A More 'Important' "History Lesson"!

[Gimpy]

I have posted below the cronological history of Congressional & Presidential actions (or lack of them) that show the pattern of non-support for the VAs' Health Care Systems for the past three years by the 'new' breed of Republicans in control of the Republican party. I have also posted the 'source' for this information in cases where it is public record.

Timeline on Veterans? Health Care ? 3 Years of Facts

2003


January 2003 Bush Administration cuts off veterans? health care for 164,000. In January, the Administration cut off VA health care for 164,000 veterans without service-connected disabilities, who make as little as $25,000 a year. Through 2005 this has denied health care to more than 522,000 veterans. [68 Fed. Reg. 2670, 2671, January 17, 2003]

March 2003 Republicans vote to slash veterans? health care. House Republicans voted in their budget to cut $14 billion from veterans? health care. The GOP budget also included the President?s proposal to impose a $250 fee for enrollment in VA health care for low and moderate income veterans, along with a doubling of the drug co-payment for those veterans. [H Con. Res 95, Vote #82, 3/21/03]

July 2003 Republicans break promise on veterans? health care. After agreeing to reduce some of their budget cuts, the House GOP reneged on their promise to increase funding for VA health care and passed an appropriations bill providing $1.8 billion less than their FY 2004 Budget. [H. Res. 338, Vote #450, 7/25/03]

October 2003 Democrats seek an additional $1.3 billion for veterans health care, but Republicans reject it. The Bush Administration opposed and House Republicans rejected a Democratic motion to include $1.3 billion for veterans? health care in the Iraqi Supplemental. [H.R. 3289, Vote #600,10/31/03]


2004


February 2, 2004 Veterans Secretary acknowledges inadequacy of FY 2005 Veteran Budget: "In a rare move by a Cabinet member, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi told a House committee he had sought $1.2 billion more than President Bush was willing to put in his budget. 'I asked OMB for $1.2 billion more than I received,' Principi said...Last year, Principi said the administration did not provide as large of an increase as he requested for the 2004 fiscal year."- Associated Press, 2/4/04

February 26, 2004 Bipartisan House Veterans? Committee calls for an additional $2.5 billion funding for veterans health care.

March 25, 2004 Democrats seek to amend the budget both in committee and on the floor to add money. Republicans defeated ? by a vote of 194 to 232 (Democrats votes YES) ? the Democratic substitute to the GOP FY 2005 Budget Resolution to include a $2.5 billion increase over the Bush budget for veterans' health care for FY 2005, which veterans critically needed to maintain the current level of veterans' health care services. [H.Con.Res. 393, Vote #91, 3/25/04. Rejected 194-232 (R 0-224; D 193-8)]

March 25, 2004 Republicans pass inadequate budget resolution that shortchanged veterans' health care by $1.3 billion, compared to the amount the bipartisan Veterans? Affair Committee said was needed just to maintain current services. [H.Con.Res. 393, Vote #92, 3/25/04 .Adopted 215-212 (R 215-10; D 0-201)]

June 24, 2004 Democrats offer ?National Priorities? Bill to increase veterans? health care by $1.3 billion. Republicans defeated an ?investing in national priorities? bill that would have invested in key priorities, providing an additional $1.3 billion to improve veterans' health care, shorten waiting times at VA health care facilities, and provide critical mental health services to address needs resulting from wartime deployments. The Paralyzed Veterans of America called this bill "vital," as it would have brought veterans? health care funding to the level that the House Veterans' Affairs Committee on a bipartisan basis had said was needed to maintain current services. [H.Res. 685, Vote #301, 6/24/04. Rejected 184-230 (R 2-217; D 181-13)]

September 29, 2004 Democrats offer motion to add veterans? health money to Fiscal Year 2005 Continuing Resolution. Republicans defeated the Democratic motion to provide an additional $1.3 billion for veterans' health care for FY 2005, which veterans critically need to maintain the current level of veterans' health care services. [H.J.Res. 107, Vote #478, 9/29/04. Rejected 200-221 (R 1-219; D 198-2)]


2005


January 6, 2005 House Republicans oust Chris Smith as chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs for his tireless advocacy of veterans rights. "It all came down to the fact I wanted to spend too much on veterans," Smith said following a 90-minute meeting in which he detailed the 22 laws he authored to help veterans in his four years as chairman. ... "This is not only a slap at Chris Smith, but a shot over the bow at veterans organizations," said Richard Fuller of the Paralyzed Veterans of America. "The Republican leadership has made a statement that the country is making too much of a commitment to the men and women who have served in uniform." [New Jersey Star-Ledger, January 06, 2005]

February 16, 2005 Despite news reports of VA shortfalls, newly appointed VA Secretary and former Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson testifies that he is unaware of that VAs are deferring purchases and maintenance to address shortfalls.

