Bush Tax Cuts Leave Soldiers Unprotected (12/18/05)

by Dean Hartwell

 

I spoke to a group of high school seniors recently about political issues.  One theme I kept coming back to was the alarming national debt, which stands at over eight trillion dollars.  In explaining the debt, I mentioned that one of the biggest expenditures in the United States budget every year is defense spending.

 

One of the students asked me what the defense spending goes toward.  I said the government spends it on soldiers’ salaries, weapons and armor, among other things.

 

She shook her head.  She said her father served in Desert Storm in the early 1990s.  Her family had to buy his armor because the government would not provide it for him.

 

I recounted this story to a friend of mine who served in the Viet Nam War.  He said the government paid for all of his equipment, including his armor.

 

I found it hard to believe that our government would not protect its soldiers.  I thought everything in the armed forces came “government issued.”  So, I researched this issue on the Internet.  Here are some of the stories I came across:

 

A recent report in Liberal Politics stated that “the Pentagon has still failed to figure out a way to reimburse soldiers for body armor and equipment they purchased to better protect themselves while serving in Iraq.”  It went on to say that some soldiers and their parents spend thousands of dollars for the armor.[1]

The New York Times reported in late 2004 that a town hall meeting was held in which several soldiers confronted Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.  They told him that their vehicles were too old and there was no armor protection against roadside bombs.[2]

Newsmax.com reported in October 2003 that nearly one-quarter of US troops in Iraq did not have new ceramic body armor that protects from bullets from assault rifles.  The article went on to report that President Bush did not request more money for body armor.[3]

It appears that many soldiers must pay to defend themselves.  That has been the policy of the Bush Administration in its war against Iraq and the policy in other recent wars as well.

 

Where is the talk in Congress that there is a connection between the debt and the Bush tax cuts which generate less and less revenue?  Better yet, where is the talk that these tax cuts leave less and less money for protecting the soldiers?

 

The United States government has failed its commitment to support our troops, even during wartime.  There is no excuse for this failure.  If the leaders of our nation cannot find money in the budget to properly protect our soldiers, they should not send them to the battlefield to fight the wars.

 

Archives