The administration's cuts in veterans' benefits, right at the time the country was sending guys to Iraq, didn't go over too well, but now the criticism has heated up. Take, for instance, a June 30 Army Times editorial which points out that the Bush White House "griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary -- including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day." These are your Bush tax-cut dollars, Supporting Our Troops.
"Similarly," the editorial continues, "the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones. . .The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush's proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some (upper) ranks, he also proposed capping raises for (enlisted personnel) at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent." Well, they did promise to run the country like a business. Who knew they meant Enron?
So what will the President do about this? Rumor has it that, in an effort to appease the rank and file soldier, a more "enjoyable" country will be found for the next invasion and occupation. His first choice was said to have been Hawaii, until the CIA reminded the President that "we already own that one, sir." Second choice was reportedly Grenada because, based on "darn good intelligence," their name sounds like it could be a weapon of mass destruction.
* actual inventory pending
** intelligence reports show no Viet Cong crossed the Rio Grande under Bush's watch