February 17 House Democrats, led by Reps. Baird and Hooley, send a letter to the President urging him to support including $1.3 billion for veterans health care in the Iraqi Supplemental.

February 23, 2005 House Veterans? Affairs Committee Chairman Buyer supports increasing veterans co-pays and imposing health enrollment fees for in the budget views and estimates.

March 15, 2005 Republicans vote to block Democrats from offering an amendment add $1.2 billion for veterans? health care for FY 2005 on the $82 billion Iraqi Supplemental offered by Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-OR). [H.R. 1248, Vote #69, 3/15/05. Motion agreed to 220-195 (R 220-1; D 0-193)]

March 15, 2005 Republicans blocked consideration of an amendment by Rep. Bob Filner to add $3.1 billion for veterans? healthcare in FY 2005. [H.R. 1248, Vote #71, 3/15/05. Motion agreed to 224-200 (R 220-1; D 0-193)]

March 17, 2005 Democrats make repeated efforts on the budget to add money in committee and on the floor on the FY 2006 Budget. Democratic Rep. Obey of Wisconsin attempted to offer an amendment to provide $3.2 billion more than the President?s budget in FY 2006 for veterans' health care, to meet the growing needs of returning soldiers, The Democratic budget included a $20.9 billion increase over 5 years, for veterans? health care and to eliminate the President?s proposal to increase fees. Similarly, Democratic Rep. Chet Edwards offered an amendment in to increase health care funding and to eliminate the Republican budget's plan for $798 million in veterans cuts over five years. [H CON RES 95, Votes #82 & 87, 3/17/05]

March 17, 2005 Republicans pass a budget that is more than $2 billion short of what is needed for veterans? health care this year, cuts veterans? health care by $14 billion below the amount needed to maintain these programs at their current levels over five year, and cuts of $798 million over the next five years ? requiring either new fees for veterans? health care or cuts in veterans? benefits. [H CON RES 95, Vote #88, 3/17/05]

April 5, 2005 Bush Administration denies any funding shortfall. On April 5, 2005, the Veterans? Affairs Department Secretary Nicholson said ?I can assure you that VA does not need emergency supplemental funds in FY 2005 to continue to provide timely, quality service?? [Con. Rec. 4/12/05, S3466]

May 18, 2005 Democratic Rep. Obey offered an amendment in full committee to increase VA health care spending by $2.6 billion in FY 2006, but Republicans defeated it.

May 26, 2005 House Republicans block consideration of a Democratic amendment to provide an additional $2.6 billion for veterans? health care in FY 2006, supported by the coalition of AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars. [H.R.2528, Vote #223, 5/26/05. Motion passed 223-194 (R 223-0; D 0-193)]

June 23, 2005 Bush Administration acknowledges FY 2005 shortfall of $1 billion, even though they have been aware of this since April. ?The Bush administration, already accused by veterans groups of seeking inadequate funds for health care next year, acknowledged yesterday that it is short $1 billion for covering current needs at the Department of Veterans Affairs this year?Leaders of the American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans and the Disabled American Veterans all noted a striking partisan division in Congress on veterans issues, with Democrats giving them much more support than Republicans.? [Washington Post, 6/24/05]

June 24, 2005 House Democrats, led by Rep. Chet Edwards, seek to offer an amendment to eliminate the Republican VA funding shortfall by adding $1 billion for VA health care in FY 2005 to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill. The Republican majority refused to allow the amendment, so Congressman David Obey of Wisconsin then offered a motion to send the bill back and add the needed funding for veterans' health care. [HR 3010, Vote #320, 6/24/05. Failed 185-216]

June 28, 2005 Bush Administration acknowledges FY 2006 shortfall that amounts to $2.7 billion. Secretary Nicholson acknowledged that there is also a shortfall of $1.5 FY 2006 ? which would reach $2.7 billion in fiscal 2006 if the Administration proposals are rejected, as they have been over the past few years. Secretary still refuses to acknowledge that the shortfall is hurting veterans access to timely, high quality care.

June 28, 2005 Republicans reject Democratic attempt to make up for the shortfall in the House. House Republicans voted to block consideration of an amendment by Rep. Chet Edwards to add $1 billion for VA health care in FY 2005 to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. [HR 3057, Vote # 325, 6/28/05. Failed 217-189]

June 28, 2005 Veterans Secretary Nicholson says ?We certainly don?t have a crisis.? [NYT, 6/29/05]

June 28, 2005 Majority Leader Tom Delay said, ?Veterans need to know, no veteran will be without their health care in 2005 and no veteran will be without health care in 2006. There are solutions to this problem and those solutions are being addressed.? [CQ Today, 6/28/05]

June 29, 2005 Rep. Edwards introduces an amendment to the Transportation Appropriations bill to add $1 billion for VA health care but Republicans block it from consideration.

