Which Willl It Be?

[skeeter]

I can see it all developing.. You cannot stand the likes of John Kerry, as some of you think he dosn't care about the Veterans. And most of you "Republicans" feel he shouldn't be called a veteran himself for what you say, he did upon returning from Vietnam.

You know very well what the veterans benefits are from the "weasel" we have now. And are you expecting a mircle from him? I think not!.. So you bitch about all, and a lot about nothing.

So lets draw a "battle plan" for the Republicans and Democrats.
Lets just go with the present Veterans plan for those Republicans.They like George and the way he doing. They don't care for anything the Democrats stand for.. I don't know why, just about all the good things they have now, has come from the Liberal's side of the aisle. Ok!.

Now let's have the Democrat plan. Lets assume that John Kerry wins in November.. His first "big deal" will be a wonderful Veterans benefits program. No one has ever done such a great thing for the Veterans. But wait just a "minute" here, he cannot be for all Veterans, he just wants it for the Democrat Veterans, for those that have supported him from day one, and that goes back to the Vietnam days.

Pipe down! you Veterans that hate John Kerry.. NOW I can hear the uproars.. We are veterans too, we are entitled to the these benefits that the Democrat Veterans are getting. We are all American War Veterans of wars.

Now just wait a darn minute here, remember when John Kerry was running for President, how you Republicans could not stand the man, now you want to KISS HIS A-- because he can do something for you.

I have seen it all. "that is the way conservatives" act. I don't want to vote for it, pay for it, but if it's free I want it..

[phuloi]

Trust me on this one,Skeeter:This conservative has yet to kiss ANYONE`S ASS,and the likes of Jane Kerry will certainly not warrant the first!

[skeeter]

phuloi;

You have been selected as the first one to say you are satified with the present Veterans benefit plans.

[reconeil]

I understand the typical Party Line involving America's Veterans. But, since me and your Party don't exactly speak the same language and travel in the same circles,...could YOU just name me one thing that Kerry would do any better for The American Veteran? I (no doubt many others) would like to know.

Besides, and answer from YOU could be better believed (both today and tomorrow). If I asked Kerry the same question,...I'm fairly sure that today's answer and tomorrow's answer would be TOTALLY DIFFERENT and/or which ever way the wind is blowing.

Neil

[phuloi]

Yup..Very satisfied w/my medical treatment and the disability check I recieve from VA.
This does not mean,however that I will not continue to fight for the rights of other WORTHY veterans.
Kerry does not meet that criteria.

[SuperScout]

What Griz said, double for me!

[skeeter]

reconeil;

First on the Plate: You may consider me as a "liberal conservative", or a "Conservative Liberal".. I'm not a PARTY Line type. I vote for the "heart of the person" politices, and what he or she can and will try to get done.

Now on to what Mr. Kerry may try to do if elected. To me, it would seem since he has been in the Senate for the X number of years, he surely knows how and what it takes to get some legislation past into law. I'm sure he has some friends on both sides of the aisle that may go with his ideas. If not, then we all are in the same trap as we are today, nothing being done for the Veterans.

You may see my view points as political, but I can assure you, I don't like the political sides as we have today.
I would rather see our U. S. Congress in Washington, and at the State level become "for human kind" and not political fools.

It's like two "bullies"standing opposite each other on a street corner. One remarks to the other about his or her "wrongs". The other pulls a "switch-blade" knife, the other pulls two "Switch-Blades, the other pulls a "Machete", and the other pulls two "Machetes"..
Oh! I think you get the picture here.

[reconeil]

"In the senate for X number years, and certainly knows what it takes"...is exactly why I asked YOU the one question, instead of Kerry. After all, if Kerry didn't do zilch for The Veteran in: "X number of years" in The Senate, why-the-hell should any Veteran believe that "He" would be better for them IN THE FUTURE??? Makes no sense.

Neil

[Gimpy]

Well...........it's time to set the "record" straight!
Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation:

"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. ? The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."

