Democrats give away veterans' benefits

[sfc_darrel]

Democrats give away veterans' benefits

Rep. Mike Turner

As a member of the House Veterans' Affairs (VA) Committee, the work of helping to ensure that those who have worn a military uniform receive the benefits and respect to which they were promised, is often rewarding.

A recent Veterans' Affairs Committee meeting took an unusual twist, which many people are surprised to learn about when I tell them.

This story is about a two-part process that led to unbelievable decisions. First, the Veterans' Committee took away benefits from some very deserving American veterans. Second, the committee gave benefits to veterans of another country who don't live in the United States, and never have lived in this country or been American citizens. I opposed both actions.

I am against the Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2007 (H.R. 760). This legislation will provide benefits to Filipino World War II veterans.

These veterans were members of the Philippines military. They fought in the Pacific Theater, presumably on behalf of their native country.

They are citizens of the Philippines and not U.S. citizens. While these Filipino troops may have fought bravely, side-by-side, with American soldiers, they should be looking to the Philippines for veterans' benefits.

The United States has obligations to American veterans. We should not be held responsible for the benefits of the Philippines or any additional countries.

The Filipino veterans' provisions in HR 760 are similar to a plan passed by the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.

If signed into law, it would provide full veterans' status to World War II era Filipino soldiers and even their survivors.

This would include pay for service related disabilities, survivor pay for service-connected deaths, as well as pensions and death benefits.

Those who are living in the Philippines, and are not U.S. citizens, would receive $6,000 to $8,400. Low-income widows would receive $3,600.

I have witnessed some contentious hearings in my years in public service. VA Committee Chairman Bob Filner, D-Calif., was determined to pass the Filipino Veterans Equity Act. When the exchanges between the chairman and ranking member (and former chairman) Steve Buyer, R-Ind., became too heated, Filner ordered a recess to plot strategy with the Democratic majority.

The measure passed on a straight party-line vote and Filner refused to recognize any additional Republican amendments.

Providing veterans' benefits to Filipino service members is only half of the issue.

Perhaps more egregious is how the Democrats offset the cost of the new benefits. Because of House PAYGO rules, any new entitlement spending (such as the Filipino Veterans Equity Act) must be funded by either a corresponding cut in existing spending or matching revenue gains.


In this case, the Democrats on the Veterans Committee voted to save nearly $1 billion by eliminating a $2,200 special monthly payment to veterans who are less than 100 percent disabled, but 60 percent or greater disabled.


Paying Filipino service members who served alongside American troops in the Philippines during World War II sets a dangerous precedent. There were certainly brave Koreans and Vietnamese who served alongside Americans during the Korean and Vietnamese conflicts.

There are some Afghanis and Iraqis who are serving nobly with their American counterparts today. The Filipino Veterans Equity Act makes it logical for the United States to pay foreign fighters from these conflicts future benefits as well.


It is outrageous that U.S. veterans who have a high level of disability have lost up to $2,200 per month in benefits.


Rather than using U.S. tax dollars to pay American veterans who have sacrificed, Chairman Filner and the Democrats on the Veterans' Affairs Committee decided that paying non-U.S. citizens was a more important national priority.

This does not serve our nation.

Rep. Mike Turner, R-Centerville, represents Ohio's Third Congressional District.
http://www.timesgazette.com/main.asp...067&TM=54783.2
November 26, 2007

[Gimpy]

Their case was probably made most clearly back in 1946, before their sacrifice had been relegated to a distant memory.

And jerks like you and others who now denegrate and disavow their alliegence to this country have the balls to now question the like of General Douglas MacArthur and President Harry Truman and the thousands upon thousands of WWII vets who have ALWAYS supported these Filipino patriots?

----You folks are SICK----SICK---SICK! And should hang your heads in SHAME!

"There can be no question," said a former World War I artillery captain and former President named Harry Truman, "but that the Philippine veteran is entitled to benefits bearing a reasonable relation to those received by the American veteran, with whom he fought side by side."

And, just in case you dingbats are not aware. There are SEVERAL provisions and benefits ALREADY written in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (US Title 38) for Phillipine war veterans who were under the direction of US forces in WWII.

You need to get a life other than just believing the horsehockey coming out of republican propaganda spewing, right-wing fanatics like the fellow who wrote this bullshit!

Like I said----------you ought to HANG YOU HEADS IN SHAME!

[reconeil]

We fought: "Side by Side" with The Brits, Aussies, New Zealanders, Chinese, Gurkas too, just to mention a few.

Don't believe The American Taxpayer should take care of them either.