June 29, 2005 All House Democrats send a letter to President Bush urging him to send up a budget request for $1.3 billion to make up for the shortfall this year.

June 29, 2005 The Senate votes 96 to 0 to add $1.5 billion for FY 2005 for veterans health care.

June 30, 2005 Several months after becoming aware of the shortfall and more than one week after acknowledging a shortfall, the White House and House Republicans begrudgingly act to deal with the current year shortfall in veterans? health care, passing only $975 million ? significantly less than the Senate passed ? thereby delaying funding for veterans? health care. Democrats attempt to bring the total of the supplemental to $1.5 billion to match the Senate amount, but Republicans reject this effort to get the money to veteran?s medical facilities immediately on a party line vote. [H RES 345 Vote #359, 6/30/05. Motion agreed to 216-191 (R 216-0; D 0-191)] So final action for this year?s shortfall is not completed as Congress adjourns for the July 4th recess.

July 12, 2005 Just two weeks after announcing the shortfall for FY05, the Bush Administration admits their numbers were wrong and requests an additional $300 million for FY05, bringing the total shortfall to about $1.3 billion, matching the number Democrats have been calling for all along.

July 12, 2005 The Senate again votes 96 to 0 to add $1.5 billion for FY 2005 for veterans health care.

July 14, 2005 The Bush Administration formally requests the additional $300 million this year, along with $1.7 billion for FY 2006 ? admitting a $3 billion mistake over the two years, but still leaving veterans health care $1.5 billion short in the upcoming year.


July 18, 2005 Senate Democratic Leader Reid ask to bring up legislation to provide $1.5 billion for veterans health care in FY 2005 separately, but Republicans objected.

July 28, 2005 35 Days after White House acknowledges shortfall, House passes legislation providing $1.5 billion for veterans health care in FY 2005, finally getting the money to the VA.

October 26, 2005 It is reported that the Republican Chairman of the Budget Committee has proposed a two percent cut in all programs, including veterans? health care. This would cut more than $600 million in veterans? health care -- enough funds to care for nearly 100,000 veterans. The American Legion expressed concern that this cut would mean ?...rationing of care, hiring freezes of medical personnel, delaying repairs on facilities, growing backlogs of medical equipment, and many other fiscal-based constraints.? And Senate Republicans have proposed a five percent cut, which would slash veterans health care by $1.6 billion, the amount needed to care for 243,000 veterans. And now, the President agrees that ?I'm open to a further across-the-board spending cut as well." (Reuters, 10/26/05)

November 10, 2005 Disabled American Veterans and many other Veterans groups begin announcing concern and consternation that Republican Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Buyer (R-IN) recently announced that veterans service organizations will no longer have the opportunity to present testimony before a joint hearing of the House and Senate Veterans? Affairs Committees. ?The tradition of legislative presentations by veterans service organizations dates back to at least the 1950s. And the timing of this announcement -- just before Veterans Day -- could not have been worse,? said DAV National Commander Paul W. Jackson. For several decades now, these joint hearings have been held each year to allow the elected leaders of veterans groups to discuss their organization?s legislative agenda and foremost concerns with the lawmakers who have jurisdiction over federal veterans programs. Senators and Representatives who serve on those committees also get the rare opportunity to address the hundreds of constituent members from these organizations? who make the annual pilgrimage to Capitol Hill.

November 15, 2005 House Democratic Leaders hold roundtable with Veterans and Veterans representatives to continue dialogue and work on passing the New GI Bill of Rights, ending the SBP/DIC Offset, fully funding Veterans Health care, fully ending the Disabled Veterans Tax, providing TRICARE to National Guard and Reservist along with many other issues of importance to America?s Veterans and Military Retirees. Democrats are listening and working with Veterans.

##############

If this 'pattern' shown above does not clearly represent what I've been telling folks for years now ..............that the Republicans in Congress AND the Whitehouse are NOT supportive of militarty veterans and their families.............then I can not fathom or understand what ELSE will.

They have FAILED the Veterans of this country in nearly every single campaign promise and committment they made to us in 2000 AND 2004. I can't understand what else it will take for folks to wake up and SEE the truth for what it is?

[catman]

Gimp...if it is possible, post who introduced each Bill and the votes for and against.

Bet you will see alot of Dems voting "against party lines".