The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. ? And now we're adding to that another $50 billion ? of so-called peace dividend.
In the years under Cheney the budgets proposed and the final outcomes followed patterns similar to the FY 1990 budget experience. Early in 1991 the secretary unveiled a plan to reduce military strength by the mid-1990s to 1.6 million, compared to 2.2 million when he entered office. In his budget proposal for FY 1993, his last one, Cheney asked for termination of the B-2 program at 20 aircraft, cancellation of the Midgetman, and limitations on advanced cruise missile purchases to those already authorized. When introducing this budget, Cheney complained that Congress had directed Defense to buy weapons it did not want, including the V-22, M-1 tanks, and F-14 and F-16 aircraft, and required it to maintain some unneeded reserve forces. His plan outlined about $50 billion less in budget authority over the next 5 years than the Bush administration had proposed in 1991.

Over Cheney's four years as secretary of defense, encompassing budgets for fiscal years 1990-93, DoD's total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291.3 billion to $269.9 billion. Except for FY 1991, when the TOA budget increased by 1.7 percent, the Cheney budgets showed negative real growth: -2.9 percent in 1990, -9.8 percent in 1992, and -8.1 percent in 1993. During this same period total military personnel declined by 19.4 percent, from 2.202 million in FY 1989 to 1.776 million in FY 1993. The Army took the largest cut, from 770,000 to 572,000-25.8 percent of its strength. The Air Force declined by 22.3 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 9.7 percent.

Cheney proceeded to lay into the then-Democratically controlled Congress for refusing to cut more weapons systems.

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. ? You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s?all great systems ? but we have enough of them.

And then, in the last election he had the unmitigated GALL to say, "?I do not presume to speak for the military, but I am now speaking to them,? Cheney said. ?To all of our men and women in uniform, and to their parents and families: Help is on the way!?, end quote! Man did THAT turn out to be a WHOPPER of a LIE! What a HYPOCITE!


The Republican operatives might also have noticed Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers.

Granted, these reductions were made in the wake of the Cold War's demise. But that's just the point: Proposed cuts must be examined in context. A vote against a particular weapons system doesn't necessarily indicate indifference toward national defense.

Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.

The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut?the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.

It is instructive to look at the footnotes however. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans, you don't see the administration screaming about THEM though, DO YOU?)) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank and complete dishonesty.

Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference recently, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, informs what that cut was about: The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money?not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.

An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself. HUH???) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq?but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.

The B-2 came into being as an aircraft that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.

In the latest war, B-2s?modified to carry conventional munitions?were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars?the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions?there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.

The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.

Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.

At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

Are there votes in Kerry's 20-year record as a senator that might look embarrassing in retrospect? Probably. But not the ones the republicans keep misleading us about!
######

[Gimpy]

Indignities Endured by U.S. Military Veterans
A NEWS ANALYSIS

"I believe that our laws must reflect our gratitude to the men and women who so valiantly served our nation in battle. But to many veterans, it seems like they are remembered in Washington only on Veterans Day. Speeches are all well and good, but daily advocacy is needed too in such issues as health care and compensation claims."

Prior to the 2000 presidential election, President Bush outlined these views on issues affecting veterans. Some of his comments, like the one above from a campaign position paper, have been archived by Disabled American Veterans Magazine.

Today it's clear to many veterans that the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress think of them on other days of the year besides Veterans Day. They're thinking of veterans as they work to cut off VA healthcare. They're thinking of veterans when they refuse to address lingering health problems from the first Gulf War. They're thinking of veterans when they block full retirement and disability benefits. And they're thinking of veterans when Bush decides, yet again, not to attend a solider's funeral or pay a visit to those who are recovering from injuries at Walter Reed Army Medical Center just a few miles from the White House.

All that thinking has only hurt veterans of this country. Obviously, they deserve much better. And they deserve our full support.
We should be committed to revealing the numerous ways in which Bush has gone back on his pledge to be an advocate for veterans. Excerpts from news stories, editorials and speeches detailing Bush's and Congress' actions should be provided for all to see.
* * *
Wartime money not going toward Iraq vets' health care
Herald Tribune
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida argued last April that wounded soldiers were a certainty in the new Iraq war.

He asked for $375 million for their health care at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Appropriators bargained that down to $100 million in a 2003 war-spending bill and allowed the VA to use the money for other things.

