Replies

Since 1891, anyone retiring after a full military career has had their retirement pay reduced dollar for dollar for any Veterans Administration checks they get for a permanent service-related disability. However, a veteran who served a two-or-four-year tour does not have a similar reduction in Social Security or private pension.

Presumably, every American who has enlisted in the armed forces since 1891 with a career track in mind knew this going in. So, the merits aside, how does Bush get the blame for this?

"Presumably, every American who has enlisted in the armed forces since 1891 with a career track in mind knew this going in. So, the merits aside, how does Bush get the blame for this?"

1 (career types "knew this"). I spent 30 years around Navy bases. There were always retired members and their dependents going to the base hospitals. (Nobody knew anything about any 1891 law...)
Result: Retiree collects his retirement, and gets his family medical care.
1995 rolls around and Clinton tells retirees to "go somewhere else" for the first time in history.
Result: Retiree has to go to the VA for care and pay for insurance for his dependents - Lower monthly income from insurance premiums and VA starts deducting more from his retirement pay if they give him disability pay since he just started going to the VA. (Vets discover 1891 law created by disgruntled senators from the fomer rebel states).

2 (why is Bush to blame). Because his administration has appealled a win for veteran retiree benefits at the Appeals Court level and got that win reversed, and despite more senator's and representitive's supporting (co-sponsoring) a bill to change this 1891 law, than supported his war on Iraq (which he called "a clear message from America"), he threatens a veto if any such amendment or change in the law is sent in any form to his desk.