THROUGHOUT his campaign for re-election, President Bush always made sure he highlighted his leadership as the country's commander-in-chief. He never missed an opportunity to visibly commend our troops' exemplary performance or remind his audiences that supporting the war and supporting the troops were not separable positions. Bush clearly demonstrated how much he loves to talk about honoring our troops. It's a real shame that his new budget proposals show just how hollow all that talk was.
The budget that Bush sent Congress last month includes several funding cuts that increase the fees many veterans will have to pay for their healthcare. Most veterans would have to pay a yearly fee of $250 just for the privilege of using government health care. Didn't they already earn that privilege by putting their lives on the line for their country? Apparently not. Rounding out the president's proposal are a doubling of the prescription drug co-pay that most veterans will pay, a $606 million cut in nursing home services and a reduction of nearly $400 million for state-run care homes for veterans who need long-term care.
Senator Larry Craig, R-Idaho, chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, said that the proposed budget wouldn't even allow the Department of Veterans Affairs to maintain current levels of service through 2006. This comes at a time when the V.A. health system is trying to cope with the influx of casualties from the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Senator Daniel K. Akaka, D-Hawaii, the ranking Democrat on the committee, estimated that the new expenses might force as many as 192,000 veterans out of the system, taking away access to the best healthcare available to them.
Bush's budget has many veterans groups crying foul, and rightly so. Dennis M. Cullinan, the legislative director of Veterans of Foreign Wars, spoke for many when he told Congress that "these cuts, at a time when demand for V.A. long-term care services is on the rise with a rapidly aging veteran population, are unconscionable and reprehensible." Another leader with the American Legion, Peter S. Gaytan, accused the Bush Administration of "trying to balance the V.A. budget on the backs of America's veterans," a reference to the administration's hope that the increased fees will make up for the reductions in federal funding. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson responded to the charges by saying that the new fees would apply to lower-priority veterans, such as those with higher incomes. But that income threshold as established in the budget proposal is only $25,162, a level low enough to force many veterans out of the V.A. system. Nicholson commented, "We have to make tough choices."
It's true that tough choices have to be made on the road to fiscal responsibility, but Bush has started out with an exceptionally poorly made and hypocritical choice. Cutting healthcare funding for veterans will barely dent the federal deficit. This initiative is one of several largely ineffective domestic spending reductions whose only purpose is to serve as a ruse to give the impression that Bush is directing the country towards meaningful debt reduction. At the same time, Bush has zealously defended his first-term tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans, which he has indicated that he intends to make permanent. The rollback of these tax cuts alone would reduce the deficit by far more than all the president's domestic spending cuts combined.
Speaking through his budget proposals, Bush is sending a troubling message to the soldiers and veterans he claims to have so much respect for: In response to their service and willingness to risk their life for their country, their country will promptly renege on its promise to provide the full care they deserve. This can't be a comforting thought to our soldiers fighting overseas as they risk their lives every day. It also serves to discourage those who would consider joining the armed services at a time when all branches of the military are having immense trouble meeting their recruiting needs. Bush certainly talks a lot about honoring our nation's soldiers, but his decisions speak to a far less honorable course of action.
A.J. Kornblith is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.
Read More
Letters to the Editor: The resignation of University President Jim Ryan
10 hours agoFollowing this resignation, The Cavalier Daily has received letters from the University community which provide various perspectives on what this moment means to them and to the University’s future.
A statement by 40 Jewish faculty and staff on antisemitism and DEI at U.Va.
By Jewish Faculty & Staff at U.Va. | YesterdayAs scholars and teachers, we know that dissent and debate strengthen our intellectual commitments and moral judgments rather than threaten them. We reject any attempt to deny these basic truths.
KURTZWEIL: Little sympathy for LittleJohn’s closure
By Paul Kurtzweil | July 11, 2025With a new class of students arriving in August, Corner restaurants will face another test of their price discrimination and thus need to learn LittleJohn’s lesson quickly.
