Random Michael Moore Deceits [#45]

Veterans worse off under the evil Bush-Hitler?

"Rather than trouble himself with these facts, Moore reasserts his deception and piles on several more. He says, “While Bush was busy taking care of his base and professing his love for our troops, he proposed cutting combat soldiers’ pay by 33% and assistance to their families by 60%. He opposed giving veterans a billion dollars more in health care benefits, and he supported closing veteran hospitals. He tried to double the prescription drug costs for veterans and opposed full benefits for part-time reservists.”

These charges are all either deeply misleading or false. The “cutting combat soldiers’ pay by 33%” charge refers to so called “imminent danger” bonuses, which are bonuses of $150 a month given to soldiers serving in certain areas, including combat zones. In 2003, Congress and the Bush Administration increased imminent danger bonuses by $75 to $225 a month. In its 2004 budget, the Bush Administration at first proposed not to extend this increase, and so to bring the bonuses back to $150. This is what Moore calls a 33% cut in pay, but in fact it’s not a cut in the basic pay but in the bonus. In any case, the administration eventually reversed itself and this cut never actually took place at all.

The reference to cutting “assistance to their families by 60%” is equally distorted. Congress had passed a one-time increase in the “family separation allowance” given to soldiers with assignments on which their families cannot join them, from $100 per month to $250 per month. Again, the Bush Administration’s budget for 2004 had originally proposed returning these to their original levels, and Moore describes this as a 60% cut. But the administration changed its position, and no “cut” was ever instituted. Neither of these would have counted as cuts in pay, they applied to bonuses which are a very small portion of a soldier’s pay—and in any case, neither actually occurred (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/15/PAY.TMP, and on pay levels in the military see http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/joiningup/a/recruiter5.htm).

While in the movie, Moore says that Bush “opposed giving veterans a billion dollars more in health care benefits,” on his website Moore phrases the claim differently, saying Bush “proposed cutting $1.3 billion in veterans’ health care” (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=21). The version in the movie is closer to the truth. During the debates about appropriating $87 billion of supplemental funding for the war in Iraq—the bill that Senator Kerry famously voted for before he voted against—legislators made dozens of changes. One of the changes made to the bill would have added $1.3 billion for veterans medical care, but the administration wanted to keep the bill focused on Iraq, so it opposed that addition (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100777,00.html). Congress eventually took the $1.3 billion out of the bill. The version on Moore’s website, saying Bush “proposed cutting” money from veterans’ health care, is a complete fabrication. But even the version in the movie is a distortion, for while the White House opposed one particular increase at one particular time, the overall trend has been to make vast increases in veterans’ care (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=144).

As for the charge that Bush supported closing veterans’ hospitals, this is a reference to a recommendation by the Department of Veterans Affairs, following the recommendation of the Independent Commission on Veterans’ Hospitals, that seven specific hospitals in areas with sharply declining populations of veterans be closed because they had become so underutilized that veterans in those areas would be better served in other nearby veterans’ hospitals. The department simultaneously proposed building new veterans’ hospitals in other areas where the veteran population had grown, and building a series of new rehabilitation centers. The total number of veterans’ hospitals would grow, not decline, under this plan, and the system would adjust itself to meet particular needs in particular areas (http://www1.va.gov/cares/).

The claim that Bush “tried to double the prescription drug costs for veterans” refers to a Bush Administration proposal to increase the co-pay for prescription drugs from $7 to $15, for veterans who earn over $24,000 a year. Technically, Moore is correct—it is more than an increase of 100 percent—but in real dollars the accusation comes to seem ludicrous. In any case, the increase never took place (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26166-2003Jul21).

As for giving full-time benefits to part-timers, it is true that such a proposal was made as an amendment to the $87 billion supplementary authorization for Iraq war costs, and the administration did originally oppose it (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100777,00.html). But Congress left the benefits in the bill, and the president ultimately approved them—and even signed them into law on November 6, 2003 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ106.108).

Most importantly, this litany of distortions leaves the viewer with the impression that veterans and soldiers have somehow been worse off under the Bush Administration than before. But that notion is simply ridiculous, and belied by the most obvious facts. In 2003, the Bush Administration pushed through Congress a pay increase for all active-duty military personnel of 3.7%, with an additional increase for non-commissioned officers as well as increased bonuses (http://www.dod.gov/news/Dec2003/n12092003_200312083.html). The Bush Administration has also increased funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs by a whopping 27% in its first three years, and if the administration’s 2005 budget passes, it will have increased spending on veterans by 37.6% (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=144). This utterly dwarfs the sorts of $8 increases in drug costs that Moore points to. Moore’s assertions are desperate attempts to distort figures to give an appearance that is simply the opposite of the truth.

Moore then mentions that “when Staff Sergeant Brett Petriken from Flint was killed in Iraq on May 26th, the Army sent his last paycheck to his family, but they docked him for the last five days of the month that he didn’t work because he was dead.” This story could not be readily confirmed but it is certainly plausible—it sounds like the sort of tragic bureaucratic error that can so hurt the family of a fallen soldier. But there is no reason to believe (and Moore in no way claims) that this has anything to do with Bush Administration policy in any way. What this story is doing in the film is not clear, although it does stand out as being a plausible and likely true part of an otherwise concocted list of grievances."

source