say a
homeless man sitting on the side of the road with a sign that said
"Homeless Vet." It was far from the first time I've seen such a thing.
In Tallahassee alone, I've seen such signs at least a dozen times that
I can remember in my lifetime. And just to show that this isn't just
some fluke or that I'm imagining such things, the homeless shelter in
Tallahassee has special services just for veterans. And the problem is
a local one, it's a national one. The Department of Veterans Affairs
estimates that on any given night, there are 275,000 homeless veterans
and that over the year, more than 500,000 veterans experience periods
of homelessness. Almost one-fourth of all homeless people are veterans
and veterans are twice as likely to become homeless as are
non-veterans.

Now what does that have to do with Republicans? A number of things.
The biggest is that everyone seems to think that Republicans love
veterans and do whatever they can for our vets and soldiers while the
Democrats hate those who have served their country and don't do
anything for them. This is, of course, ridiculously wrong (with the
exception of people like Bill Clinton, who didn't do a whole lot for
veterans either). I'm not going to get into how good or bad Democrats
are on this issue other than to say that they are better than the
Republicans.

What have the Republicans done that is so bad? The Republicans have
had partial or total control of the federal government since 1994,
holding the House of Representatives the entire time, the Senate all
but a year and a half and the White House since 2001. During this
time, the federal government had huge budget surpluses (on paper).
This means that they could've easily gotten any programs to help
veterans and soldiers passed. They could've increased funding for
veteran's programs and they could've improved the quality of life for
active soldiers who are in harm's way. Have they done so? Clearly not.

Starting with the homeless vets, because this seems to me to be the
biggest problem, there is absolutely no reason that America, with the
biggest economy in the world, should have even one person who served
his or her country be without a home. This is morally wrong and should
be instantly corrected. Creating housing for 275,000 people is not
even that difficult or expensive. But what would Republicans rather
spend money on? Needless B-2 bombers and huge tax cuts for the rich.
Three-fourths of these homeless veterans have mental health or
substance abuse problems, many of which are directly attributable to
their military service. What have the Republicans (and to be fair,
Bill Clinton) done to help these needy veterans? Definitely not
enough. Needs for mental health care for veterans has risen by 26%
since 1995, but funding for the programs has only increased 9%. These
are people who served their country, many who served in combat, and
they are people that can't help themselves. It is immoral that even
one of these people goes without the help they need.

And it isn't just homeless veterans who are receiving the short end of
the budget stick because of Republicans, it's all veterans. In 2003,
the Republican House cut the budget for veterans health care by $844
million and other programs by another $463 million. "This could mean
the loss of 19,000 nurses, equating to the loss of 6.6 million
outpatient visits or more than three-quarters of a million hospital
bed days. But that is not all of the devastation that will be caused
by the proposed cuts. Congress will be reaching into the pockets of
our nation?s service-connected veterans, including combat disabled
veterans, and robbing them and their survivors of a portion of their
compensation. Ninety percent of VA?s mandatory spending is from cash
payments to service-connected disabled veterans, low-income wartime
veterans, and their survivors," said Edward Heath, National Commander
of the Disabled American Veterans. House Democrat Lane Evans (IL)
explained why we got these cuts: "These cuts must be made, so that our
government can afford to provide a tax cut which will benefit only the
wealthiest Americans, many of who never served in the military. This
is utterly humiliating to every veteran and every active duty service
person. On the verge of war, the Republicans are stabbing veterans of
earlier wars in the back."

The budget that the president pushed for 2004 included a $28.8 billion
dollar cut in funding for veterans programs. The budget was opposed by
Democrats and veterans groups. Virtually every Republican in Congress
favored the bill. It took a public campaign by veterans groups to get
the cut scaled down to only a $6.2 billion dollar cut. The overall
Veterans Administration budget wil rise $3.4 billion in 2004, below
the $4.5 veterans advocates say is needed. Republicans cut $5.1
billion in VA medical care by not allowing "Priority 8" veterans to
enroll in the medical program. He also instituted a enrollment fee for
"Priority 7 and 8" veterans in medical programs, "saving" another $1.3
billion.

By 2013, the Republican House Budget proposal would have cut almost
$30 billion from veterans programs. A Democratic motion killed the
cuts, but the Veterans' Affairs Committee has been directed by the
Republican leadership to still find $3.9 billion in cuts to veterans'
programs. In a moment of actual care for our veterans, the Congress in
2002 wanted to eliminate an old rule that cut retirement benefits for
veterans with disabilities if they received disability pay. President
Bush opposed getting rid of the rule, hoping to deny benefits to
600,000 disabled veteran retirees.

Bush's 2004 budget proposal cut $206 million from the Impact Aid
program that helps make sure children of those fighting overseas
receive quality education. The new Republican tax refund also made a
point to exclude some military families by not allowing combat pay to
be included in the income that can go toward claiming the credit. Many
of those who don't get to claim the extra income won't get the tax
credit. Additionally Bush sought to cut $150 million from aid to
schools that attended by the children of enlistees and further cuts to
VA budgets.

