PDA

View Full Version : Pentagon: Veteran's Benefits Are Damaging National Defense



blueturk
03-12-2005, 06:39 AM
Those damn veterans! According to the Under Secretary Of Defense, their benefits are eroding our national defense. Is this really how the top brass at the Pentagon feel, or is David Chu just a fucking idiot? Keep in mind that as Under Secetary of Defense, Chu has only two bosses.He answers directly to Donald Rumsfeld and by extention to the president.


http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/11086757.htm

Posted on Wed, Mar. 09, 2005
Pentagon takes shot at vets

Official says benefits for veterans damage our national defense

MYRIAM MARQUEZ
Orlando Sentinel


Weapons America needs to defend itself in the future will have to be slashed. Incentives for young people to join the volunteer military are in jeopardy even as U.S. forces are being strained in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And it's all the fault of military veterans and even their widows.

That's what David Chu, the Pentagon's undersecretary for personnel and readiness, says about increases in veterans benefits that Congress approved since 1999.

"The amounts have gotten to the point where they are hurtful. They are taking away from the nation's ability to defend itself," Chu told The Wall Street Journal recently.

Chu's remarks became the Pentagon's shot heard around the blogosphere. Vets aren't going down without a fight.

The Pentagon estimates increases in benefits, some approved by Congress during the Clinton administration, will cost $100 billion more in the next six years. But whose fault is that?

Those benefits were promised long ago. Then the government tried to wiggle out of its obligation. After veterans groups, a powerful voting bloc, forced the issue, both Republicans and Democrats came to the rescue -- despite the Bush administration's attempts to nickel-and-dime vets.

You don't take on the Greatest Generation without paying a political price. But President Bush, having won a second term to office with strong support from veterans, has nothing to lose. Forget veterans benefits -- Bush's priority remains tax cuts. He wants tax cuts that disproportionately help the richest Americans, reasoning they will create more jobs and strengthen the economy.

Except too many of those jobs are going to India, China and so forth. Not just grunt work, but technical jobs, too, that pay well.

Thomas Corey, national president of Vietnam Veterans of America, fired his own volley back at the Bush administration after it released the latest veterans budget proposal, which would require that certain veterans pay more for their health care. "The president is mistaken if he believes that 58 percent of veterans voted for the Bush-Cheney ticket last year to give his administration a mandate to cut funds for veterans," Corey said. "If he believes that veterans voted to restrict access to health care, he needs to reassess his position."

Hey, tell that to the Swift Boat boys who sought to besmirch Sen. John Kerry's military service during the presidential campaign.

Several veterans groups, including the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and Veterans of Foreign Wars have put together their own budget proposal. They figure the Department of Veterans Affairs needs $31.2 billion for medical care. The administration is proposing $27.8 billion -- a less than one-half percent increase. Adjusted for inflation, Bush's plan amounts to a cut.

Bush wants to increase vets' medical-insurance enrollment to $250 a year, raise prescription copayments and restrict certain care. This would drive 213,000 vets, many already on tight retirement budgets, away from the VA medical system, the veterans groups estimate. Long-term care would be gutted under the Bush plan, too, serving 27 percent fewer vets in 2006 than in 1998.

Pitting military retirees and vets against those who are serving today is a sideshow that hides the main event -- the true reasons for the federal budget crunch. Exploding annual deficits have more to do with Bush's penchant for over-the-top tax cuts than long-overdue benefits for those who risked their lives to defend this country during two world wars, Korea, Vietnam, and all the other military operations to this day. Veterans' benefits don't deserve to be on the chopping block.

Satan
03-12-2005, 10:11 AM
If the Swift Boat Liars had ever been a veterans organization to begin with, they would be all over this asshole now. Instead they're attacking senior citizens and equating social security with "gay weddings".

Another attack on veterans from a Fraudministration which places military power above all else. The mind boggles so much that my horns will soon be spinning.....

BigBadBrian
03-13-2005, 04:01 PM
This isn't the first time this Chu fucker has said shit like this. I'm a member of a few of these groups and have personally written to the guy and told him how wrong he is. You know how far that goes. :rolleyes:

BigBadBrian
03-13-2005, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Satan
If the Swift Boat Liars had ever been a veterans organization to begin with, they would be all over this asshole now. Instead they're attacking senior citizens and equating social security with "gay weddings".

Another attack on veterans from a Fraudministration which places military power above all else. The mind boggles so much that my horns will soon be spinning.....

What amazes me is how you manage to work homosexuality into every post. Disgusting. :mad:

LoungeMachine
03-13-2005, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
What amazes me is how you manage to work homosexuality into every post. Disgusting. :mad:

Yeah, it's almost like he's a Republican that way:rolleyes:

dolt.

blueturk
03-13-2005, 04:58 PM
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/segel/2005/segel021505.htm

Veterans Find Some Things Hard To Chu

February 15, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Thomas D. Segel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone wishing to stir up the anger of veterans and members of the retired military community need only mention the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Dr. David Chu. From that point onward, outrage will take the place of polite conversation.

