Thanks For Your Military Service, You Tax Burden

As discussed earlier, the competition for veterans benefits amogst funding for other government programs is shaping up, and I attempted to propose some bipartisan solutions to this quandry over at VetVoice. But this recent article and its tone gives me cause for concern. From Breitbart:

Despite the decline in total vets—as soldiers from World War II and Korea die—the government expects to be spending $59 billion a year to compensate injured warriors in 25 years, up from today's $29 billion, according to internal documents obtained by The Associated Press. And the Veterans Affairs Department concedes the bill could be much higher. Why? Worse wounds. More disabilities. More vets aware of the benefits and quicker to file for them.

I'd say the simple answer to the "Why?" is that America is a country at war (despite some people's apathy and lack of involvement). War is nasty business, and people get hurt or killed. The government is contractually obligated to take care of those wounded at war, because these men and women were representing the country when they were serving in the military. This logic even falls into a strict libertarian interpration of the constitution. But, the politicians make it seem like we are a burden on the tax base, like welfare queens. Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn) had this to say about the new GI Bill: “Some of us oppose creating a new entitlement program in an emergency spending bill, whether it’s butchers, bakers or candlestick-makers.”

Dark times ahead. The government will continue to grow and waste money on damn near everything else, including who can dress up as a naughty nurse. Best to take action now, before it is too late.

Vets: Heroes or Tax Burdens? (picture from AP)