Trav

[Gimpy]

Democrats Rep. Baird, Rep.Darlene Hooley, Rep. Bob Filner, Rep. David Obey, Rep. Chet Edwards, Senators Harry Reid, Patty Murray, and Bill Nelson to name just some, are either authors, and/or co-sponsers who submitted the admendments to increase funds for veterans health care.

There were a few Republicans in the house (like Rep Chris Smith and my Congressman, Mike Billirakis and on occasion a very few others) and in the Senate (John Warner was one and occasionally there were a couple of others) that also supported these funding increases.


But, by and large the OVERWHELMIMG majority of Republicans voted against these measues. I've already posted most of the 'total' vote count above by 'party lines' that clearly SHOWS this............if you want to see the individual vote 'count' that shows each and every Representative and/or Senators vote you can go to the appropriate web site (the Senate or House of Representatives) and see that information for yourself. It took me nearly two full days to gather the information I've posted already, and I don't see the significance of having to go back and retrace all of that work if I don't need to.


Your welcome to do it if you like, but the "proof" is already posted above. All that would show is which INDIVIDUAL Senator or Congressman (or woman) voted in the affirmative or against it.

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Gimpy All that would show is which INDIVIDUAL Senator or Congressman (or woman) voted in the affirmative or against it.

That would be something very interesting to know, I think, too.

It would not be correct to state that ALL Republicans always vote in favor of reduced VA, and that ALL Democrats always vote against that, would it?

A lot of work though.

[SuperScout]

What would be truly enlightening is the percentage or actual dollar increase in the VA buget each year over the past ten years. Many times, resolutions are brought before the respective chambers as a parliamentary maneuver sidetrack or postpone other action. And just a frequently, amendments are added to bills in an attempt to piggyback them into law. All these actions are legislative yada yada, and nothing really counts until the final $ sign is put an a bill that gets signed into law.

Having said that, there are countless governmental agencies that can rightfully claim that they don't have enough money to operate their respective agencies. I have long proposed to institute better accountability in governmental programs, eliminate the massive fraud, waste and abuse, and use that money to adequately fund better programs for veterans.

[darrels joy]

The increase for the VA budget is 40% since Bush took office with 54% proposed increases from the White House.

[Gimpy]

I don't know where you're getting your "misinformation" from there Joy.


Lets' look at the F-A-C-T-S instead, ok???


The former head of the Department of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi and the current under-Secretary for The Veterans Health Administration acknowledged in congressional testimony that VA needs at least a 13-to-14% higher funding level each year just to maintain current services in the face of inflation and other increased costs.


The Administration?s budget for fiscal year (FY) 2006 proposed $27.8 billion in appropriations for veterans? medical care. This amounts to only a 0.4%?or less than one-half of one percent ?increase over the FY 2005 appropriation in nominal, or constant, dollars, and therefore would be a reduction below the FY 2005 appropriation of $27.7 billion adjusted for inflation.


Enrollment in the Veterans health care system increased 80% from 4.3 million to 7.7 million from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2005. Federal funding for VA health has increased only 10% (cumlative) during that same period of time according to the VA themselves.


Therefore, the forty percent (40%) the Whitehouse claims as a "success story" is just so much BULL$HIT!


In a recent appearance before the SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS? AFFAIRS, RICHARD B. FULLER, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR of THE PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA said that "This FY 2006 budget request for health care by the Whitehouse is a shocking one, providing once again a woefully inadequate funding level for sick and disabled veterans."


"The Administration request of $27.8 billion amounts to an increase of $111 million in appropriated dollars ? less than one-half of one percent over the amount provided in FY 2005. Last year?s request was the smallest health care appropriation request in nearly a decade. This year?s request is even lower."


"Health care is not a luxury, but this budget request treats it like it is. Keep in mind that the VA itself has testified in the past that it requires a ?13 or 14 percent per year increase in the money available to take care of just our core population of veterans.? (Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System: Hearing Before the House Committee on Veterans? Affairs, 108th Congress, January 29, 2003).


He went on to say, "This is not a lean budget, rather, it is a budget designed to strangle a health care system relied upon by sick and disabled veterans. It is clear that this budget would gut long-term care, and violate the VA?s statutory responsibility to maintain the capacity to provide long-term care."


The Disabled American Veterans National Commander James E. Sursely had THIS to say about the recent budget(s) submitted by the Bush Administration, ?The VA medical system has been strained to the breaking point over these past four years because its appropriation has failed to keep pace with the skyrocketing costs of health care and increased patient loads. As a result VA facilities across the country are cutting staff and limiting services even as the number of veterans seeking care is on the rise.?

The impact of the current budget shortfalls on veterans medical care has been felt across the country as indicated by recent news reports of belt-tightening (like canceling capital improvements and new equipment) along with some layoffs at VA hospitals. Not to mention the increase in long lines and waiting times at VA hospitals and clinics. Health care 'delayed' is usually health care 'denied'!

