February 13, 2007

Supporting the troops


Well I just thought it worth noting that President Bush's budget plans include cuts from 2008 in support given the veterans for health care- just as those veterans return from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course rightly it could be said that these are just predictions but even so they are irresponsible- you should plan to afford what you will reasonably expect to require- it is reasonable to expect given the surge that America will need to care for its troops in the years to come, it is irresponsible not to.

6 comments:

Political Umpire said...

This is pretty cringeworthy, but nowhere near as bad as the Blair government's ruthless slashing of the defence budget year in year out. Years ago it was pointed out that the Royal Navy has fewer people on its payroll than Birmingham City Council, with the latest cuts I hate to imagine what it has become. All this is done first of all without regard to regimental tradition, which some would argue is the keystone of the British army. Secondly, and more importantly, it of course seems incongruent to say the least given the amount of wars to which the Blair government has committed the forces.

Vino S said...

Political Umpire, yes it does sound wierd how the govt has not made defence a priority despite having got in so many overseas commitments! The army won't work to its best if it is being starved of funds/manpower.

However, there is something far more chilling about the Bush govt's plan to cut health care for veterans. After all, lots of the veterans needing health care will have been injured because of the war. And, unlike here in the UK, there is no NHS for them to rely on. It does seem a particularly mean-spirited cut. And also rather hypocritical, since right-wingers in the US often accuse the left of not supporting the troops. And yet, when it comes to choosing between maintaining low taxes for the rich and looking after injured veterans, the Bush administration chooses to go for low taxes.

Gracchi said...

I agree with both of you the Blair stuff is ridiculous- health care for forces though seems to be the first duty of someone who goes to war- if you don't do that it seems to me very irresponsible to go to war at all. I have no idea of the UK situation on the care of troops.

Having said that the Blair issue is about not having the troops for the foreign policies the government carries out. That is also a criminal neglect but it isn't the same kind of neglect.

james higham said...

Unbelievable if true. The troops must have the best of everything. Full stop.

Vino S said...

Exactly, there is a clear difference between (arguably) long-term defence funding plans that don't take into account increased military activity since 1999 [Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq] which is what I think the Blair govt is doing _and_ what the Bush govt is doing which is cutting funding for health care for military personnel just when it seems they will need more of it.

Gracchi said...

James- goes without saying.

Vino yes I agree entirely with you.