The U.S. Supreme Court, dominated by Republican appointees, rejected a
lawsuit by Korean and World War II veterans who had been denied health
care promised to them by military recruiters. The promised health
care, which was not delivered, would have gone to as many as 1.5
million people and totaled $15 billion in benefits. The Court ruling
means these veterans won't get any of this money. "It is not enough to
hold parades or tie yellow ribbons," the court was told by the
Military Officers Association of America, one of the groups supporting
veterans in the case. "We must honor their commitment and sacrifice by
assuring that the government honors its commitments to them." The
Republican Court didn't listen, despite the fact that the military
basically lied to these soldiers to get them into the wars they fought
on our behalf.

None of this is new, Republicans have been attacking the budgets for
veterans since at least the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan issued a
proposal to cut 20,000 medical personnel in the VA and proposed to
scrap a counseling program for veterans, during the middle of a surge
of Vietnam veterans suicide attempts. The first President Bush
cancelled burial benefits for veterans and cut $600 million from the
VA.

The theoretical reason that Republicans give for these cuts is to cut
fraud, waste and abuse. Joe Fox of Paralyzed Veterans of Americans
said "the reduction will slam the poorest disabled veterans and cut GI
Bill benefits for soldiers who are currently serving in Iraq." It
could also eliminate 9000 doctors from an already taxed system. Fox
said it was "an in-your-face insult to the veterans of this country."

And all this is coming at a critical time. The group Disabled American
Veterans says that the VA is already facing a $2 billion shortfall.
"Pressures on the VA health care system have escalated to a critical
point that can no longer be ignored by our government," said Joe
Violante, legislative director for the Disabled American Veterans.

Due to a shortage of funding there is a backlog in claims from Gulf
War veterans of almost 500,000 (a third of veterans of that war) and
another 500,000 compensation and pension cases backlogged. Also
because of budget cuts, the VA has had to treat more than 1.4 million
additional veterans in the last seven years with 20,000 fewer staff
employees. According to VAIW this means hardships for any veterans who
need new benefits in the future: "Some will have to stand in line,
others will be refused, and still others may face new $250 enrollment
fees," and "a quarter-million vets [will have] to wait up to 10 months
for specialized treatment and surgery." This has also meant that
clinics and hospitals have had to stop accepting new patients and that
veterans whose income is more than $35,000 have been cut off from all
health benefits (about 164,000 vets).

The cuts a particularly devastating because soldiers are amongst the
lowest paid people in our society. Take an example like Pat Tillman.
Tillman was a safety for the Arizona Cardinals set to make $3.6
million over three years who quit the NFL to serve his country in the
Army. His reward? $13,000 a year. Most employees in fast food joints
who work full time make more than this. And there are more than two
thousand active soldiers and their families that currently have to
accept food stamps in order feed themselves.

It isn't just military salaries that are insulting: "[Base housing is]
in poor condition," Army General Robert L. Van Antwerp testified
before Congress. "Much of the housing is old and built to standards
that met lifestyles of 30 to 50 years ago. On-base housing is still
preferred by many soldiers, with waiting times averaging 10 to 15
months."

And it's not like would couldn't afford to make soldiers amongst the
highest paid in society, like they should be. It would only take $75
billion to raise every soldier's salary to more than $50,000 a year,
the least we could do for those who put their lives on the line for
Americans. Republican President Bush, however, suggested only a 2%
raise for low-ranking soldiers in his 2003 budget. At least we have
those tax cuts for rich people.

It isn't just monetarily that Republicans are insulting our soldiers
and veterans. Republican Larry Craig of Idaho decided by himself to
block 850 Air Force promotions in order to get four C-130 cargo planes
for his home state. Craig's stance is basically no planes, no
promotions. Republican Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said
that drafted soldiers offer "no value, no advantage, really, to the
United States armed services over any sustained period of time."
Hitler would probably disagree. Republican matriarch Barbara Bush
recently said "But why should we hear about body bags and deaths and
how many, what day it's going to happen, and how many this or what do
you suppose? Oh, I mean, it's, not relevant. So why should I waste my
beautiful mind on something like that?" At the top of the heap,
Republican President Bush didn't even have the decency to accept a
petition from a group of veterans who opposed the war.

The clearest way you can insult or hate someone is to either kill them
or put them in situations where they might lose their lives. In
addition to putting our soldiers in Iraq for an unnecessary war that
has killed almost 200 of them so far, the Republican administration
has no real plans for how to deal with Iraq and no idea how to get our
soldiers out of there. Of the soldiers who have died in Iraq, 25% of
whom were killed after the war "ended."

