In 1993, President Clinton began his term by finding ways to save money for his planned social programs. The first place he looked (like all Democrats) was at the military. He began by slashing manpower, offering early retirement and buy-outs. Two years later he discovered that he’d slashed manpower too deeply and asked some of those he bought out to return.<\/p>\n
The next thing to suffer cuts was military health care. They moved 65-year-olds from military healthcare to Medicare. Well, it seems this past January Democrats started cutting military health care again – by differentiating between combat-related injuries and non-combat injuries. From Blackfive<\/a> and Ace of Spades<\/a>, I picked up this story from the LA Times<\/a>;<\/p>\n In a little-noticed regulation change in March, the military’s definition of combat-related disabilities was narrowed, costing some injured veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits — and triggering outrage from veterans’ advocacy groups.<\/p>\n The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress’ intent when it passed a “wounded warrior” law in January. Narrowing the combat-related definition was necessary to preserve the “special distinction for those who incur disabilities while participating in the risk of combat, in contrast with those injured otherwise,” William J. Carr, deputy undersecretary of Defense, wrote in a letter to the 1.3-million-member Disabled American Veterans.<\/p>\n The group, which has called the policy revision a “shocking level of disrespect for those who stood in harm’s way,” is lobbying to have the change rescinded.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n To say the least. The Democrats claim this wasn’t their intent;<\/p>\n Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the Pentagon’s “more conservative definition” limited benefits for some veterans. “That was not our intent,” Levin said in a statement.<\/p>\n He added: “When the disability is the same, the impact on the service member should be the same no matter whether the disability was incurred while training for combat at Ft. Hood or participating in actual combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Given Democrats’ past behavior, it’s difficult to believe that wasn’t their intent.<\/p>\n