GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Nation faces billions in long-term care costs for wounded troops

• 49728
  

  Reference such statements as "Obama wants the US to contribute 1% of GNP to illegals all over the world." are echoes of columnists like James Pethokoukis, of the Capital Commerce's Money & Business column. Under the cover of a financial news organization, on 20 Feb 2008 he sets one article's tone with the title "Does Obama Want a Trillion-Dollar Global Tax?"; a title sure to evoke a fiery response from his political leaning readership.

  The reality and facts seem to have little to do with his assertion that "Obama has proposed a couple of hundred billion buckaroos in new government spending along with new tax increases." The bill in question, entitled the "Global Poverty Act", seeks to form a United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the [U.N.] Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

  Grandstanding with laws that give a "sense of Congress" are common, mean little, and, most importantly, obligate nothing. While practically useless, these MAY indicate philosophical stands of the US but, unlike similar presidential "signing statements", do not indicate enforcement trends and likelihood. As his readers asserted, Dubya also signed a similar pledge back in 2002. Responses to the article ran the gamut from belief to denial, but all fiery just the same; I suppose achieving his goal of sparking debate regardless of the facts.

  What never got told was that this is a bi-partisan bill with multiple republican sponsors, the numbers quoted (.7% and 1% of the budget) would be less than the current amount of aid given, aid can take many forms (not all monetary), and this would be quite beneficial to the US image and moral standing; hence Dubya's backing similar legislation.

  Skeeter, read more than one article; compare views and analyses. I actually think you figure that you're opening eyes and minds with your sparkling intellect and rapier wit; but you're merely alienating other readers and hurting your cause.

  Tip off Posted April 30, 2008 4:30 PM
• 49603
  

  Ah, I can see better why you sometimes come off as selectively delusional, Skeeter. Been reading too many right wing tabloid news magazines and emails have we? Try Snopes for the real poop on Pelosi and capital gains. Despite the political rhetoric, the Blue Dogs have a long and respectable history of service to their country; try researching Senator Jim Webb as one example. See "webb.senate.gov" for his latest veteran initiative. As always, if you have better references (or any for that matter), please feel free to share them.

  On immigration, if I may quote: "There are [...] pressing challenges that I've raised repeatedly before this body, and that this body has failed to address: [...] immigration" "we [...] need to acknowledge that we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy." "We must [...] find a sensible and humane way to deal with people here illegally." In his "State of the Union Address" on 28 Jan 08, President Bush chided his own party for failing to pass one of his major presidential objectives while they had the chance.

  If I may continue: "We're increasing worksite enforcement, deploying fences and advanced technologies to stop illegal crossings." Yep, I THINK he's referring to that $20 million dollar fiasco his administration just accepted from the Boeing Corp. "We've effectively ended the policy of "catch and release" at the border, and by the end of this year, we will have doubled the number of border patrol agents." I'm wondering if the 6,000 National Guard supplemental is what he is speaking of.

  The Washington Post heard "Mexican President Vicente Fox called to express concern over the prospect of militarization of the border, and Bush reassured him that it would be only a temporary measure to bolster overwhelmed Border Patrol agents, the White House said." As for the effectiveness of having troops on the border, I will gladly refer you to the various ICE and CBP contributors of this column that you berate so frequently. Seems to me they would be the best judges; just as you defer to the military on tactics (if not policy).

  Tip off Posted April 29, 2008 9:16 AM
• 49205
  

  Tipsy as usual your a day late and a dollar short. Pelosi wants to eliminate the capital gains tax cut to fund illegal immigrant programs so they can feel like "US Citizens". Obama wants the US to contribute 1% of GNP to illegals all over the world. Bush is a piker in comparison to those 2 and never a sober moment Kennedy

  dan m ketter Posted April 22, 2008 8:38 PM
• 49056
  

  Wow. Funding for veterans has always been problematic at best, changing as the spot light wavered; but never was it as low as under the current administration.

  Only the limelight of what Skeeter calls the "left wing media" showed the neglect of those this administration was all too willing to throw into the jaws of adversity; and now he says they're too busy helping the illegals? Please remember who it was who stood on a platform of immigration reform despite the entire nation boohooing him. The illegals, as you call them, were the primary chosen constituency group of the current POTUS. He's the one who pushed for the immigration reform law.

  Hey, Skeeter, try a flash light and then perhaps you can see them pesky trees despite the forest.

  Tip off Posted April 21, 2008 4:17 PM
• 49050
  

  Where is the money going to come from to pay for this messy situation? I guess, Bush will just print it!!!

  Elliott Posted April 21, 2008 3:41 PM
• 49024
  

  Not a problem Pelosi and Reid will never fund it they're to worried about providing benefits and $$$ for the illegals

  Dan ketter Posted April 21, 2008 12:19 PM
• 48974
  

  We still haven't dealt with helping veterans from previous wars. Many men in their 60s are suffering from illness due to agent orange exposure and get no help. Think of the billions being saved not helping them. Maybe this is the plan for this generation, just turn our back on those how stood tall and fought so we could be free.

  john Posted April 21, 2008 7:20 AM