Washington Post editorial board says the VA should reduce its benefits for veterans

Matthew Webb, a triple amputee Marine that competes in swimming and shooting, swims during a Marine Corps Trials swimming camp in 2013. Photo by then Lance Cpl. Trevon Peracca

The Washington Post is under fire from a major veteran advocacy organization after attempting to help seed the idea of cutting the earned benefits of veterans who earn over a certain amount.

In a scathing response by Veterans of Foreign Wars Executive Director Ryan Gallucci, the idea of cutting veterans benefits was roundly denounced after being proposed by The Washington Post editorial board

The topic in question regarded the Post’s coverage of a proposal by the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates limiting payments for veterans who earn more than $170,000 would save taxpayers money.

“Veterans deserve support,” read a headline from The Washington Post editorial board. “But one benefit program deserves scrutiny.”

While they agreed veterans need healthcare they suggested a massive overhaul to veteran disability payments by citing its growing expense over the last 20 years due to decades-long wars.

Many veterans have accused The Washington Post of “seeding” or “nesting” the idea into the consciousness of the general public, a tactic frequently used to gather support for unpopular measures by pushing it along partisan media lines.

“When I brought this to your attention a couple weeks ago, some of you laughed and said ‘you have no idea what a Congressional Budget Office analysis is’ then went on to emphatically state that ‘they’ll never touch veteran’s benefits,'” wrote TerminalCWO, a well-known whistle-blower for military matters on Instagram. “Well clearly some of you don’t know how information operations work and what ‘nesting’ is. You start by pushing the idea into the collective conscious. You can’t argue for an idea if it doesn’t exist. So the first thing you do is nest the idea in the collective conscious and discussion of the population. Then you let your media go to work. Hence, this Washington Post article.”

As for the VFW, they also had some harsh words to impart upon both the Washington Post and the United States government.

“According to their public bios, none of the 10 members of The Washington Post Editorial Board have spent a single minute serving this country in uniform unlike those who have earned the benefits the Board quickly dismisses as charity and essentially a waste of public money,” Gallucci added. “The impudence with which these individuals enthusiastically signed their names to criticize the care and benefits our service members earn, while enjoying the very freedoms our service members defend, should bring shame upon them as both journalists for a once-revered institution like The Washington Post and as fellow Americans.”

In the end, Gallucci disregarded the opinion piece as “lazy,” and built on “a recycled compilation of anti-veteran talking points against which the VFW has fought for years.”

‘You would think with all the collective Ivy League degrees held by The Washington Post Editorial Board they would understand basic economics. Instead, they recommend that veterans be subjected to means tests or outright forfeit their earned benefits if they manage to constructively cope with these life-altering disabilities. ” Gallucci wrote. “Sadly, it seems those degrees only served to inspire the Editorial Board to take the easy way out and renege on promises made to veterans, their family members, and survivors. If the Editorial Board is so worried about moral responsibility, maybe they should pick up a weapon and stand a post.”

© 2023 Bright Mountain Media, Inc. All rights reserved.

The content of this webpage may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written consent of Bright Mountain Media, Inc. which may be contacted at info@brightmountainmedia.com, ticker BMTM.


Post navigation