Neil

[MORTARDUDE]

The Phillipine people were not granted Independence from the USA until July 4, 1946. They fought and died with American troops throughout WW2, AS AN AMERICAN COLONY. I agree with Gimpy, that whom ever forwards or posts this should be ashamed.

Larry

[sfc_darrel]

Providing veterans' benefits to Filipino service members is only half of the issue.

Perhaps more egregious is how the Democrats offset the cost of the new benefits. Because of House PAYGO rules, any new entitlement spending (such as the Filipino Veterans Equity Act) must be funded by either a corresponding cut in existing spending or matching revenue gains.


In this case, the Democrats on the Veterans Committee voted to save nearly $1 billion by eliminating a $2,200 special monthly payment to veterans who are less than 100 percent disabled, but 60 percent or greater disabled.

It is outrageous that U.S. veterans who have a high level of disability have lost up to $2,200 per month in benefits.

[Gimpy]

Originally Posted by sfc_darrel

Providing veterans' benefits to Filipino service members is only half of the issue.

Perhaps more egregious is how the Democrats offset the cost of the new benefits. Because of House PAYGO rules, any new entitlement spending (such as the Filipino Veterans Equity Act) must be funded by either a corresponding cut in existing spending or matching revenue gains.


In this case, the Democrats on the Veterans Committee voted to save nearly $1 billion by eliminating a $2,200 special monthly payment to veterans who are less than 100 percent disabled, but 60 percent or greater disabled.

It is outrageous that U.S. veterans who have a high level of disability have lost up to $2,200 per month in benefits.

Another quote, "Because of House PAYGO rules, any new entitlement spending (such as the Filipino Veterans Equity Act) must be funded by either a corresponding cut in existing spending or matching revenue gains."--end quote---------

If NOT for those freakin "tax cuts" that the republican Congress and Bush pushed through Congress, there would be PLENTY of "matching revenue gains".....!

And/or, if those spend & cut republicans hadn't spent so much money on things like "the Bridge to nowhere" and ships the coast guard can't even USE to just name a slight FEW things that those "deficit" spending nincompoops have wasted these past seven years there would BE PLENTY of $$$$ to go around, huh?

And, BTW Neil (and SFC Darrell) those Filipino veterans you're "bitcin about" just didn't "fight along side" our American troops.....they were DRAFTED INTO MILITARY SERVICE as "conscipts" in the United States Army..........and they have the damn papers to prove it! They were just as much a "veteran" of the US military as you and I were.

You folks need to bone up on your American AND world history, dontcha think!

Gimpster

[Gimpy]

Let's set the record straight, ok?

This a feud that took on new intensity in July over an issue that pits pensions for Filipino veterans of the US military who fought with Americans in World War II against additional pension dollars for a group of elderly American wartime veterans made homebound by non-service connected disabilities. The republicans in Congress (mainly the House of Representatives and that jerk Steven Buyer) have jumped on the propaganda bandwagon to try and make it look like the democrats are taking away a long-standing benefit from deserving American veterans. This is just simply NOT the case.


The majority of these veterans with non-service connected disabilities who are now eligible are not even aware that a one year old court decision has granted them this additional benefit that the VA has long held they didn't deserve in the first place! And, the vast majority of them would NOT even be eligible for the "maximum" amout of $2,200 a month anyway!


Last July, the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned a Department of Veterans Affairs decision that had denied Special Monthly Pension (SMP) to Robert A. Hartness, an 86-year-old World War II veteran now legally blind from age-related macular degeneration. The VA had argued that to qualify for SMP at the housebound rate, an elderly wartime veteran has to have at least one condition rated 100-percent disabling. Hartness, who conceded he still cuts his own lawn, was rated 70-percent disabled. The U.S. Court of Appeals granted the award, overturning a previous denial from the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals.


The VA said the court’s ruling would make 20,000 more veterans eligible for higher SMP at a cost of $965 million over 10 years if ALL these veterans applied for it. Many of the "eligible veterans" have not even heard about this court ruling and have not even applied for the SMP at the housebound rate, and the VA sure as hell isn't making any effort to tell them about it either!


So the democrats, following the long standing past tradition of their republican counterparts in siding with the VA decisions, amended HR 760 to support VA’s original position on SMP eligibility, which freed up money to help the aging Filipino veterans.


Like I said before, it would do some folks around here well to thoroughly investigate just WTF they're posting before attempting to rail against the democrats with bull$hit propaganda from radical partisan sources!


The Gimpster

[reconeil]

Gimpy,
Boned-up on some history and picked-up some TRUE info.

"With this pledge, approximately 250,000 Filipino men JOINED the U.S. Armed Forces in the months before and days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor". None were Drafted.

"Even after the war, in October of 1945, Gen. Omar Bradley, then Administrator of the Veterans Administration, reaffirmed that they would be treated like any other American veterans".

