This lie's been floating arund for a while. I looked at the alleged basis for it last May and found it to be a bunch of hooey. My experience with the people who repeat it is that they don't even know what it's based on - a shift in prioritization of health care spending toward indigent vets with service-related disabilities - but have just seen it repeated, over and over again, that Bush wants to cut veterans' benefits.

Since this type of partisan tends to believe anything that casts Bush in a bad light - especially if they think it will score them points with a group that they consider to be in his camp (just as they all quite credulously believed that Bush wanted to cut the pay of out soldiers in Iraq) - they just go on repeating it without ever checking it out. And, so, the Big Lie spreads (a process you, as the chief blogospheric debunker of the "Bush was AWOL" lie, are as familiar with as anyone, of course).

This lie's been floating arund for a while. I looked at the alleged basis for it last May and found it to be a bunch of hooey. My experience with the people who repeat it is that they don't even know what it's based on - a shift in prioritization of health care spending toward indigent vets with service-related disabilities - but have just seen it repeated, over and over again, that Bush wants to cut veterans' benefits.

Since this type of partisan tends to believe anything that casts Bush in a bad light - especially if they think it will score them points with a group that they consider to be in his camp (just as they all quite credulously believed that Bush wanted to cut the pay of out soldiers in Iraq) - they just go on repeating it without ever checking it out. And, so, the Big Lie spreads (a process you, as the chief blogospheric debunker of the "Bush was AWOL" lie, are as familiar with as anyone, of course).

Let's go to the source, shall we?

VFW Terms President's VA Budget Proposal Harmful to Veterans

Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2004--"The president ignored veterans in the State of the Union Address and with today's release of his 2005 budget, it is further evident that veterans are no longer a priority with this administration," said the leader of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., expressing dismay at the disgraceful 1.8% increase in veterans' medical care funding. "We look to Congress to reject the president's inadequate proposal and to provide a budget that fully acknowledges the debt our nation owes its veterans."

Kaplan is playing a rather shameful game here; he is ignoring that healthcare has a far higher consumer price index (~14%)than other items like housing or food.

We can also look at The Army Times.

More from The Army Times

Ronald Conley, Commander of the American Legion:
"“This is a raw deal for veterans no matter how you cut it. The administration is sending a message that these vets are not a priority at all.”

Jade, you're playing the same game the libs have played for years - demand we increase spending by a certain amount, and then call any amount below that a "cut."

Facts are facts: Spending has gone up 27% under Bush so far, and if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.

You can not call that a cut without lying. Period. You are free to argue that spending should be increased even faster, but it clearly is not being cut.

Mr. Hobbs: The Vets aren't happy, are they?

The fact is you're engaging in statistical gamesmanship. The fact is that if you don't provide enough funding in the face of rising costs--it's a cut. If healthcare costs go up X% each year and you only fund it Y% (X >Y), then you have cut the benefit.

Additionally, you're ignoring the fact that more vets are entering the pool, making more demands on the system.

You're also ignoring little facts that Bush has increased co-payments and prescription co-pays and suspended enrollment enrollment of veterans not injured in service earning between $24,450 and $38,100 annually.

Bottomline: every veterans group has taken Bush to task about the cuts.

The fact is you're engaging in statistical gamesmanship.

Pot. Kettle.

In the real world, a "cut" is a decrease, not an increase smaller than some ideal amount.

In the real world, a "cut" is a decrease, not an increase smaller than some ideal amount

Tell you what, Mr. Crawford. If it let's you sleep better at night knowing vets are receiving fewer and reduced benefits--go for it.

You can wrap yourself in the flag and tell yourself in the morning what a patriot you are.

You need to deal with the truth, Jade.

Jade, have you even bothered to read, say, the Annenberg FactCheck article?

"All this means Bush can fairly be accused of trying to hold down the rapid growth in spending for veterans benefits -- particularly those sought by middle-income vets with no service-connected disability. But saying he cut the budget is contrary to fact.

"(Note: FactCheck.org twice contacted the Kerry campaign asking how he justified his claim that the VA budget is being cut, but we've received no response.)"

Does it matter to you that the things you're saying are "contrary to fact"? Or is the Annenberg Center just another member of the vast right-wing conspiracy?

JadeGold -- do you ever stop and wonder if you might be wrong? If not, doesn't that worry you?

