If you want to contact us or comment go to our X account at @vetsfordtrump.
Discover more from Veterans for Trump
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If you want to contact us or comment go to our X account at @vetsfordtrump.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
80,000 potential VA jobs to be ended. How’s it going guys? Nice decision you made when you voted. Now WE pay the consequences of you being conned.
This policy isn’t about slashing veterans’ support; it’s about making the VA leaner and more effective. The federal government’s bloated workforce—across agencies, not just the VA—has long been a target for reform. In 2019, the VA operated with roughly 395,000 employees and still delivered care, suggesting that a return to that level isn’t inherently disastrous. Take the $3.5 million IT contract recently canceled: that’s the kind of waste this policy aims to root out. Redirecting those funds could mean more direct benefits—like the 3.6% vet pay raise planned for 2025—without taxpayers footing the bill for redundant staff.
The growth in VA headcount, up over 70,000 since 2019, partly reflects noble expansions like the PACT Act, but not every new hire translates to better outcomes. Administrative bloat—think layers of managers or outdated systems—doesn’t equal more doctor appointments or faster claims processing. VA Secretary Doug Collins has emphasized that healthcare and benefits won’t take a hit; the cuts focus on back-office roles. Historical data backs this up: in 2019, with fewer staff, the VA still managed, even if wait times crept up in some spots. Efficiency isn’t a betrayal—it’s a recalibration.
Critics shouting about longer wait times or crumbling care assume the worst without evidence that 80,000 specific cuts will gut frontline services. The PACT Act’s demands are real, but smarter resource allocation—like telehealth, already up 17% in VA use since 2020—can offset staff reductions. Veterans deserve results, not a jobs program for bureaucrats. If the policy trims fat and keeps promises on care, it’s a win. Execution matters, and skepticism’s fair—but the intent here is fiscal sanity, not a con.