"But on February 18, 1946, the (Democrat Controlled) Congress passed and (Democrat Administration) President Truman signed Public Law 70-301, known as the Rescission Act of 1946." "It is said that the service of Filipinos 'shall not be deemed to be or to have been service in the military or national forces of the United States or any component thereof or any law of the United States conferring rights, priviledges or benefits'."

So then Gimpster, I guess it more than just fair saying, that The Democrats got themselves a jump-start way-back-when screwing-over Filipino Veterans, way before BS'n, shafting or stuffing-it-to The American Veterans.

Neil

[Gimpy]

You have absolutely NO CLUE about the "induction" of Philippine soldiers into the armed forces of the United States during this time. It would do you well to educate yourself a lillte more before continuing to exhibit your recurring ignorance on the subject and allowing others to see how ridiculous you sound.


Look Neil, you bonehead..........get your head out of rear end long enough to understand that I am more than aware which political party was in control of Congress when this measure was passed in 1946. That doesn't CHANGE THE FACT that it needs to be FIXED-----now does it?????


These Filipino veterans defended the Philippines as a U.S. territory as sworn in members of the U. S. military, which means they defended the United States for the sake of the United States, plain and simple.


It should be shocking for the American public today to know that American citizens naturalized because they were veterans who risked their lives in battle for America cannot receive veterans benefits as Americans.


In 1934, the U.S. Congress passed the Philippine Independence Act of 1934, called the Tydings-McDuffie Act (48 Stat.463), which established a provisional autonomous government (the Commonwealth) in the Philippines preparing full-fledged independence to be realized in 1946.


The Philippine Commonwealth Army was established on this occasion to assume responsibility for national defense after independence. The same Act, however, still required all the citizens of the Philippines to pledge allegiance to the United States until independence, and authorized the President of the United States TO ORDER THE INDUCTION of the Commonwealth Army into the U.S. Armed Forces at any time during pre-independence period.


The latter provision made it possible for President Franklin D. Roosevelt to order the Commonwealth Army and U.S. Armed Forces stationed in the Philippines TO BE MERGED IN 1941, forming the U.S. Army Forces in the Far East (hereinafter USAFFE) under the command of Douglas MacArthur.


After the Japanese invasion in December 1941, Filipino and American troops literally shared the same fate at Bataan, Corregidor, and the "Death March." In May 1942, USAFFE Commander General Jonathan Wainwright surrendered to the Japanese Army, but a considerable number of American and Filipino officers and enlisted men stationed around the Islands refused to surrender and went on fighting.


Under extremely severe occupation policies imposed by the Japanese, it was not long before the anti-Japanese resistance movement drew more and more Filipinos to its side, as the Philippines became the stage for most stubbornly fought resistance movement in Southeast Asia. Through 1943 many of these anti-Japanese guerrillas recovered or newly established liaisons with the U.S. Army Command of the Southwest Pacific Area and placed themselves under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, who personally pledged to liberate the Philippines with his now famous "I shall return" statement.



Both the U.S. and Philippine governments praised these anti-Japanese guerrilla forces scattered all over the Philippine Islands as strategically indispensable to the Allied war effort in the Pacific. On 28 October 1944, Commonwealth President Sergio Osmena (with the blessings of FDR) issued Executive Order No.21 inducting "recognized guerrilla units" into the Commonwealth Army.



This Order was generally understood as inducting qualified guerrillas into the U.S. Army, thus making them eligible to receive military salaries and full veterans benefits, since the Commonwealth Army was then a part of the U.S. Army, whose members were guaranteed salaries paid by the U.S. Army.



Although there are no official statistics, the figure 200,000 has often cited as a rough estimate of the total World War II Filipino veteran population that survived the War (HCVA 1998, p.26). Of that number, 12,000 belonged to the "old" Philippine Scouts and 120,000 were "original" members of the Commonwealth Army (Asian Week, 1997/11/19: 13). The remainder, or around 70,000 persons, were members of authorized guerrilla groups and the New Philippine Scouts.



Of these totals, only about 17,000 total remain living. Less than 9,000 living in the U.S. as naturalized citizens.



As military personnel, all of them had sworn allegiance to both the U.S. and Philippine governments. They considered these two allegiances as entirely compatible with each other and they risked not only their lives but also those of their families, not to mention their native soil, for an ultimate U.S. victory. More than 1.1 million Filipino people lost their lives during the War, more often as victims of Japanese atrocities, but also in bombardments by U.S. heavy artillery. The physical damage done by the War is estimated as $ 5.8 billion in 1950 prices (Nakano 1997, pp.278-9).