The soldiers in Iraq are ill-equipped, undermanned and are often
placed in situations they have no training for. More and more of them
are becoming disillusioned with why they are there:

"What are we getting into here?" asked a sergeant with the U.S. Army's
4th Infantry Division who is stationed near Baqubah, a city 30 miles
northeast of Baghdad. "The war is supposed to be over, but every day
we hear of another soldier getting killed. Is it worth it? Saddam
isn't in power anymore. The locals want us to leave. Why are we still
here?"
"The way it seemed is, once Iraqis got over being grateful for getting
rid of Saddam, they found out quickly they don't want the Americans,
either," said Sgt. Nestor Torres, a military policeman with the 3rd
Infantry Division in the restive town of Fallujah, 35 miles west of
Baghdad. "Everyone is blending in with everyone else, so you can't
tell the friendly ones from the hostile."
"I don't know why they're keeping us around here," said Cpl. Anthony
Arteaga, 25, of Hammond, La., who is assigned to the 588th Engineer
Battalion. "We're not peacekeepers. We're heavy-combat engineers."
"It's getting really frustrating," Sullivan said. "We took the city,
but what was it for? We took one bad guy out, but now there are lots
of bad guys here."
At a checkpoint on the outskirts of Baghdad set up to search for
illegal weapons, a soldier sweating in the 110-degree heat told a
reporter, "Tell President Bush to bring us home."
On a skylight atop Fallujah's city hall, a soldier has scrawled in the
dust: "I'll kill for a ticket home."
Those of us who opposed the war from the beginning said all along that
the best way to support our troops is to bring them home. Based on the
Republican record of punishing veterans, soldiers and their families,
I would add to that that the best way to support our troops is to
bring them home and vote Democratic in 2004.

Debate on this essay

Responses from veterans, soldiers and their families:


Brent: Very well said. As the son of an artillary commander, I cant
fathom the support of soldiers or veterans for so called
conversatives.

Mike: There is a myth out there that repubs are better on military
issues, as a prior enlisted man we do not curry their favor. I cannot
understand why enlisted would ever vote for repubs as they have a
record of screwing us. Plus, most repubs are draft dodgers

Ron: I support this aticle 1,000% I am a vet of the USMC & USAF
working as a cameraman for ABC News at the present time in NYC.

Thomas Jelf: I am a veteran of the Korean war. I was not drafted. I
enlisted in the army for 3 years and I served 19 months of that 3
years in Korea during the war which I thought it was the patriotic
thing to do. I opposed the war in Iraq from day one and now the
unpatriotic news media, their unpatriotic reporters, and unpatriotic
republicans including George W Bush say that I'm unpatriotic because I
stand for peace instead of war. These people incuding Bush are war
mongers and are afraid of their own shadows. They don't dare call me
unpatriotic to my face but if I ever come face to face with anyone of
them I will call them unpatriotic among other things that I would't
tell my grandchildren. As for myself I am on social security and here
is just one of the many that Bush and the republicans have done to me.
While president Clinton was in office I got all of my medicine and
prescription drugs free. Since Bush has been president my prescription
drugs has went from $0.00 to $70.00 a month and on top of that my
income has declined almost $1200.00 a year and this is just me, my
wife has also lost a lot of money since Bush was selected president by
five republicans judges who are just as corupt as Bush and the news
media. I can tell Bush, the news media reporters, and the republicans
that I have every right to hate each and everyone of you. I would not
have served in the Korean war if Bush or anyone like him had been in
office at that time. Right now the republican Rep. Ernie Fletcher of
Kentucky is running for governor and I am going to use the veteran
issue in every way I can to help get this guy defeated. We cannot
permit this guy to become governor.
The corporate [media] also hates the veterans of foreign wars. They do
not report how Bush and the republicans are waging war against the
veterans.


Vets and servicemen. Clinton is constantly brought into the theme. How
about Reagan, and King George I. What did they do? Why not accuse
everybody, if you take the time to go back to Clinton. He at least
created a robust economy and put the country back on track, while
these assholes just do not want to do, or do not know how to do. Just
thought I would throw this in there, and I am a WWII vet. At least I
was happy with the interest on my MM a/c while Clinton was president.
Now I nearly pay the bank to hide my savings in their vaults. Thank
you, Frank Zee

Brent: Very well said. As the son of an artillary commander, I cant
fathom the support of soldiers or veterans for so called
conversatives.

http://quinnell.us/politics/essay/hatesoldiers.html

christmas ape

I'm not going to get into how good or bad Democrats


are not

wade c

Most of the people I know who joined the military did so by choice ...
primarily for economic reasons of one type or another.
They were promised educational assistance and other benefits after they left
the military but were not promised free lifetime subsistence benefits or
care. So what is the complaint ? Where does the fedral govenrments
responsibility end ? How are military veterans (Many of whom never saw a day
of combat duty) different from other federal civil servants ?

garycarson

I get medical treatment from the VA because I have a combat related
disability.

I enlisted because I didn't know anybody in Canada and thought I might
get lonesome.

**** you.


the


that

the

families,


cannot

unpatriotic

because I


me

of


here

me.


prescription

by


republicans

not

in

of


do

How


Just

I

president.

Gary Carson
List of Top Ten Gambling Books
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/