Like all other people of "progressive politics", that are constantly being barraged with comments like: "why you do not love our troops?" or "why do you hate our troops?", that you hear coming from certain members of people from the "right side" of politics, I fail to understand why those on the "right" would not be enraged to read the following article and ask as to why this is being done to our Veterans out there. Should not this love be an ever constant love and not just a temporary one? All of the other things that Bush could cut, but he chooses this one? Why?

Veterans face consecutive budget cuts.

From your linked source:


38.8 Bil. up from 35.6 Bil. Doesn't look like a cut to me. And besides these numbers are preliminary and always subject to revision. This is a non issue except for those on the left that will grasp any straw attempting to malign the president.

Now Grizz, you come a slumming after a Long Dixie Chick’s with pricks romp and lay down this slightly twisted sister impression and link to ”support” it. What is up with that?

One, I bring to your attention, Bush’s projections are more likely than not to be irrelevant and a non-effecting factors except perhaps if he has an agreeable Congress in FY 2009 (Oct- 08 0 Oct 09) and not at all effecting from FY 2010 through FY 2012 at all.

Two, the Congress allocates these monies not to mention that in history no President has vetoed any spending bill over VA spending increases made by Congress as added to their budgets.

Three, in the article he links us to, it said that Iraq/Afghan Vets were 5% or 263,000 of all of the about 5.8 million patients the VA is expected to help on FY 2007 ( Oct 06 –Oct 07) next year. It further states the Iraq/Afghan Veteran load is expect to increase by an additional 26% to 331,380 by FY 2008.

Leaving unattended the issue how much more if any an increase after that and as importantly, of the 5.8 million currently in VA health care system, what is the attrition rate of say WWI, WWII and Vietnam Vets from this total over that what 5 year span a compared to the incoming rate of Iraq and Afgan war era Veterans.

Not to mention, granting me the fact that Congress will, no matter what Bush’s projections are, accurate or not, fund the VA as is needed as it has, at least for the last 15 years, for sure.

I have been 100% since 1969. I know how much better the facilities and care is now as compared to the 60’s and 70’s under cut the budget Democrats mostly. Likewise, I go to one of the top 5 largest Hospitals in the system 6 to 8 times a year at a minimum. In all my visits, I rarely see any young, under 40 veterans, in numbers more than perhaps 10 or so on any one trip.

We all have two choke points where everyone will sooner rather than later run into a cross section of Veterans getting medical care. Those being, the massive centralized Lab services area, where we all go at some point and the Meds area where most pickup their meds though mail is being used more than ever before.

In the old Democratic Congress days, one could expect with one lab and one appointment to spend from 5 to 7 hours minimally at the VA. Now, with perhaps with two appoints, one primary Dr and any specialists as well as a lab, I get through in all in about 2 hrs.

I would as well point out that this Democrat’s numbers and assumption may not be as well informed as it appears in his statement and belief as well as equally that of author's that Bush’s fantasies figures are so egregiously flawed and so fallible in those out years.

I point to the Iraq vet increase will numbers rising from from FY 07 (4.53%) to FY 08 (5.43%) of total projected number of service personnel getting service at the VA.

When I started in the system, we Vietnam Vets made up a little less than 10%. While perhaps WWI and before made up 5% and the remaining 85% were WWII and Korea Vets.

Today the breakdown of living Veterans is as follows;

Living War Veterans- 17.825 Million

Living Peace era Veterans-6.14 Million

All living Veterans- 23.98 million

In the VA system FY 2007, there are 5.8 million served by it or 24.19% of all living Veterans and or 32.54% of all War Time Veterans.

Broken down as follows; currently alive

WWI- less than 25 from originally 4.74 million (0% Living)

WWII- 3.24 million from an original 16.12 (20.1% living)

WWII * Currently know to be dying off at the rate 1500 per day or 574,500 or about 20.65% in one year

(In 2 years WWII Vets in the VA system are likely to be ZERO to but a few thousand at best.

Korea- 3.1 million from an original 5.72 Million (54.2% Living)

Korea are dying off at about 900 per day or 328,400 or 10.59% per year.