Given such facts and figures, the Filipino veterans have good reason to believe that they deserve U.S. veterans benefits as much as anyone else. After the War, however, they met with the stark reality that among all of the foreign U.S. military veterans of 66 different countries who served for the United States, only they would be discriminated against in veterans affairs.



Discriminative status regarding financial benefits for Filipino veterans in the United States dates back to the end of World War II. In September 1945, the then Federal Bureau of Veterans Affairs officially stated that Filipino veterans were eligible for the U.S. veterans benefits (USHC, 1947, p.65).



However, in February 1946, Congress passed a section of
the Supplementary Appropriation Rescission Act of 1946 that stated services in the Philippine Commonwealth Army or authorized guerrilla units "were not to be considered as active military service for the purposes of veterans benefits."



However, members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army had already paid a certain amount from their salaries for the purpose of veterans insurance, which would be paid in the form of serviceconnected survivor's pensions and disability pensions in case of their death or disablement.


President Harry S. Truman stated on the occasion of signing the Rescission Act "they fought with gallantry and courage under the most difficult conditions during the recent conflict" and "I consider it a moral obligation of the United States to look after the welfare of the Filipino Army veterans," promising the matter would be deliberated by the two governments (USHC, 1947, pp.65-69).



The manner in which Congress passed the Rescission Act was more than likely influenced by other bills under consideration to finance the post-independent war reconstruction of the Philippines.


The Philippine Rehabilitation Act, enacted in April 1946, authorized appropriations of $620 million, while the Rescission Act itself was combined with an appropriation of $200 million to pay unpaid salaries to Filipino veterans.



There was a deep-rooted feeling in Congress against further federal spending for the Philippines, since it would soon to be politically independent from the United States. All through the colonial period, Congress had tended to be paternalistic in attitude, considering the U.S. possession of the Philippines to be an economic liability rather than a strategic asset. In the legislature's view, the United States had always been too generous a donor, and the Philippines a more than willing recipient.



The Philippine-U.S. government-level talks on veterans affairs, which 'began with the Truman's promise, were to drag on for many years. Immediately after the enactment of the Rescission Act, the two governments agreed that the U.S. side would consider providing medical care and funeral benefits. In 1948, Congress approved the construction of a veterans hospital in Manila (62 Stat. 1210). The Philippine Government and Congress then decided to provide the kind of veterans benefits not being provided by the U.S. government, but at reduced rates, with the passage of the Philippines GI Act (78 Phil.Code $$1-15).



The issue has slowly been progressing to the point of reconcliation, especially since the 1990s'.The Filipino veterans equity movement is the first time a group of Filipino ancestry has attracted considerable attention in the United States since World War II. In Congress, Filipino veterans equity bills have been repeatedly introduced by Senator Daniel Inouye and Congressmen Filner and Gilman and have increasingly gained endorsements. The number of cosponsors in the House reached 209 in the 105th Congress (H.R. 386, 1997-1998), and congressional hearings were held in 1997 before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs and in 1998 before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs (SCVA, 1997; HCVA, 1998).



During the 1998 election, the Democrat Party officially supported a Filipino veteran equity bill in its party platform. The number of Republican endorsers in Congress was also increasing and still is to this day, while all of the major national veterans organizations, such as the American Legion and Veterans of the Foreign Wars had already endorsed the bill.



So, like my friend Larry (Mortardude) said............if it's good enough for ALL THE MILITARY SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS-----It's damn well good enough for me!


The Gimpster

[reconeil]

Insult & call me or anyone else opposing & disbelieving you Fanatical Democrat Supremacist Ideologues all the names you like and/or the boring Dem Answer FOR EVERYTHING.
But, all countries having militaries should take care of their very own Disabled Veterans,...and that's that. NOT The U.S. Taxpayer!!!!!!!!

The American Taxpayer are most generous & supportive of THEIR Military & Disabled Veterans, of any people on earth. It's not our fault that Political Leftists and/or The Democrats and even some fearful & kowtowed Republicans usually divert va$t $um$, as Dems ALONE absurdly decree more important & worthy.

Want to hear some common sense instead of political bull on the matter? Well then, just ask any man on the street what they think about giving U.S.Taxpayer Financial Aid to foreign nationals, or Foreign Welfare Aid in general? Guarantee that not many will think of such as being very sensible & pragmatic, as do many perpetual political vote seekers and their echoing & obedient hangers-on and/or beholding clique hacks.

Besides, don't Our Allies all have their very own variations of The VA, for their warriors?
Isn't it sensible that "They" should be caring for their own Disabled Veterans, INSTEAD?
Again and most certainly,...NOT The U.S. Taxpayer!!!!!!!!!!!!

Neil