And those are the F-A-C-T-S!


PS--------Super, that should answer your "question" also, at least for the last four (4) years anyway!

[Gimpy]

Originally posted by SuperScout What would be truly enlightening is the percentage or actual dollar increase in the VA buget each year over the past ten years. Many times, resolutions are brought before the respective chambers as a parliamentary maneuver sidetrack or postpone other action. And just a frequently, amendments are added to bills in an attempt to piggyback them into law. All these actions are legislative yada yada, and nothing really counts until the final $ sign is put an a bill that gets signed into law.

Having said that, there are countless governmental agencies that can rightfully claim that they don't have enough money to operate their respective agencies. I have long proposed to institute better accountability in governmental programs, eliminate the massive fraud, waste and abuse, and use that money to adequately fund better programs for veterans.

I wanted to further 'clarify' something I did not address in the post previous to this one.


And as far as.......and I quote you "resolutions are brought before the respective chambers as a parliamentary maneuver sidetrack or postpone other action. And just a frequently, amendments are added to bills in an attempt to piggyback them into law.".........


I can ASSURE you that without one single iota of doubt (and with factual documentation in the Congressional Record) that these "amendments" and "bills" I've listed in the original post were NOT " parliamentary maneuvers" OR added to " piggyback them into law" for any other purpose but to address the woefully inadequate and outright lack of responsible budget action on behalf of this administration. All were going into a mostly already agreed upon Defense Authorization Bill for the sole purpose of increasing funding for veterans, nothing else! It is in the Congressional Record for ALL TO SEE!


And, so says ALL the Veterans Service Organizations as well!.....


I'm certainly just as accutely aware as you that there are "countless Government agencies" who "claim" they don't have enough money...............however, it is seldom (if ever) that you have ALL the Military Service Organizations providing sworn testimony that this is in fact the case with the VA, right?


I am ALL for improving "accountability" for the VA as well as all other Government agencies..............But, that DOES NOT address what is in fact taking place in THIS particular case. The $$$$$ are there, they just DID NOT go to the VA.

[catman]

These are the figures I found, on this web site http://www1.va.gov/opa/pressrel/Pres...et.cfm?id=941. Not sure where you are getting your info from.


Administration Seeks $70.8 Billion for VA in 2006
February 7, 2005


WASHINGTON ? Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson announced today that President Bush will seek a record $70.8 billion in the fiscal year 2006 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), with the overwhelming majority of these resources targeted for health care and disability compensation.

?This budget demonstrates the President?s ongoing commitment to provide the very best health care and benefits to those veterans who count on VA the most,? Nicholson said.

The FY ?06 budget proposal calls for $33.4 billion in discretionary funding -- mostly for health care -- and $37.4 billion in mandatory funding, mostly for compensation, pension and other benefit programs. This represents an increase of 2.7 percent over this year's discretionary budget.

FY ?06 Budget Highlights
This budget proposal guarantees that the department will be able to care for those veterans who count on VA the most.

With this budget proposal, the President, working in partnership with Congress, will have increased health care funding for veterans by 47 percent since FY ?01.

The budget ensures continuation of the Presidential priority where VA is working closely with the Department of Defense to ensure that service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and their families are provided timely, high-quality services.

VA will be able to care for more than 5.2 million patients. With this budget, the department will be able to care for a record number of our high-priority patients, those veterans counting on us the most, including veterans of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom.

The FY ?06 budget proposal includes $750 million for the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) program, bringing the total department investment to date to $2.15 billion. The FY ?06 proposal includes 28 new outpatient clinics, funding for design work for two new medical facilities in Biloxi, Miss., and Fayetteville, Ark., as well as additional funding for five other major construction projects in Las Vegas, Nev.; Cleveland, Ohio; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Gainesville, Fla., and Anchorage, Alaska.

The FY ?06 budget request calls for a total investment of $2.2 billion in enhanced mental health services, which is $100 million above this year?s funding level. This budget proposal ensures a full continuum of care for veterans with mental health issues, to include comprehensive treatment for those veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.

The FY ?06 budget calls for $1.2 billion for prosthetics and sensory aids, a $100 million increase over FY ?05.

Funding for non-institutional long-term care would increase by more than 18 percent over FY ?05, with a total investment of $400 million in the President's proposed budget.