(In 5 years at the current rate which will rapid escalate in these out years, 52.98% or 1.64 million of the current 3.1 million living Korean Veterans will not be alive. [/U][/B]

[/U]Vietnam- ERA 7.285 Million from an original 8.77 (83.01% Living)

** Vietnam Service-3.4 Million or 38% of Vietnam Era Veterans were ever deployed in theater in SE Asia.

Vietnam- Dying off at about 95 per day or 34,800 per year (FY 2007 rate expected to double every 3 years)
(In 6 years 4.3% or 313,200 of the current 7.285 Million living Vietnam Era Veterans will not be in the VA system. [/U]

Desert Storm ERA- 2.260 million from an original 2.32 million (

Desert Storm- ** 694,550 only deployed in Gulf.

Iraq-Afghanistan- 263,000 FY 07


Given the VA Projects servicing only 5.8 million or 24.19% of all living veterans in FY 07 including retirees and Service Connect injury and as well as low income Vets who pay from 0 to some small pro-rata portion for any care and 263,000 Iraq/Afgan Veerans.

Point being, that there is going to be a large drop off of the far larger shares of Veterans currently in the system today in each of the coming 5 years.

Clearly, with 100% of those WWII veterans, which I am confidently certain, from my observations, are today at least equal to if not greater than even both the Veterans of Desert Storm and the Current Iraq/Afgahan population currently using the VA. Add that to the probable 53% of Korea Veterans who will not be in the system that are there now, plus some 4.3% of largest segment in the system that being Vietnam Veterans who will no longer no longer there.

One can see this generalization has, at some level, a merit in veracity and realism that the VA system will have far less Veterans to take care in those out years AS IT STANDS NOW AND AS TO ALL WE KNOW factually right now.

ustrader: just for him to even suggest something like that is a little overwrought, wouldn't you say so?

Yes, I agree, that is what puzzled me most.

Why would he lay out, an out year decrease in funding 4 to 5 years from now, going against his many increases for Veterans these last 6 years. Especially, when it appeared, by the surface reporting and punditry the demand for VA health care would be increasing?

So I looked at the issue as if there were possibly a reason that would make it fesable, leaving aside the political reality, it is not likely to happen by a divided Congress b u t t licking for every vote to get a little larger majority or regain a majority.

In that look see, I noted the real number of likely Veteran's increasing in need of care and services seems to show in some significant potentially, at this moment, that beyond 2009 the end of Bush's term oddly, he sees a likely to decrease not increase in the number Veterans requiring the services of the VA.

It seems in Bush's assumptions, most do not note that there maybe built into them, oddly unnoticed, a likely decrease not an increase in demand. Why is the question?

Well I showed using the VA's own information, they know nearly 100% of the WWII, and nearly 60% of Korean War Veterans will not be around to use these service, likewise th Veitnam Era Vets will be reaching be reaching by FY 2012 and increasing attrition rate that will in each increase in multiples thereafter. We are taking a mass that is currently 92 to 95% of all veterans using the system.

In that I see where his Budget those out years may be telegraphing, as the larger by far numbers of WWII, Korea and Vietnam numbers dissolve from the demand curve, a presumption that the peak year for any increases in Iraq and Afghan military service needs, will peak in 2009. Thus beyond that, they assume this smallest of all elements uisng the VA system is to significantly drop far greater in those out years of 2010 thru 2012.

I take from that, given the numbers I researched as to the far greater atrrition loss in demand vietnam Veterans and older Veterans currently in the system jus pos, perhaps a peak of no more than 7% for Afghanistan and Iraq veterans and at best another 3% for Gulf War vets, that "the plan" is that troops at risk will begin to drop significantly in 2008 and thus not increase as much afterwards. Of course this is not accountaing for the unpredictable of larger conflicts arising.

Likewise, as often is the case with Veteran's Care, few in Washington have the political will to cut service beyond a level that quality and availablity become scare and this causing a competitive quality strain on those servces.

Bottom line, is I think this says Bush intends to have a significant number of troops out of Iraq and perhaps Afghanitan to a lesser degree in 2008. Then again, I am guessing, yet in plannning Government Budgets, this, as I am well versed, is often the substance behind proving a need for increases and or decreases in funding.