JOURNAL: WEEK FIVE

Taking the Battle to Congress
In 2004 the Bush Administration came under increasing scrutiny for its seeming lack of concern for disabled veterans of foreign wars. Rather than, in Lincoln's words, taking care of "him who shall have borne the battle," (the motto of the Department of Veterans Affairs) the Bush record is one of lip service, program cuts and Machiavellian policy manipulation, leading to thousands of vets being cut out of a system originally designed to honor their service with service. Many view these benefits as having already been earned, needing no justification for budgetary or political reasons. The President himself seems to take every opportunity to pay tribute to them in public declarations of the inestimable value of their service to the nation. However, Knight Ridder journalists began to report this record after Knight Ridder sued the VA on grounds of FOIA violations, forcing the VA to release information on disability payments for vets that had been conveniently swept under the carpet for decades. The VA's own research revealed that as many as 572,000 veterans were due compensation for physical and psychological injuries sustained in battle. That would translate into over $4.5 billion in direct cash benefits that have already been promised to each and every vet who survived his or her injuries. Instead, those funds have never even been set aside due to the lack of vet enrollment in the program. The VFW Magazine reported in 2002 that the Bush Administration actually pre-emptively ordered the VA to cease its outreach efforts aimed at increasing vet enrollment in health care services.

The Bush Administration, of course, is not the only one to blame for a record of shame that goes back to the Johnson Administration. However, under Bush's watch the problem seems a bit more onerous for two key reasons. First, the "War" on Terror" has put unprecedented strain on the federal budget in general and on the VA budget in particular. Since 9/11, expenditures on various military expeditions has totaled over $400 billion and counting. In 2005, the VA ended a three-year budget cycle which means that the last budget was adopted well before the onset of the Iraqi Conflict. The VA predicted a three fold increase over original estimates for vets seeking medical services in 2005. Combined with other shortfalls due to unplanned demand, the VA's budget ran over a $1 billion into the red. The Senate was forced to scramble to supplement the VA's budget before it defaulted.

All of this means that there has been precious little funds available to devote to comprehensive outreach efforts that would bring program enrollment up. Even though it cannot order vets to file for claims that they may be due, the VA can at least reduce the information asymmetry that is contibuting to the problem. Furthermore, the agency can devote its efforts to reducing the red tape that has frustrated perfectly legitimate vet claims for years. Of course if there are no funds to devote to compensation payments, outreach is simply moot. Bush's 2005 proposal fell $2.6 billion short of what the Independent Budget recommends, meaning that vets are being short-changed yet again.

Second, by its own rhetoric, the administration has hung itself by failing to live up the expectations of so many vets and their families that, frankly, have never been able to depend on promises that have been consistently broken or underfunded. Now vets are facing new burdens such as being asked to pay for their own health insurance as though their blood were not already payment enough. To the conservative VFW and other vet groups, the appearance is that Bush is attempting to balance the budget on the backs of these poor vets and their families. Furthermore, the shortfalls are leading to longer rolls and wait times for vets, some of whom already have to wait years to get into the VA medical system. Many vets view this kind of policy manipulation as disgraceful and a slap in the face of all who have worn the uniform.

Moreover, how is it possible to justify such brazen disparity between an administrator's words and his actions? Obviously, I'm no big fan of this administration, but these are opinions expressed by ex-military personnel, a demographic Bush can usually count on. It is as though the President sees no conflict in between his fawning praise of military service as a citizen and his role in perpetuating vet miseries as an administrator. Does he view the role of the Presidency as a figurehead--only with really cool perks? As Commander in Chief, he does not seem to take his either objective or subjective responsibilities to take care of his own soldiers very seriously (or much else for that matter). I will give him the benefit of the doubt for a moment. It is entirely possible that in delegating authority to administrators to form their own budget requests and make increasingly complex decisions on his behalf, Bush simply does not recognize the nature of the disparity that quite a few vets now perceive as a leitmotif of his leadership. Furthermore, Bush has surrounded himself with advisers who may downplay the poor quality of the administration's own actions. Bush himself is reputed to stifle internal criticism in any form, though there are recent signs of chastening in his second term. The point is that he is most vulnerable for whatever it is that he loves (or professes to anyway.) If negligence is the issue, he and his administration are nevertheless accountable. There are lives being affected and they should simply have known better.

Furthermore, it is certainly not in the public interest under any condition to ignore these issues or downplay their importance. As it stands, the quality of life for many of these vets is simply unacceptable, meaning the blame for this negligence (or stinginess) will attach to his presidency. From a PR perspective Bush needs to take this battle to Congress (where he will find many an ally). No matter what the reason, it is ethically and morally wrong to perpetuate chronic ingratitude through bad policy. The welfare of this minority group must be protected if we stand for anything at all as a freedom-loving nation. Just as our vets answered the call of the majority, he must answer the calls of this minority as well. No one, let alone the President if he is worth his salt, can take this responsibility lightly. It just makes good sense to take good care of your own. That garners loyalty and respect from not just vets, but their families and all who are concerned about their plight.