Now thousands of Iraq veterans are using VA hospitals and clinics, but none of that $100 million will go toward their health care. The VA plans to spend it on processing benefit claims instead.
"Particularly with the large casualties that we've suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm stunned that they're not going to use it for that purpose," said Graham, the ranking Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee.
* * *
Wounded U.S. veterans get a raw deal at home
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Commentary)
There's no emotional sting like the one inflicted by that 500 number. It's larger now, the total of Americans dead from an Iraq war launched on false pretenses, but 500 is getting a lot of usage as the ultimate cost of this mess. It's a cost 500 can't begin to illuminate.

How about at least 9,000 servicemen and women wounded, sickened or injured? How about 6,891 troops medically evacuated for non-combat conditions between March 19 and Oct. 30, 2003?
"There are about 2,500 combat casualties," Dave Autry said on the phone from the Disabled American Veterans offices in Washington. "The rest are attempted suicides, vehicle accidents, other accidents, illness. Something that's becoming a big concern is lesions caused by exposure to sand fleas that carry a particularly virulent bacteria."

All of this could be categorized as the inevitably horrible cost of post-modern war in the desert, but the scandal is what is happening to these survivors once their government brings them home. Tom Keller, the immediate past commander of the DAV in Ohio, wrote to me last month about the secretive nature of the process.

"I can't speak for the DAV's national organization," Tom said, "but I have my own feelings about why the Bush administration is bringing the casualties back to the States in the middle of the night and wants to keep organizations like the DAV away from them. I believe the administration wants to keep the American people in the dark about the number of troops being wounded, the severity of the injuries they are receiving and the types of illnesses that may be surfacing."

* * *
Veterans say Bush overhaul of overtime will cost them
St. Louis Post Dispatch
Catie Shinn figures she made two "mistakes" that could end up costing her money: She served her country as a captain in the Army, and she earned a master's degree in college.

Either one, she says, could keep her from getting overtime pay under regulations the government is preparing to issue next month. Veterans and labor groups say 8 million other workers could lose their overtime.

A handful of veterans and members of the St. Louis Labor Council and Jobs for Justice gathered Thursday inside the museum at Soldiers Memorial downtown. With Navy torpedoes and Civil War-era pistols as background, they protested the Labor Department's new overtime rules and an appearance in St. Louis planned on Saturday by Vice President Dick Cheney.

"It's unthinkable that those people who have served their country so diligently in the armed forces now would be denied benefits," said Bob Soutier, secretary-treasurer of the Labor Council.

* * *
Board member wants more awareness of homeless vets
The Beacon News
Dorothy Sanchez admitted she should have known better.
But the County Board member, D-Aurora [Ill.], said recent developments have opened her eyes to a problem she did not realize was as critical as it is: homeless veterans.
She said the realization came as she watched Democratic Party presidential candidates donating to a homeless shelter for veterans in Iowa.

"I'll be the first to admit I did not realize the situation," Sanchez said Monday at a County Board Public Service Committee meeting. "You just assume that people who go to fight for this country are cared for. When you find out they're not, it's nauseating. They risked their lives, and now they're homeless, and we can't do enough about it?"

Her comments were made to John Carr, Kane County Veterans Affairs office director, who said estimates are that of the about 3,000 homeless people in Kane County, 1,000 are veterans. That one-third ratio holds true nationally, Carr said. There are 26,480 veterans living in Kane County, he added, the seventh most in the state.

* * *
Letter to President Bush
(editorial commentary)

I am appealing to you on behalf of thousands of military families that are being treated unfairly. I speak of the Survivors Benefit Plan. The SBP is not free. It has been a costly investment for our family. We have paid into SBP since 1973 and see no end to this inequity. This year (2004) my husband will be 86 and I will be 77 years old. The proposed law to stop paying into SBP after 30 years participation in 2010 is hardly acceptable. We have already paid more than 30 years.
There is also another penalty. My husband's birth date puts him in the "Notch Baby" category for Social Security benefits which effectively lowers the SBP. I do not see how in good conscience the Congress of the United States is able to find monies for congressional pay raises, space exploration, military actions, yet deny the military retiree what was promised back in 1973. Something is very wrong with this country. No commercial insurance company has the right to change a policy. The government should also be held to its obligations.
(An overview of the Survivor Benefit Plan can be found at Military.com)

