Just a short 48 hours later, Obama reversed his decision. White House spokesman Nick Shapiro explained the turnabout:
"While it comes as a surprise to those still entrenched in the old ways of Washington, the president carefully listened to the veterans service organizations and military service organizations' concerns, and then he decided on a course of action," Shapiro said. "Such consultation and collaboration were all too rare over the last decade -- they won't be rare in this administration, particularly when it comes to our veterans."Let's hope, for our veterans' sake, that Shapiro is correct about the administration having "consultation and collaboration" with veterans. If not, they may not have the opportunity to prevent the president from cutting them off at the knees again, so to speak.
Let me be clear: this trial balloon, which would have only saved $540 million, would NEVER have been floated by anyone who respected and cared for our veterans, and who was humbled by their matchless sacrifices.
President Obama is perfectly content with spending trillions of taxpayers' dollars for reform measures that are guaranteed to weave the State's greasy tentacles of power into every facet of our lives, and will vacuum up an ever-greater portion of national wealth. But he, who does not have the political will to defend his campaign pledge [sic] to reform the earmark process, wants to weasel the federal government out of paying for combat-related injuries. (Injuries that were, it should be noted, initiated by presidential decisions to go to war.*)
*Unconstitutional, by the way.
I have many points of contention with the military policy of the U.S. I do not think the U.S. needs over 700 military bases around the world. I do not think the government needs U.S. taxpayers to fund military spending that is almost equal to the rest of the world combined. I do not think we need to be in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and I definitely don't think we need 50,000 American soldiers to be in Iraq for perpetuity. I do not think we need to ratcheting up the pressure and tension on Iran and Pakistan that may very well send our troops to war in those countries.
But those are issues for other posts. What I do agree with the military about is that our soldiers are the best, most honorable national treasures we have. Many Americans say they would die for our country. These men and women risk just that -- they put their lives on the line to protect and preserve our liberty.
I cannot imagine the responsibility to send U.S. troops into battle, with absolute knowledge that some will not come back alive, while some will come back alive, but missing limbs and having injuries that will haunt them the rest of their lives, and may impair their abilities to support their families.
No, I cannot imagine the weight on someone's shoulders who has to make that decision. However, I would think it an easy decision to honor those sacrifices by agreeing to care for those injuries.
There is absolutely no other justification for Obama's budget proposal. Quite simply, he does not feel the moral obligation to provide care for injured veterans. He is more than willing to send them to battle, but recognizing and bearing the financial responsibility for those actions? Not so much.
Obama's proposal illustrates perfectly clear how the State will pursue its own goals -- control and power -- but does not share the interests of American citizens. Alfred Jay Nock's unerring indictment of the State -- the lodestone of this blog -- is as true today as it was 73 years ago:
"The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity towards one that accrues to its own advantage; nor does it ever move towards social purposes on its own initiative, but only under heavy pressure, while its motion towards anti-social purposes is self-sprung."
Posts
Absolutely agreed Obama proposing this is a national disgrace. It will be only slightly less onerous if he hijacks the health care system via the omnibus bill or any other means he can conjure up. By that for those that are not aware you will be told what you can have done and by what doctor, essentially rationed health care. Imagine the angst of a parent who cannot get good health care for a child because the goverment decides who will be the doctor and what will be paid. Of course this will not apply to the goverment, congress and the executive branch employees will always provide the best for themselves. Just compare the federal pension of a one term congress person to that of a 20 year veteran of the armed forces, say a master sergeant. It is a disgrace, just like the proposal to have private insurers pay for combat wounds.
ReplyDelete