No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

Once agin in my opinion a good letter wasted by wmd.
Question if Bush did not belive there where WMD, why did he send a 250,000 people over there to prove he was wrong?

I'm curious, are the Vet' benefits actually going to be reduced from what they have been previously receiving or is it the rate of increase of services that's going to be cut?

Those are two different things.

This war is producing a disproportionate number of physically disabled survivors. This is due, in part, to better armor, but it presents an even bigger problem. How do these people cope now?
The Fallen Heroes Fund has struggled to meet its goal----and I will say it again, WITHOUT any corporate contribution from Halliburton, the largest war profiteer. Kind of like "shooting the returning warriors in the face", by a company that was once headed by DICK Cheney.

Check out this website:
http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/

Donate if you are able, as this will do more for our soldiers returning with serious physical injuries than Bush/Cheney ever will. Every major U.S. company has made some donation to this great cause.

Biting Dog:

... because WMD's was easy to sell to the American People, and he expected to be in and out in three months so the question would never be an issue.

Read "The Assassin's Gate".

Hugh - that's a good question. Lemme know, I'm curious.

Excerpt from the AP story 2/27/06:

"We don't make multiyear discretionary funding requests", said Veterans Administration spokesman Scott Hogenson, who declined to speculate on whether long-term cuts were realistic. "We look at our needs and assess our needs on a year-to-year basis."

The rapidly growing budget for veterans' medical services, funded for the current year at $24.5 billion, would leap to $27.7 billion in 2007 under Bush's budget. "

LOL! Only in a BushBashers' mind could a $3.2 million increase be equated to a "cut"!

That line of attack on the Bush administration is not new. Let's examine some past history regarding "Bush Administration Veterans Benefits cuts"

http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html

And before you start to respond, you need to know I'm a decorated combat veteran.

Bubba, glad to see you have on your thinking cap.

"Are my eyes deceiving me? Did I just read an article in the News & Record titled "Veterans face cut to benefits in '08 budget" (Feb. 28)?" This is the letter writer's statement.

Then Bubba posts opinion based on an article written February 18, 2004. 2004 is not 2008. It is not even now. So what relevance does this have on the here and now?

Yvonne, he was showing that the same argument was made in 2004 stating that Veterans Benefits were being cut. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. The only cut that is on the board is what is being asked for and what is going to be in the budget. It's like a kid with a $20 allowence and asking for an increase to $35. His Dad say's no but I will consider raising it to $22.50. Now the kid can scream bloody murder that his dad cut his allowence but no where has a cut been made. In fact the kid got a raise. The same is with the VA budget. No cuts in spending is actually even hinted at.There was one bill that was going to ask for a 2% decrease in all spending across the board but it fell flat. Actually the VA budget has increased over the last 5 years more than it ever did in the 10 previous years. Yes there is a war and increases are more in line and yes those increases will be in the budget. They just won't be as much as the VA and the Veteran Organizations have concluded that one should ask for. It's the same numbers game that is played every time a budget is proposed. Only this time it happens to be an election year, just like 04, and of course some are going to twist the facts and make is appear that the budget is being cut. You can't call a cut on what you haven't gotten yet. There is a raise in co-payment on drugs but that is only for those who do not meet the guidelines. If you make over 25K (rounded off and are single) then you will pay the increase. Those who are under that and anyone who is on disability will not pay the increase. The family deductable for 100% disabled and/or those retired will not increase nor will the co-pay. If the co-pay does increase it is taken up by Medicare for those who are eleigible. That is under Tri-Care and ChampVA.

It makes for good politickin but it ain't fer real.

Good News, Bad News. - Bad News First.
As Yvonne pointed out, Bubba's article is a bit out of date.

==
Good News Next
Bubba is still correct, and he gets my apology for jumping on a band wagon without first checking for needles in the haystack - a practice I try not to do.

February 7, 2005 - the submitted 2006 budget:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget06/budget06Agencies.html

The Department of Veterans Affairs would see its discretionary spending rise $880 million to $33.4 billion, including revenue from fees collected for some medical services. Most discretionary spending at the VA goes to health care, and the department expects to provide care for 5.2 million patients in fiscal 2006.

In a change criticized by some veterans groups, the budget would more than double prescription drug co-payments for some veterans from $7 to $15, and require them to pay an annual enrollment fee of $250. VA officials said the increases, which would generate about $454 million in revenue, would apply to about 2.37 million non-disabled, higher-income veterans, only about 1.2 million of whom actually use the VA health care system.

Overall, the department's budget would rise to $70.8 billion, including $37.4 billion in mandatory funding on entitlements, such as disability payments, pensions and education and rehabilitation programs for veterans.

February 7, 2006 - the submitted 2007 budget:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/agencies.html

The Department of Veterans Affairs would see one of the biggest increases in discretionary spending for any agency: a boost of $2.6 billion to $35.7 billion. Most of the spending goes to health care -- the department expects to treat 5.3 million veterans next year.

Once again the VA budget calls for increasing prescription drug co-payments for non-disabled, higher-income veterans from $8 to $15. It would require them to pay an annual enrollment fee of $250. Congress has rejected this in the past.

Overall, the VA budget would rise to $80.6 billion, including $42.1 billion for entitlements, such as disability payments and rehabilitation programs. Officials hope to avoid a repeat of last year, when the VA received $1.2 billion in emergency funding after it had underestimated the number of personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who would seek VA medical treatment.

