AUSTIN, Texas -- As Lily Tomlin observed, "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep
up." But as Con Ed used to say, dig we must. Courtesy of David Sirota at americanprogress.org,
we find the following matches between word and deed:

Just before Memorial Day, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi said, "Our active military
respond better to Republicans" because of "the tremendous support that President Bush has
provided for our military and our veterans." The same day, the White House announced plans for
massive cuts in veterans' health care for 2006.

Last January, Bush praised veterans during a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The
same day, 164,000 veterans were told the White House was "immediately cutting off their access
to the VA health care system."

My favorite in this category was the short-lived plan to charge soldiers wounded in Iraq for their
meals when they got to American military hospitals. The plan mercifully died a-borning after it hit
the newspapers.

In January 2003, just before the war, Bush said, "I want to make sure that our soldiers have the
best possible pay." A few months later, the White House announced it would roll back increases in
"imminent danger" pay (from $225 to $150) and family separation allowance (from $250 to $100).

In October 2003, the president told troops, "I want to thank you for your willingness to heed the
important call, and I want to thank your families." Two weeks later, the White House announced it
opposed a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's
health insurance system, even though a recent General Accounting Office report estimated that
one out of every five Guard members has no health insurance. What a nice thank you note.

A month before the war started, the White House proposed cutting $1.5 billion from funding for
military housing. The House Armed Services Committee had concluded that thousands of military
families were living "in decrepit and dilapidated military housing." Progressive lawmakers counter-
proposed an amendment to restore $1 billion in housing funds and pay for it by reducing new tax
cuts Bush was proposing for the 200,000 Americans who make more than $1 million a year.
Instead of getting $88,000 in tax cuts, the poor millionaires would get only $83,000. The House,
with White House backing, voted the proposal down. (All thanks to Sirota.)

With the release of the 2006 budget, we're constantly finding instances of programs that Bush, the
candidate, proudly claims to support, while he prepares to cut them drastically in order to pay for
making his tax cuts permanent.

According to The Washington Post, the White House guidelines for the 2006 budget include a
$1.7 billion cut for education, supposedly his signature program. That neatly wipes out last year's
increase -- and, you may recall, the administration has never funded education at anything close
to the figures in the original agreement with Sen. Ted Kennedy. Teachers say the No Child Left
Behind law should be called "No Dollars Left Behind to Pay for It." Head Start is to be cut by $177
million, and the highly successful nutrition program for women, infants and children is to be cut by
$100 million.

Any time Bush goes out into the country and claims credit for, or praises the work being done by,
some government program, it is an almost-certain kiss of death -- budget cuts follow.

Back to veterans. This year, the administration increased spending on veterans by $519 million. In
2006, it plans to cut veterans spending by $910 million.

Also on the list for substantial cuts are the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and police assistance and crime prevention programs. When something like
the West Nile virus gets out of control, can't you just envision the independent investigation
committee that will have a look into that government failure? Can we fire George Tenet again?

Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc., points out the House Interior Appropriations Committee had to cut
$682 million from the White House budget proposal this year. The budget situation is now so dire
that the latest Republican scheme is to not pass a budget at all this year (until after the election),
lest people notice what is going on.

The White House's latest ploy is to claim that the 2006 guidelines it issued are just a mere wisp of
a suggestion, nothing to be taken seriously. But the White House has already submitted
legislation to impose spending caps that would continue the cuts every year thereafter until 2009.

Are there any grown-ups in this administration? Budgets are the guts of government. "Who
benefits?" and "Who pays?" are the only serious questions. Except, of course, for the always
timely, "What the hell will they do to us next?"

I might have to put a few more items on my list. Support our Troops......No More Years.

Funny how the neo-cons are silent on this one...

Can't let the facts get in the way of a brainwashed attack stance...

I wonder??
How do much they really support the troops??

I don't consider myself a neo-con but I'll attempt to rebut some of these statements. My reply comes from the perspective of a 20 year Air Force veteran that served under democrats and republicans.

First, the issue of the VA cutting benefits to 164,000 veterans. Those veterans that were cut off were the lowest priority category. Veterans with non-service related illnesses. Basically, these were people that left the military in good health and now want the VA to cover medical problems that have no link to their service. The government never promised, nor should they, to provide free healthcare for life for anyone that ever wore a uniform.

Second issue, charging members for their meals. It only applied to members who were entitled to a rations allowance. It has always been done like this. All enlisted military members are entitled to 3 free meals a day. If a serviceman gets married, he is given an allowance to buy food for himself and no longer supplied with free food at the dining hall (mess hall). The policy has always been that when a service member deploys and is provided with free meals, or is hospitalized and provided with meals, he would lose the food allowance for those days. Only fair IMHO.

Third, Imminent danger pay and family separation allowance. Personally I don't believe $250 is enough but look at the history of this. In peacetime nobody gives a rats a$$ about the military but when the public finds out about how crappy the pay is during wartime they get all guilty feeling about it and demand that we treat our troops better. I think it helps ease the collective conscience.

There are guidelines that say how much a person gets when deployed away from their family. When I was stationed in Korea in 1982, I received a dollar a day extra for being separated from home. Guess what, single guys don't get this extra money because they don't have families. I use to hear them complain about it. I guess that extra dollar a day was suppose to somehow cover the cost of a phone call or something. I don't know.

Fourth, national guard and reserve member medical insurance. Can't talk to that because I don't know what guard and reservists receive as far a medical benefits. As military members who are expected to be ready to deploy they should be in class "A" physical condition. IMHO they should receive full and free medical and dental care just like active duty folks do. Boy, that's going to cost a lot of money. I don't think that the insurance or medical coverage should extend to their families because they only serve part time. Once they are activated and the military becomes their full time job, their dependents should be afforded the same medical benefits that my dependents receive.