* * *
Government Gives Few Contracts To Disabled Vets Wall Street Journal
The federal government has a long tradition of encouraging veterans who want to start their own small businesses, especially those with disabilities related to their military service. But like Mr. Kemp, who lives in Duxbury, Mass., entrepreneurial-minded veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan won't find the level of support that greeted troops from earlier conflicts.
"They are not going to get as much, and they are going to have to fight for that," said sociologist Paul Camacho, who researches veterans' economic issues at the University of Massachusetts at Boston.

Indeed, the already small percentage of federal contracts awarded to businesses owned by service-disabled veterans plunged further last year despite a federal law that specifically directs federal agencies to send more business their way.
Meanwhile, the Small Business Administration under its primary lending program guaranteed 6,750 small-business loans in fiscal 2003, ended Sept. 30, a 24% increase from fiscal 2002 but still far below the 8,300 such loans guaranteed in 1995.
"There's a lot of talk, but little action when you really need assistance," said Army veteran Rex Tolman, owner of an environmental engineering concern in Jamestown, N.Y. His troubles in landing federal contracts have led him to concentrate on state and local government work, where he has had better luck.

* * *
Vets say visits restricted to U.S. wounded
CNN

One of the nation's leading veterans' service organizations accuses the Pentagon of "severely restricting" its counselors from visiting wounded and injured service members at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

As of January 7, the Pentagon said 2,431 military personnel have been wounded in action and an additional 383 wounded in non-hostile incidents in Iraq.
Most service members severely wounded in Iraq and returned to the United States are treated at Walter Reed.

In a letter sent this week to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Dave Gorman, executive director of Disabled American Veterans, complained that the DAV is being blocked from carrying out its congressionally chartered mission.
* * *
Wounded "Held Captive" at Walter Reed
Disabled Vets Fire Back at Rumsfeld

(wire services)
And so now we learn that ever since Operation Iraqi Freedom got underway, it has been easier for a terrorist to get into the United States legally than for a DAV representative to get into a military hospital to help wounded soldiers with their benefit applications.
Sickeningly, the Pentagon has been severely limiting DAV access to wounded veterans and doing it on grounds of "security." Oh, yes, and protecting "privacy."

It protects the veterans' privacy by not allowing them to speak with DAV representatives "unmonitored."

Fortunately someone blinked and it wasn't the Disabled American Veterans.

When he got back to the office after celebrating New Year's and opened his mail, Donald Rumsfeld found a letter informing him that he had messed with the wrong people this time.
* * *

Bush's Budget for 2005 Seeks to Rein In Domestic Costs
The New York Times

Facing a record budget deficit, Bush administration officials say they have drafted an election-year budget that will rein in the growth of domestic spending without alienating politically influential constituencies.

Mr. Bush proposed last year to double co-payments on prescription drugs for many veterans, primarily those with higher incomes and no service-connected disabilities. The White House reaffirmed its support for that proposal in November.

In the last week, the Pentagon has been considering a new proposal to increase pharmacy co-payments for retirees with at least 20 years of military service. Under the proposal, the charge for a generic drug would rise to $10, from $3, while the charge for a brand-name medicine would rise to $20, from $9.

The Military Officers Association of America criticized this as "a grossly insensitive and wrong-headed proposal." In e-mail messages to the White House, members of the association asked Mr. Bush, "Why do your budget officials persist in trying to cut military benefits?"

* * *

Bush drug proposal enrages veterans

Houston Chronicle

The Bush administration is considering dramatic increases in the fees military retirees pay for prescription drugs, a step that would roll back a benefit extended 33 months ago and risk alienating an important Republican constituency at the dawn of the 2004 campaign season.

Pentagon budget documents indicate that retirees may be asked to pay $10 -- up from $3 -- for each 90-day generic prescription filled by mail through Tricare, the military's health insurance program. Tricare's current $9 co-pay for a three-month supply of each brand-name drug would jump to $20.

