Wednesday, September 2, 2009

An Arm and a Leg for My Right to Complain

One thing that's great about this country is the fact that we have a strong military, constantly on guard to protect me and my fellow citizens. The other thing that's great is how I don't have to be a part of that military. I am weak. I frighten easily at loud noises. I am horrible at thinking on my feet in stressful situations. Trust me, Amercia, you don't want me defending your freedom.


Now there are a whole lot of people who are much better equipped, both physically and mentally, to handle the pressures of conflict/combat. Those people are willing to give their lives to protect our country and I would like to think that pretty much all of us are grateful for what they have done, what they are doing, and what they will continue to do. The majority of us would probably agree that anyone who decides to step in front of bullets and rockets and grenades in the hopes of preserving the freedom of wimps like us deserves pretty much anything we can give them. Unfortunately, there's a problem...


I was listening to the radio not all that long ago and I heard an interesting interview with a former senator. Unfortunately I didn't catch the senator's name nor did I catch what program I was listening to (my wilting groceries in the back seat of the car were a more pressing issue at the time). However, I did catch a snippet of their conversation involving how budgetary issues are taken care of in the senate.


This former senator was talking about how each item addressed in budgetary meetings amounts to little more than a number. This makes sense considering the vast amount of complicated items the government would have to deal with on a daily basis. They look at each number and see which ones they could reduce or just all out cut in order to better balance the overall budget. Now this all sounded so "par for the course," and therefore boring, that I was just about to flip to another station when all of the sudden the former senator said something that struck a chord in me. He said, "For instance, we all saw this outrageously large number next to something about benefits for certain people and we all immediately knew that one had to be trimmed. Of course only a few of us realized that those 'certain people' were veterans of the first Gulf War." I'm no crazed, gun-toting, war-is-the-answer lunatic, but even I knew something was wrong there.


Sorry to bring up that pesky document again, but when you read our country's Constitution, one thing seems to come up over and over again: our government's main job is the defense of our country. As a matter of fact, if you read Article II (mostly Section 2-4, considering Section 1 is all about how to conduct an election of a president), the President's powers pretty much boil down to the fact that he's in charge of the military. Commander in Chief anyone? And heck, if you read the Federalist Papers, a whole slew of letters penned by such founding fathers as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, the main argument for instituting a centralized government was to more efficiently protect the rights and land of all Americans.


So with all of that said, my question is this: how on earth are benefits/healthcare for these people even considered when cutting a budget? These people who have lived for 2+ years in a desert, not knowing when the next unseen mine was going to leave him limbless for life, or these people who stepped on the shores of Normandy only to see dozens of fellow soldiers around them immediately chewed up by bullets, or these people who simply had to wait for years and years, never going to battle, but being constantly plagued by the fact that they could go at any second now. Shouldn't these people be at the top of the pecking order as far as money is concerned? I mean I'm sure there are plenty of important budgetary items that need to be debated carefully, but I really don't think the healthcare of those who were shot at trying to defend my right to blog about all the negative things in this country is one that needs to be discussed. As one who entrusts my money to the government, I would hope they leave that "number" alone.

4 comments:

  1. So far I like it

    -Your seester in law

    Who is Jim Unfiltered? I like his blog a lot too

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's Jim Patterson from Madison. You were actually in his class for a brief period. Remember him at all?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Love this post. Veteran's benefits are one of those things most of us civilians don't think much about, but where is a country going to end up when the people who volunteer to put life and limb on the line for it are discarded afterwards like a greyhound that can't race anymore? And I know lately there has been some talk about how wonderful the VA system is, but I know several people with first-hand knowledge of how untrue that is. I believe in the past year or so I've seen reports exposing many severe shortcomings in the VA hospitals. Sorry I can't include a citation, will try to follow up in the not-too-distant future.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's tough to find a reliable citation so good luck with that. I find extremely conflicting reports on VA hospitals. It seems that either people really hate them or really love them. It sounds a lot like political posturing on both sides. I'm guessing they're like normal hospitals: some good, some bad.

    Anyway, I was actually planning on using VA hospitals as a jumping off point for this post, but after I couldn't find anything reliable I decided to go this route. Honestly, to me, the real issue is the overall treatment of these "volunteers," as you so correctly put it, whether it be low quality VA hospitals or just plain cutting benefits outright. Either way it shouldn't be that way.

    ReplyDelete