What causes all this veteran anger? According to Colonel Harry Riley, U S Army (Ret) it is because “Mr. Chu, without rational justification, makes broad and sweeping statements identifying military retiree benefits as the enemy of our active force.”

Chu has made comments like “Benefits that apply mainly to retirees and their families are making it harder for the Pentagon to afford financial incentives for today’s military,” He has continued on that theme saying,
“Congress has gone too far in expanding military retiree benefits.” His claim is the benefits are now a heavy burden. “They are starting to crowd out two things: First, our ability to reward the person who is bearing the burden right now in Iraq or Afghanistan. Second, they are undercutting our ability to finance the new gear that is going to make that military person successful five, ten 15 years from now.”

Colonel Riley muses, “I wonder if Mr. Chu ever considered how ‘hard’ it was at Normandy, in the jungles of the South Pacific, or the freezing battlefields of Korea as he sits in his office and denigrates these old warriors seeking benefits they earned?’

Some readers may not be familiar with the workings of Dr. David S. C. Chu. or his role within the Department of Defense (DoD). He is a product of the Ivy League, earning his Doctorate in Economics from Yale in 1972. He was commissioned and served two years in the Army, including a tour of duty with the Office of the Comptroller, Headquarters, and 1st Logistical Command, in Vietnam. From that point on he has been in and out of government, accruing more than 18 years of federal service. He was named to his current position on June 1, 2001.

Since taking his DoD post, David Chu has served as the designated “attack dog” for the administration. He has testified before Congress, given speeches and written articles for the media on numerous occasions. If the topic relates to veterans issues, retired military personnel or military dependents benefits his approach has repeatedly been negative. In fact, some of his public comments have actually displayed distain for those who, in the past, served their country with honor. He has been particularly vicious in arguing against expenditures for veteran and retiree health care. At the same time it should be noted he will receive a federal pension and medical benefits when he retires from federal service. Some say these are even more generous benefits than are awarded to military retirees.

Major General Earl G. Peck, USAF (Ret) has some serious observations about Dr. Chu’s conduct. He says, “The point Dr. Chu misses is that honoring the solemn obligations of our nation to veterans makes a direct contribution to national security even if he chooses to ignore the moral strictures that bind us to promises. Having served more than 36 years on active duty and with 6 sons who have served or are serving in the armed forces, I can testify that every failure to honor those obligations diminishes the value of a military career to those who are serving and those who might serve in the future. If through misguided parsimony we are no longer able to attract the right people, we can’t provide for the security of the nation.”

Those unfamiliar with the workings of Washington might feel Chu was just a loose cannon running off at the mouth. This is anything but the case. The Under Secretary of Defense has only two bosses. He answers directly to the Secretary of Defense and by extension to the President. This means that anything he places in testimony, writes in press releases or utters by mouth has been completely staffed and awarded official blessing. At the same time, Chu understands by not attributing his remarks to any other individual he gives the senior leadership a degree of deniability, should the heat build up to an unbearable degree.

Another Air Force retiree agrees with that observation. Brigadier General Robert Clements writes from his California home, “Mr. Chu’s remarks appearing in the Associated Press and in papers all over the country didn’t happen by accident. Chu, who has been on the Washington scene as a bureaucrat since the Carter administration, knows through years of experience and spouting off the same rhetoric, that traditionally military retirees, up until recent times, were very weak in demanding and protecting those benefits they were promised and given by law. He also knows from previous experience, they are very slow to band together in protecting those benefits. He is the willing lip-syncher for the Secretary of Defense and the President. Both the President and the Secretary of Defense know this and use him as a valuable tool.”

Why attack veterans and military retirees? The answer can be found in knowing how Washington operates. Congress must appropriate all monies and decide who and what are granted funds. Senators and Representatives believe their primary function is getting reelected, and that process starts the day members take their first oath of office. They win reelection by buying votes with tax dollars. Those dollars are dispensed to constituencies, which pledge to help keep the incumbent in office.

Thus, money flows freely to farmers, teacher groups, unions, minority groups, the poor, senior citizens, etc., etc. It should be noted however, that most money flows in the direction of those who yell the loudest. Until very recent times veterans and military retirees have not had a very loud voice in the battle for tax dollars. In fact, they have been reluctant to speak out in their own interest. Many remain quiet, even today, even though their only desire is to receive those things promised to them by their own government.

This brings us back to Dr. David Chu. He has been assigned the task of framing all who served in uniform as whining, greedy individuals who feel the government owes them ever-increasing bounty. He has even hinted at their disloyalty, by demanding tax dollars be spent on their personal needs, while at the same time denying the needs of those on active duty.

