Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home

From:	Millie (pepper2-128.aeneas.net)
Subject:	The new budget by Bush cuts vet's funding for 2 years then FREEZES them....how 'patriotic' of him (sarcasm mode on)..
Date:	March 3, 2007 at 9:06 am PST

The Bush administration's budget assumes cuts to veterans' health care two years from now -- even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.

Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012. But even administration allies say the numbers are not real and are being used to make the overall budget picture look better.

After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly -- by more than 10 percent in many years -- White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends -- its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Bush took office -- sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.

"Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care," said Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA's budget. "Or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/13/vets.budget.ap/
LINK FOR FIRST STORY

"The president's new budget hurts those living in poverty at a time when we should be doing even more to help the most vulnerable among us," said Father Larry Snyder, president of Catholic Charities USA, in a statement. "America needs to strengthen vital social service programs to help those in need, not weaken those programs."

Father Snyder said the "most alarming cuts" would reduce housing assistance to the elderly and disabled, drop approximately 300,000 people in working families with children from the Food Stamp program, cut block grants to states for community services that aid the poor and sharply reduce the amount available to help low-income people pay their home heating costs.

"At a time when our nation is experiencing an ever widening gap between those who have resources and those who do not, we are disappointed that the president's proposal does not go far enough to address the basic needs of those who live in poverty," he added.

The budget also proposes cutting more than $100 billion from Medicaid, Medicare and other health programs over the next five years. Those cuts "will impact some of the most vulnerable Americans, including seniors, low-income children and the disabled," Father Snyder said.

Sister Carol Keehan, a Daughter of Charity who is CHA president and CEO, said the budget proposals outlined by Bush "simply do not rise to the challenge of helping to improve our nation's health care system."

"It is particularly disappointing that the administration did not take advantage of the required reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program this year to propose measures to expand the program to the nearly 9 million children who remain uninsured," she said in a statement.

"Given the focus on SCHIP, as well as the glaring moral failure of allowing any child in our nation to go without access to health care, the Catholic health ministry strongly believes that today we enjoy a unique opportunity to make coverage for all children a priority and a reality," she added.

Sister Carol also said the proposed cuts to Medicaid and Medicare "would only hinder the ability of hospitals to care for low-income and other vulnerable populations."

http://www.the-tidings.com/2007/030207/budget.htm

LINK FOR SECOND STORY

For a moment it looked like the ultimate cynicism.

President George Bush's new $2.9 trillion budget assumes cuts to funding for veterans' health care two years from now, followed by three years of ***freezes.*** FREEZES?!?!?!?!

That doesn't square with recent trends that have seen veterans medical care costs rising by more than 10 percent in recent years or the fact that the Veterans Administration medical care budget has jumped 83 percent since Bush took office six years ago.

Nor does it seem to account for the reality that the number of veterans from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be up 26 percent next year.

Rep. Chet Edward, D-Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA's budget, said this week, "Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions."
Door No. 2 is more likely.

The budget-slashing is just an on-paper tiger. It may give the administration a chance to pose for holy pictures about a balanced budget five years from now, but that photo-op is based on faulty premises like the veterans' health care cuts.

Next year the budget for hospital and medical care for veterans is projected to rise to $39.6 billion, a nine percent increase. But after that - under the Bush budget plan - it theoretically would be cut by 2 percent and then frozen at around $38.8 billion annually.

As an aide to the top Senate Republican on VA matters put it: "No one who is knowledgeable about VA budgeting issues anticipates any cuts to VA funding. None, Zero. Zip."

That may give veterans room to breathe a little easier, but it leaves the rest of the country looking at something Bush's father might call "voodoo budgeting."

When Bush put forth his budget last week he trumpeted it as being "realistic, it's achievable."

"We have proven, and I strongly believe Congress needs to listen to, a budget which has no tax increase, and a budget, because of fiscal discipline, that can be balanced in five years," he said.

But as the VA budgeting shows, that "discipline" is built on premises that not even the White House Budget Office considers realistic.

That's not cynicism, but it is politically disingenuous.
http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2007/02/14/opinion/21798944.txt
LINK FOR THIRD STORY

Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home