Continuing the largest expansion of the national cemetery system since the Civil War, the FY ?06 budget proposal includes $90 million for construction projects, including funds for the purchase of land for six new national cemeteries in Bakersfield, Calif.; Birmingham, Ala.; Columbia-Greenville, S.C.; Jacksonville, Fla.; Sarasota, Fla.; and southeastern Pennsylvania; and expansion of the Fort Rosecrans Annex in Miramar, Calif. The budget also includes $32 million for new state cemetery grants.
FY ?06 Budget Highlights for the Veterans Health Administration

The Veterans Health Administration has received record budget increases over the last four years. With this budget proposal, the President, working in partnership with Congress, will have increased health care funding for veterans by more than 47 percent since FY ?01. The President?s FY ?06 budget proposal requests $30.7 billion for VA?s health care program.

With these resources, VA will be able to treat more than 5.2 million patients. In 2006, nearly 80 percent of veteran patients are expected to be high priority ? those veterans who count on VA the most.

The President?s budget request also includes $750 million to continue the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) program designed to modernize VA's health care system. The FY ?06 proposal brings the total department investment to date to $2.15 billion. This historic transformation means that VA will be able to provide greater access to high-quality care closer to where most veterans live.

For the last five years, the independent American Customer Satisfaction index found veterans were happier than most Americans with the health care they receive. In December, a study by the prestigious RAND Corporation reported that VA patients were also significantly more likely than non-VA patients to receive needed preventative care.

FY ?06 Budget Highlights for the Veterans Benefits Administration

The President?s budget proposal for FY ?06 will enable the Veterans Benefits Administration to maintain record increases in educational assistance and home loan programs.

Continuing the nation's long-standing commitment to provide educational benefits to veterans, service members and certain family members of veterans, the department will continue to offer veterans and service members educational assistance up to $1,004 per month ? a record amount ? for full-time education or training in an approved institution.

VA?s support to service members and veterans purchasing or improving homes through the home loan guaranty program will remain at record levels.

VA is now guarantying home loans with no down payment of nearly $360,000 for eligible veterans, up from the $240,000 maximum last year.

Vocational rehabilitation and employment benefits for service-disabled veterans will increase by $64 million in FY ?06, which is 11 percent more than FY ?05.

Men and women still on active duty will find it easier to access VA benefits when they near the end of their military service because of the enhancements in the FY ?06 budget proposal for VA programs that allow early application for disability claims and other benefits.

FY ?06 Budget Highlights for the National Cemetery Administration

Over the past four years, the President has committed to the largest expansion of the national cemetery system since the Civil War. To this end, the FY ?06 budget calls for $290 million, nearly $17 million, or 6.4 percent, more than the level for FY ?05.

The FY ?06 budget proposal calls for $90 million for construction projects, including funds for the purchase of land for six new national cemeteries in the areas of Bakersfield, Calif.; Birmingham, Ala.; Columbia-Greenville, S.C.; Jacksonville, Fla.; Sarasota, Fla.; and southeastern Pennsylvania.

The 2006 budget also includes funds for cemetery expansion and improvement at the Fort Rosecrans Annex in Miramar, Calif., and $32 million for the state cemetery grant program. The share of veterans living within 75 miles of a national or state veterans cemetery will increase to more than 82 percent in 2006, which means that about 1.7 million more veterans will have access to a burial option in 2006 than in 2004.

FY ?06 Budget Highlights for Legislative Proposals
The President?s 2006 budget includes legislative proposals that will further ensure VA is able to care for those veterans who count on it the most. The proposals include:

ending all copayments for former prisoners of war;

ending copayments for hospice care;

authorizing VA to pay for emergency room care or urgent care for enrolled veterans in non-VA medical facilities;

allowing more resources to be devoted to the homeless providers grant and per diem program;

establishing a priority system for veterans receiving care in state veterans homes;

increasing pharmacy copayments from $7 to $15 for a 30-day supply of drugs*; and

establishing an annual enrollment fee of $250.*
* These proposals ask that non-disabled, higher income veterans (Priority 7 and 8 veterans) assume a small share of the cost of their health care, in line with amounts required of military retirees who have served at least 20 years in uniform or who were retired early due to service-related disabilities. Under no circumstances will a veteran make a copayment of any kind for the treatment of a service-connected condition.

[Gimpy]

No surprise that the VA web site has "propaganda" regarding this issue. The management at the VA is in concert with the Bush administration to shield the 'TRUTH" of the actual facts.

This is nothing more than continued propaganda from VA SecretaryJim Nicholson (another of Bushs' appointees charged with putting out the "fires" of truth that keep turning up to discredit their lies and deception) which is using misinformation and 'doctored' information to further the political reputation of an administration that has virtually abandoned its' promises made in 2000 and 2004!

If you want to see the REAL "TRUTH".................go to the DAVs' web site and read all the documented evidence that reveals the F-A-C-T-S about this administrations lack of support for veterans and their families.

Below is just as sample.......................