Historically the end game of DoD is to delay, deny, or cast doubt on any and all veteran or retiree claims. According to Charles Clark, Director of Communications for the National Association of Atomic Veterans, Chu was party to the work of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and a group titled Nuclear Test Personnel Review. Though charged with determining which veterans had been exposed to radiation and honoring their claims for treatment, the end result has been quite different.

“My claim has been batted around since 1995”, reports Clark. “I still await the truth. Others and I have watched Chu and Dennis Schaeffer of the Nuclear Test Group for a long time, wondering if our government is attempting to cover up this type of problem. Imagine 450,000 exposed veterans and only 50 claims decided. What a waste of tax payer monies.”

As Congress was debating the issue of resending a 100 plus year rule that denied disabled military retirees disability compensation without a dollar per dollar offset from their military pension, Chu often overestimated the cost of such legislation. Again he claimed it would drain DoD resources.

When the Class Act Group, led by Medal of Honor recipient Colonel “Bud” Day was fighting for the earned medical care promised military retirees, all the voices of the Department of Defense, including David Chu, first denied there was any such promise made to service personnel and then claimed the cost drained funding from active duty forces.

Cries of funding drain still continue with Chu lamenting the cost of the military retiree Medicare supplement Tricare for Life.

Says Gary Garavaglia, a World War II and Korean War veteran and military retiree, “We find Dr. Chu’s comments to be unconscionable. After surviving WWWII and Korea my wife and I have been forced to pay for our healthcare until Tricare For Life was finally passed. Now we need the rest of the promises that were made and not kept.”

What he is referring to is a comment made in a pre-inaugural address, January 19, 2001 by President-elect George W. Bush. He said “In order to make sure that morale is high with those who wear the uniform today, we must keep our commitment to those who wore the uniform in the past…We will make sure promises made to our veterans will be promises kept.”

It should be noted that David Chu has also directed his attacks at support for Veterans Administration care. Retired Navy Chief Finis McComas lives in Grayville, Illinois. “Were Dr. Chu to come to this area he would see long lines at the Evansville VA Clinic. I can hardly stand on my feet. The other day I went to the clinic. It was crammed and every chair was taken. There was no place to sit. I had to leave and get my local doctor to take care of the problem.”

Today we have hundreds of new wounded and disabled veterans returning from war. They are going to these same clinics and VA hospitals. They too are standing in long lines, if able to stand. These warriors, who just months ago were championed by Chu and the Administration have now joined the ranks of those who are among the veterans, which ‘drain’ DoD funding.

Retired Army Sergeant First Class Francis Sementilli of Sebring , Florida along with Master Sergeant David Estrovitz, USMC (Ret) of St George, Utah; Senior Master Sergeant Jim Berrey, USAF (Ret) of Panama city, Florida, Master Sergeant Floyd M. Baird, USAF (Ret) of Flint, Michigan and Lieutenant Colonel Charles Revie, USA (Ret) of Las Cruces, New Mexico are among more than 20,000 veterans and retirees who have written to Congress and the President in recent days. Many express their rage at the utterings of Dr. David Chu. All express their pain about the denial of promised benefits. To date they have received few replies from Washington.

Lieutenant Colonel Revie closes most of his correspondence with a quote from the father of our country, General George Washington. “The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their Nation.”

Thomas D. Segel

BigBadBrian
03-13-2005, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Yeah, it's almost like he's a Republican that way:rolleyes:

dolt.

Quit following me around like a little puppy dog.

Heel, Bitch.

LoungeMachine
03-13-2005, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Quit following me around like a little puppy dog.

Heel, Bitch.

Poor Brie

:D

BigBadBrian
03-13-2005, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Poor Brie

:D

You're not on you're A game today. Pathetic response. Drunk?

Seshmeister
03-13-2005, 07:25 PM
It must be tough being a turkey that suddenly realises it voted for Christmas...:)

Nickdfresh
03-13-2005, 08:56 PM
"Thats' Mr. Cunt to you soldier boy!"
http://www.theconnection.org/content/2002/04/23/0226rumsfeldnew.jpg

Va Beach VH Fan
03-14-2005, 08:51 PM
Well, at least the cocksucker did two years in the military, more than I can say about a lot of the others in that run the DoD....

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/chu_bio.html

Wonder what his opinion would be if he finished his 20 years ???

Nickdfresh
03-15-2005, 04:37 AM
Originally posted by Va Beach VH Fan
Well, at least the cocksucker did two years in the military, more than I can say about a lot of the others in that run the DoD....

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/chu_bio.html

Wonder what his opinion would be if he finished his 20 years ???

Yeah. He was a Navy jet jock in the 50's. This somehow made him an expert on US Army land battle formations and strategy. I wish the old fucker would keel over!

PS Ooops, thought you were talking about Rummy!