I think you guys are being too flippant in your dismissal of JadeGold's point. You aren't really talking about the same thing. It is true that the budget has been increased (your point), but we are talking about benefits to individuals (Jadegold's concern). I think JadeGold's point is more important when discussing "Who's done right by whom". There are two things that seem important to look at. Inflation and demographics. Suppose it has been decided that it is the right thing to do to provide $10 in cash benefits to 200 soldiers for the purpose of buying a $10 health widget. Suppose that in the next year, there are 400 soldiers, and costs of the widget have risen 100%. Suppose it has been proposed to increase the funding for the widget purchasing program has been increased a generous 50%. So $3000 gets paid out, and the widgets cost the soldiers a total of $8000. The full benefit has become a partial benefit. If a benefit is the right thing to do (another argument entirely), then the beneficiaries should not bear the costs due to inflation and population dilution. These numbers are obviously exaggerated (for easier headmath). I don't know what the true numbers are for those things. If the benefits are in-kind instead of cash, that changes things also. But I think the point is that it could be a "cut" in the sense of a cut in real (adjusted to relevant price index) relative (to widget) per capita (adjusted for population) benefit. When it has to do with individual benefits, I don't think it is as simple as you guys are making it out to be.

One point to consider:

The total number of veterans has been dropping for years. I've read many times (though never with a URL) that World War II veterans are dying at the rate of 1,000 per day. The armed forces totaled over 24,000,000 in 1945, and have been far smaller ever since. Given that World War II veterans are all over 76,* mostly over 80, and many over 90, it's easy to see that that their numbers must be rapidly dropping, though millions are still alive. Since there were far more of them to start with than there were of Korean, Viet Nam, or Gulf War veterans (among others), it seems safe to assume that the total number of living veterans of all wars is decreasing, has been decreasing for years, and will continue to decrease in the foreseeable future.

In fact, I just interrupted writing this comment to do a Google search. This PDF file gives the figures: http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-51.pdf. The armed forces are roughly 1/8 the size of what they were in 1945, and (as I suspected) the total number of veterans has dropped in 21 of the last 22 years, though it went up a bit from 2001 to 2002. I suspect that is a temporary blip. The site gives no figures for 2003.

Insofar as the total number of veterans decreases, a small increase in total funding for veterans provides a rather larger increase in funding per veteran, which is of course what counts when measuring government generosity. (As Michael says, "we are talking about benefits to individuals".) Any statistics that omit this consideration are inherently untrustworthy -- as worthless as multi-year statistics that fail to adjust for inflation.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*My father is 75, just a bit too young to be drafted before Japan surrendered. He graduated from high school in 1946 and joined the Navy, since the draft was still in effect and he figured he'd rather be in a service that would allow him to bathe regularly. My parents go to funerals of Navy friends and other contemporaries several times a year.

P.S. JadeGold writes: "Additionally, you're ignoring the fact that more vets are entering the pool, making more demands on the system."

Of course, that would only increase the total number of veterans if they were immortal. In fact, (mostly) older veterans die off as (mostly) younger veterans join the ranks by leaving active duty, and the first group is (in general) more numerous than the second. JadeGold ignores this rather obvious fact, and has the nerve to accuse others of "playing a rather shameful game".

Jaded Goldbick has no interest in facts. He is looking for some sort of truth that lies WAAAAAyyyyy beyond such mundane things as facts or reality.

Jaded Goldbick has no interest in facts. He is looking for some sort of truth that lies WAAAAAyyyyy beyond such mundane things as facts or reality.

Sorry about the double post. Proxomitron acting up and I hit the button twice.

I love it when my readers help me deconstruct one of the Left's big lies. First the AWOL lie, now the "Bush is cutting veterans benefits!" lie is being exposed.

Dr. Weevil's comment above, and the first comment below this post (which was a follow-up to the post you're reading now) are excellent examples of digging for the facts rather than merely accepting the lie that jadedgold and others of the Left are pushing.

Bush is increasing spending on veterans, not cutting it the way Bill "I loathe the military" Clinton did.

Michael,

You raise an interesting point, but that brings up the question: if the problem is that the increase in spending for veterans is not enough to meet the increasing demands of the veterans, why not just say that, rather than make a lot of noise about fictional cuts?

Once again, the facts are on my side.

Every veterans group and veteran service organization is unhappy with Bush's cuts. Even active duty personnel are complaining about quality of life issues (DoD schools, PXs, etc.)

The bottomline is that the GOP--with all their phony reverence for the military--are more concerned with having a talking point than to maintain the past level of benefits promised to vets.

Once again, the facts are on my side.

Too bad the actual numbers disagree. Cite opinion all you want. You'll just be wrong with some company.

Once again, the facts are on my side.

Too bad the actual numbers disagree. Cite opinion all you want. You'll just be wrong with some company.

Watching our brave keyboard warriors bravely defend Bush reminds me of that scene in Spinal Tap:

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and -
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten.
You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [Pause] These go to eleven.

The fact is benefits are being cut; the vets groups recognize this and are none too pleased.

This would be funny, if it were in any way connected with the topic. Sadly, though, it's you who cites your own opinion as evidence. The numbers don't lie, but JadeGuy does.

Dave T.:

Two points. I have to admit it is a mouthful to say "How dare they cut real relative per capita veteran's benefits". I suppose they could say "Individual veterans are not better off".

Second point. I came to me in (not very good) limerick form:

When their argument's made of straw
and you can find a way,
Lend a stick, or even a brick
And argue that away.