###START###

Shortfalls in the current fiscal year (FY) 2005 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care budget are adversely affecting VA's ability to provide timely, quality health care for our nation?s veterans. After reductions from the $1.2 billion increase in medical care appropriations, VA received a net gain of $479 million, which was used towards the unbudgeted 2 percent additional cost-of-living allowance (COLA) for VA employees ordered by Congress. According to the VA, the health care increase was reduced by the 0.8 percent rescission, a decrease in collections, transfers and add-ons to other programs.

With the FY 2005 appropriation, VA had to maintain a freeze on new enrollments of lower priority group veterans seeking medical care, and even with that freeze, news stories discussed the shortfalls in VA funding at local facilities:

On December 23, 2004, the Denver Post reported that Colorado?s veterans health care system was ?straining under unprecedented demand and a budget shortfall.? The system, which includes a hospital in Denver and seven outpatient clinics, received $3 million less this year than expected, a 2 percent shortfall that means a hiring freeze and the return of waiting lists for care. They were funded at nearly $1 million less than 2002 funding levels. Ed Thorsland, director of the VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, said, ?We not only have burgeoning costs but burgeoning demand, and it goes beyond what appears to be generous increases by Congress.?

In December 2004, the Associated Press reported that some military veterans from mid-Michigan would have to go to Ann Arbor or Battle Creek for care because a clinic at Michigan State University had reached capacity.

In December 2004, the Altoona Mirror reported that Van Zandt Medical Center would have to cut services because of a $5 million shortfall for FY 2005. The cuts will apply to services now unavailable at the hospital, but which the hospital pays other local organizations to provide, including neurosurgery, orthopedics, dermatology, long-term care, and adult day health care.

In January 2005, it was reported that there would be a $14.2 million shortfall in the annual allocation at the Togus, Maine VA Medical Center (VAMC). The estimated annual deficit was pegged at $65 million for the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN), which distributes funds for hospitals and health care centers throughout New England. Approximately $30 million has been found that can be applied to that regional shortfall, and the Togus shortfall was reduced to about $7 million.

In January 2005, a VA medical facility in New Mexico was reportedly $4 million under budget, and will lose 60 full-time employee positions.

In January 2005, it was reported that the Boise VA Medical Center has a $2 million deficit. There is a Network-wide hiring freeze. They were told to hold to a zero growth in primary care, and they expect staff reductions through attrition.

On February 13, 2005, a Denver Post editorial cited the impact of the administration?s budget proposal on Colorado veterans. Nearly 30,000 of Colorado?s 430,000 veterans will be forced to pay a new $250 fee to access medical care, along with doubling of prescription drug costs. Another 215,000 veterans could be affected by the price hikes in copayments for drugs.

On February 19, 2005, the Gannett Wisconsin newspapers reported that the waiting list for services at the VA clinic in Green Bay can be as long as a year.

On February 24, 2005, it was reported that a group of Duke University physicians threatened to stop treating military veterans referred by the VA medical center because the VA won?t pay enough.

On February 27, 2005, the Associated Press reported that veterans hospitals in North Carolina are struggling to meet growing demand. Charles Smith, director of the state division of veterans affairs, said, ?If Congress goes along with the administration?s budget, there are veterans who are getting treatment now who will be pushed out.?

On March 1, 2005, it was reported that the Fort Worth VA clinic was overburdened by a surge of veterans.

In March 2005, it was reported that VISN 1has sacrificed its reserves and the majority of the capital accounts to provide maximum support to the facilities? operating budgets. There are no funds left to provide assistance from either VISN or at the national level. There is a network-wide employee freeze. No recruitment can occur for any position without specific approval. Specific monthly targets were identified that must be achieved in moving towards an employee target. The Providence VA Medical Center has a deficit of $5.5 million. There will be no supplemental funding; several initiatives will be implemented to help reduce the deficit: reduce pharmacy expenses, reduce overtime expenses, restrict repairs and minor improvements to emergency situations, decrease use of clinical contracts and fee basis. Potential areas for increased revenue: third-party prescription billing, fee basis billing, prosthetic billing.

In Oklahoma, the Muskogee VAMC medical staff is taking steps to preserve financial stability, including, pharmacy and therapeutics committees reviewing several difficult cost containment measures; fee base care will only be provided for 50 percent service-connected or greater; will be denied for less than 50 percent service-connected and nonservice-connected; there will be conservative ordering in prosthetics; it was requested that medical staff be very conservative and have a plan for treatment before ordering an MRI. ?Evidence based medicine should be followed for treatments. We are a HMO for 30,000 unique?appropriated dollars are not going to increase.?