Fifth, base housing. Don't even get me started. Every administration for my 20 years did a crappy job of maintaining family housing but the alternative was worse. If the housing is rated as substandard (like it sometimes is) members are entitled to move off base. If given the choice between a substandard home on base and the housing allowance that they are willing to pay I'd take on base housing every time.

Military bases are often located in some pretty $hitty locations and some pretty expensive locations. The quality of housing off base is often inferior to the quality on base. I'd love to see every married military member have the opportunity to move into a nice modern 3 bedroom house but that ain't reality either. Did any of you civilians get a significant pay raise or a free house when you got married? I didn't think so!

The bottom line with all this stuff is this: Everybody is playing politics during an election year and the hot potato this go round is the military because they are in the limelight. Personally I believe it's great that they're getting the attention and they truly do deserve more pay and better benefits. It's just a shame that it takes a war for people to realize that we should be treating our military people better all the time.

Hope this answers some of your concerns.

Oh yeah, one last thing. It's called miltary "service" because it's about giving more than you receive.

Here's another question Rick will refuse to answer, "The same day, the White House announced plans for massive cuts in veterans' health care for 2006."

What were the massive cuts? Any facts? No because you hit and run like a coward... Anyone with true convictions would post an occassional fact to back up the BS they spew.

Here you go, the Republicans fund a program last year with a 6% increase, they fund it this year with a 4% increase, and the libbys call it a massive CUT! If you got a 6% raise 2 years ago, and a 4% raise last year, did you get a MASSIVE CUT!? No, it's all BS, typical Libby spin...

penzt8, what a wonderful response. Funny how the neo-libs are silent in the face of your most excellent and factual response. (tumble weeds, crickets..., a coyote in the distance..., DBs stomach gurgling as he sits dueling with a vapid lobotomized stare whispering to himself neocons... neocons... The telltale signs of dried saliva trailing from the corners of his down turned mouth...)

Remember Robby,

You can have your own opinions, but you CANNOT have your own facts.

pendtz8 wrote, "it's a shame it takes a war to make people realize..."

I think the real shame is that DURING a war, the Bush administration is CUTTING pay and benefits for servicemen and veterans to pay for a tax cut for millionaire draft dodgers.

I think this is unconscionable and you should be furious with them for it.

Kazama, do you have any facts to back up your allegations? Numbers?

I am furious! We should round up all of the millionaire draft dodgers right now and castrate them, then put them in uniform and send them to Iraq. Can we start will Bill Clinton?

LOL

Can't we just get rid of Hillary instead?

Robby,

You posted, "Here you go, the Republicans fund a program last year with a 6% increase, they fund it this year with a 4% increase, and the libbys call it a massive CUT! If you got a 6% raise 2 years ago, and a 4% raise last year, did you get a MASSIVE CUT!? No, it's all BS, typical Libby spin... "

Please back this up with specific programs and specific quotes. Thanks.........

What!? Are you crazy?! Are you saying via implication that the liberals don't do this, and have never done this? Are you really unfamiliar with this "tactic" or just giving me $h!t?

penzt8

always a pleasure to read an informative post from someone who knows. your points are well grounded in reality and are hard to refute.

however-----
with all the money being wasted by congress ad nauseum, one would hope the military, the people whose lives are at risk for the protection of this country, would be treated better. there should not be military needing food stamps.

i believe the original pay scale was based on, you have a roof and three squares, will give you a few bucks for a movie or cigarettes.

the premise is wrong now. anyone who joins should receive pay commensurate with his/her skills and risk factors. the job is not like some service or factory job. other then law inforcement, not many jobs one goes to where people will try to kill you.

support the troops is a cliche to make people feel good. it doesn't matter whether going to iraq or grenada, or where ever, was political expediency or a valid threat to our country, bullets still fly and the risk of being killed is there.

the people who put there lives on the line deserve much more then some business man that can buy a hummby because it weighs 6,000 pounds and therefore is tax deductible.

Robby, my OPINION is that both sides use that particular tactic but you are the one calling for facts (and you are not wrong to ask for them). If you state something as a FACT (not opinion), you too need to be able to back it up. Just my 2 cents.

penzt8 and johnfs

what in hell do the clinton's have to do with this discussion.

maybe your dog has mange, how does that impact this discussion be reasonable people in regards to the military pay and health benifits?

Topics wonder a bit at times, Rick say fired up as you please, and write your congressman instead of getting riled up at me.

In his secret budget memo, George Bush instructed the Veterans Administration that they would need to cut over $910 million from their budget, which would include $19 million in additional cuts for Washington's 656,000 veterans. For the 26.7 million veterans in America, this would mean $910 million less for vital services. [analysis based on Washington Post, 5/27/04]

Since taking office, Bush has broken faith with America's men and women in the armed services. Under Bush, veterans face:

Rising costs for prescription drugs (from $7 to $15 for vets earning over $24,000)

New enrollment fees and increased costs of prescription drugs will cost veterans $2 billion over the next 5 years.

Opposition to the renewal of "imminent danger" pay for families of active duty soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Opposition to mandatory funding for veterans health care. Kerry supports mandatory funding. He believes that health care for veterans should not be the subject of political whim.

Do you support this??
In light of the facts above as reported by the Washing Post and numerous others, there is only one way to describe those professing to support the troops and support Bush at the same time...

I'll let you figure out what that word is...

(since that depends on your awareness of the circumstances)