==

Date Unknown, but obviously fairly recent:
http://www.dav.org/voters/documents/talking_points.pdf

The Administration’s budget for FY 2007 seeks $24.7 billion in appropriations for veterans’ medical services ... reflects a decrease of 1,375 below the number of these new war veterans the VA estimates it will treat in 2006.

In June 2005, VA was forced to acknowledge a nearly $3 billion shortfall for fiscal year (FY) 2005/2006. The VA admitted it had miscalculated and underestimated the demand growth and other factors straining and stressing the health care system.

In digging the above, I found this, and thought I'd share:

February '06 - [from those conservative bastards at the Heritage Foundation):

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=93690

Federal spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush as under President Clinton; from 2001 to 2005 it increased by 33%.

Of course the $5 billion a month "Renewal For IRAQ" (the new name for Operation Iraqi Freedom) is not included because it is "off budget" - and this does not included Vet' Issues or replacing "stolen" National Guard equipment

Of course the $63,000 given to every man woman and child affected by Katrina - also "off budget". Think my wife will let me declare my next toy are ""off budget"?

Here's where it goes - (by ranking, and including cynical commentary from me)

Community & Regional Development overall increase 342%
- Can any one tell me what this really is?
Energy overall increase 211.1%
- That's no surprise, p.s.: God Bless Ken Lay
Education overall increase 137%
- anyone think our kids are more than twice as educated - or will be?
International Affairs overall increase 111%
- some say this was to purchase the "Coalition of the Willing"; I've seen no evidence otherwise
Health Research and Regulation overall increase 78%
National Defense overall increase 76%
- Finally, our War President Speaks. Of course this increase does not include all the "Emergence Appropriation" stuff that, well who could foresee after 3 years plus into a $5 billion per month war ...
Housing and Commerce overall increase 58%
- Can any one tell me what this really is?
Medicare overall increase 58%
- This is before the unfunded and unfundable Med Part "D" kicks in .. get ready for a ride, folks!
Veterans Benefits overall increase 56%
- ahhh .. the topic at hand
Water Transportation overall increase: 56%
- This is before Katrina, and jeeze, as important as our Vet's.
Medicaid overall increase 49%
Income Security Programs overall increase 41%
- Can any one tell me what this really is?
ANTI-POVERTY SPENDING overall increase: 39%
- consisting of the Following: Medicaid Grants to States / Supplemental Security Income (SSI) / Food Stamps / Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Payments / Housing Certificate Fund & Rental Aid / Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) / Child Tax Credit Payments / Child Nutrition Programs / State Children’s Health Insurance Fund (S-CHIP) / Women, Infants and Children (WIC) / Child Care Programs)
- Now I'm not whole opposed to all these programs, there's the hand-out vs. hand-up difference)
Justice Administration overall increase 37%
- Can any one tell me what this really is?
General Government overall increase 34%
Air Transportation overall increase 33%
- Can any one tell me what this really is?
Unemployment Benefits overall increase 27%
- I know what this really
Natural Resources & Environment overall increase 28%
Highways & Mass Transit overall increase 28%
Social Security overall increase 28%
General Retirement & Disability Insurance overall increase 25%
Federal Retirement & Disability overall increase 22%
General Science, Space & Technology overall increase 21%
- At the 11th Hours, all of a sudden this is a high priority for George. Well he mentioned it once recently.
Training, Employment, Social Services overall increase 19%
Farm Subsidies overall increase 2%
- Farmers all vote Pro Live, so they didn't need to be bought off I guess.

And how could I forget the Med Plan - $800 billion over the next decade and as far as I know, also not included and "off budget".

Have a nice day!

Bubba,

John Kerry was a decorated war veteran too.

John Murtha was a decorated war veteran too.

Max Cleland was a decorated war veteran too.

My point? Just to show you that not all decorated war veterans get "swiftboated", just the ones who disagree with neoCONservatives.

James,

Thank you for providing current information to support your stance on the issue addressed by the letter writer. Whild Bubba did acknowledge his info was from "history", he offered no current info to support his contention of a $3.2 million increase in veteran's benefits. He offered only an attack on "a BushBasher's mind" (anyone who disagrees with Bush).

Since he offered no substantiation for his claim, his comments came off as a partisan attack and opinion. Thanks again for giving clarity to the issue (plus all the additional info).

Once again, Yvonne, from the AP story I quoted:

"The rapidly growing budget for veterans' medical services, funded for the current year at $24.5 billion, would leap to $27.7 billion in 2007 under Bush's budget. "

In what way does that not qualify in your mind as "substantiation"?

Oh, by the way: The Pot/Kettle analogy applies to your "partisan attack and opinion" statement. Having said that, far be it for me to criticize whatever it takes to make you feel your "opinion" is justified.

Oh, by the way, DD:

Kerry, Murtha, and Cleland are not the subject of discussion here. The phoney "Bush wants to cut Veterans benefits" story is. It's similar to the pre election SeeBS Texas Air National Guard "Fake but Accurate" memo story.

Bubba,

What AP story did you take your quote from? The one from 2/27/06? That does not provide much in the way of substantiation since you provided a link to one from 2004. If you are going to use quotes to back your opinion, don't you think it would be in your interest to provide a little more information than just AP story from 2/27/06?