On March 11, 2005, it was reported that the Veterans Affairs Medical and Regional Office Center at Togus plans to cut its work force from 1,000 to 950 by September 30. Togus was facing a $7 million shortfall at the end of January. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), said she supports the current staffing level at Togus. ?Any reduction in force at Togus would be contrary to the goals and mission of the VA.?

On March 17, 2005, it was reported that the Augusta, Ga. VA medical center is considering shortening the hours of its emergency facilities. A combination of factors, including money and staffing, has led to the proposal.

On March 18, 2005, it was reported that the VA facility in Boise, Idaho is facing a $1.8 billion deficit; at the Louisville, Kentucky hospital, veterans undergoing a cyctoscopy must lie on a broken table during the procedure because VA had no funds to replace it; the Chillicothe, Ohio VA hospital will be forced to shut down a psychiatric rehabilitation program.

On March 19, 2005, The Roanoke Times reported that ?staffers at the Salem facility are seeing an increase in the number of soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder.?

On March 20, 2005, the Los Angeles Times ran a story about mental health care deficiencies in VA facilities. While officials on both sides argue about the best way to treat veterans with post-traumatic stress, the need for mental health care has grown.

On March 22, 2005, it was announced that the Arnold Center pharmacy is being closed due to an extreme shortage of pharmacists within the Tennessee Valley Healthcare System.

On March 22, 2005, The Patriot Ledger reported a plan to cut back urgent care at the Brockton VA hospital.

While we are only in the second quarter of FY 2005, these are but a few examples of the impact of an inadequate budget for veterans? medical care. The FY 2006 budget is less generous and has been described by VA officials as a 10-month budget.

The administration?s budget for FY 2006 seeks only $27.8 billion in appropriations for veterans? medical care. This amounts to only a 0.4 percent?or less than one-half of one percent?increase over the FY 2005 appropriation in nominal, or constant, dollars, and therefore would be a reduction below the FY 2005 appropriation of $27.7 billion adjusted for inflation. Two years ago, VA testified that an annual increase of 13 percent to 14 percent in health care spending was needed to continue to provide current services. This budget would tighten funding for veterans? medical care at a time when an influx of new veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will place substantial new demands upon a system already unable to meet its mission.

To bridge some of the gap between the resources needed and the appropriations requested, the administration?s budget proposes to continue the freeze on new enrollments of lower priority group veterans seeking medical care, and shift some of the cost of VA medical care from the government onto the veterans themselves. The budget request would require veterans to pay an annual $250 enrollment fee just for the right to continue to go to a VA hospital, and increase medication copayments from $7 to $15 for each prescription. The impact of the administration?s budget, if passed, includes:

Staff reduction of over 3,000 VA health care workers.

Staff reduction of 700 VA benefits workers.

The required increase in salaries for VA employees would consume the proposed 0.4 percent increase in medical care.

VA would be forced to collect $2.6 billion from veterans and from their insurance companies to make up for the funding shortfall.

Over 200,000 veterans would not be able to afford to receive treatment for their injuries and disabilities at VA hospitals.

Reduction of over 5,000 nursing home beds.

Some 33,000 fewer veterans would receive long-term care and it eliminates funding for construction of care facilities throughout the country.

Funding for prosthetic research would be slashed by $9 million, despite the many wounded soldiers returning from overseas.

Waiting times for health care would skyrocket because VA would not have enough funding to provide care.

In April 2005, the United States Senate blocked an amendment to the $80 billion supplemental appropriation bill to provide $1.9 billion to cover a critical shortfall in funding for veterans medical care. The amendment, offered by Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), would increase funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs by $1.98 billion for the current fiscal year and designate it as emergency spending. Some $840 million of that money would be used to provide each VA regional health network with an additional $40 million. The amendment designated $610 million to address the needs of servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and $525 million would be used to provide mental health care and treatment for veterans. The amendment failed to win approval in two procedural votes that saw just one Republican, Pennsylvania?s Arlen Specter, along with every Democrat and the Senate?s lone Independent voting in favor.

###################

And, that forty seven percent (47%) increase in VA Health Care funding they continually "claim" as a "success story" is not worth the freakin paper it's written on! What they are doing is adding each years total percentage of funding and counting THAT as the so-called 47 % increase rather than the 'cumlative' total of 11.7%!

The former head of the VA (Secretary Anthony Principi) and the current VA Under-Secretary for Health care in "sworn testimony" before both houses of Congress reported that it REQUIRES at least a "13 or 14 percent per year increase in the money available to take care of just our core population of veterans.? (Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System: Hearing Before the House Committee on Veterans? Affairs, 108th Congress, January 29, 2003).

Like I said before--------------further PROOF that these jerks will use 'misinformation', lies and deception to further their "propaganda" and bull$hit!