Archive for Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Beaten up

September 10, 2008

Advertisement

To the editor:

In the third paragraph of the Saturday Column (Sept. 6) the columnist writes: "the Bush administration had been beaten up over the past eight years."

I'm puzzled by the term "beaten up." Did the columnist mean that term literally as when someone was "beaten up'" in the Abu Ghraib prison or in the holding cells of Guantanamo? Or did the columnist mean to use the term figuratively as when individuals were "beaten up" by government hiring personnel who rejected their otherwise acceptable applications for employment because the resumes weren't ideologically pure enough?

Or was the columnist referring to the assistant attorneys general who were "beaten up" and summarily fired for not "going after Democrats"?

Oh, I know. The columnist was referring literally and figuratively to the United States of America, which was beaten up by Jack Abramoff and his thieving band of lobbyist cutthroats who plundered the nation's treasury on Bush's watch and made a mockery of government by the people. OK, now I understand.

Larry Day,
Lawrence

Comments

Richard Heckler 6 years, 8 months ago

How about how our troops get beaten up on the home front:house republicans vote to cut veterans' benefitsWashington, D.C. "Yesterday, the House Republicans voted to reject increased funds for veterans' health care in the war supplemental and today they voted to actually cut veterans benefits in their budget resolution. This is wrong," said Lane Evans (IL), the senior Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee.The budget resolution passed, primarily along party lines, by 218 to 213.The GOP budget resolution contains reconciliation orders requiring the House Veterans' Affairs (VA) Committee to cut benefits or to tax veterans by increasing their fees. For fiscal year 2006, the VA Committee must identify $155 million in benefits cuts or increased fees; and $798 million over the next five years.The amount available for veterans medical programs, including construction, and benefits administration is $127 million below the amount the Congressional Budget Office estimates would be necessary to maintain the level of services that exist in fiscal year 2005. Over five years, the Republican budget resolution cuts almost $16 billion from these discretionary programs.One proposal found in the Bush budget and embraced by Republicans on both the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees is a new enrollment fee for some veterans. Other ways of finding savings in veterans programs might include cutting the cash payments made to veterans with service-connected conditions, cutting pension benefits, reducing vocational rehabilitation services or education benefits. Monies could also be raised by increasing the fees charged to veterans who obtain a VA home loan.Along the path to approving the Republican budget resolution, a Democratic alternative budget resolution offered by Rep. John Spratt, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, which would have added $2.4 billion to veterans' benefits and services, was defeated. An amendment offered by Rep. David Obey, the Democratic leader of the Appropriations Committee which would have added $2.9 billion to the President's Budget, was also defeated."The Republican budget resolution will decrease critical services and inflict real pain upon servicemembers, veterans and military families during a time of war," said Evans. "Congress should be ashamed."vote obama 2008

coltrane 6 years, 8 months ago

the book 'Shrub' by the late Molly Ivins foretold the disaster of a George W. Bush presidency when she wrote (published in 2000 before the election) - "and if elected this fall, he promises to do for America what he did for Texas" - which was that he was a terrible governor and left the budget, education, environmental restrictions, health care, and taxes all in disarray.

jafs 6 years, 8 months ago

Why not respond to the content, mike?Is it not shameful that the Republicans are not taking care of veterans?What about National Guardsmen who are forced to serve longer than their term, and sent to war without adequate training?Shameful, indeed, especially for an administration that claims to be patriotic.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.