The proposal also would impose charges for drugs the retirees now receive free at military hospitals and clinics. There would be a $10 fee for each generic prescription and a $20 charge for brand-name drugs dispensed at those facilities.

A Pentagon spokesman declined Wednesday to comment on the drug plan, calling it "pre-decisional." But word of the proposal was being spread at the speed of light by veterans service organizations, who were urging their thousands of members to send calls and letters of protest to the White House and members of Congress.

* * *

Bush Pays Lipservice to Vets, Then Slashes Their Health Care
(Atlanta Journal)

Late last week President Bush visited combat veterans at Walter Reed Medical Center. During his visit, he said "We have made a commitment to the troops, and we have made a commitment to their loved ones, and that commitment is that we will provide excellent health care - excellent care - to anybody who is injured on the battlefield."

His comments stand in stark contrast to the policies he has pushed - and the record he has amassed - as President. Just this year alone, the President "announced his formal opposition to a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health-insurance system"- a slap in the face to thousands of troops, especially considering "a recent General Accounting Office report estimated that one of every five Guard members has no health insurance." The President also this year proposed to cut $1.5 billion (14%) out of funding for military family housing/medical facilities. This followed his 2002 budget which, according to major veterans groups, "fell $1.5 billion short" of adequately funding veterans care.

* * *

Bush Budget Shortchanges America's Veterans

Even as middle-class Americans are struggling to achieve financial security, the Bush budget ignores the very real challenges they are facing. It fails to create jobs, and instead creates record deficits. It shortchanges education, health care, veterans' benefits, and small business. Instead of helping working families, it provides additional tax breaks for those who need them least, and billions of dollars in new giveaways to HMOs and other wealthy corporate interests.

Proposes new increases in the cost of veterans' health care. The President's budget raises health care costs for over 1 million veterans, increasing drug co-payments and imposing new enrollment fees that will cost veterans over $2 billion over five years. For Priority 7 and 8 veterans, the budget imposes a $250 enrollment fee to receive healthcare and doubles their pharmacy co-pay from $7 to $15. This will result in driving about 200,000 veterans out of the system, and discouraging another 1 million veterans from enrolling. Every year since taking office, the Bush Administration has proposed to increase the cost of health care for veterans.

Fails to provide meaningful investment in veterans' health care. Right now, 30,000 veterans are waiting six months or longer for an appointment at VA hospitals. But the President's budget includes an increase of less 2 percent - not enough to maintain current services and nearly $3.0 billion less than veterans' organizations agree is needed. And over five years, the budget for veterans' health care programs is $13.5 billion below the amount needed to maintain services at current levels. The Bush budget also does nothing to reverse the impact of the across-the-board cut in veterans' funding eliminating health care services for 26,500 veterans that was part of the omnibus.

Slashes funding for long-term care for America's veterans. The Bush Administration's budget cuts $294 million from nursing home services for veterans, reducing the number of patients treated by more than 8,000.

Refuses to end the Disabled Veterans' Tax. The President's budget fails to repeal the Disabled Veterans Tax, which forces disabled military retirees to give up one dollar of their pension for every dollar of disability pay they receive. The budget continues to require two-thirds of military retirees with service-connected disabilities - nearly 400,000 people -- to continue to pay the Disabled Veterans Tax.

Does not end the Survivor Benefits Tax. The Survivor Benefit Plan penalizes aging survivors, mostly widows, of the veterans of our county. Military retirees pay premiums for years and anticipate that upon their death, their spouse will receive 55 percent of their benefit. But when their survivor reaches 65, a Social Security "offset" drops the benefit to a mere 35 percent. The Bush budget forces the spouses of military retirees to continue to pay this unfair tax.

Fails to expedite disability claims and threatens all veterans' benefits. The President's budget includes only $25 million to increase the processing of disability claims - far less than what is needed. Today, there are 335,000 veterans awaiting a decision on their disability claims. About 84,000 of those veterans have been waiting six months or more for their decision. Despite this backlog, the budget makes it harder for veterans to get their disability, education, pension, housing and employment benefits by cutting 4% of the people who administer veterans' benefits.

Cuts 50,000 VA home loans. The Bush budget cuts the number of VA home loans for veterans by 50,000 - denying VA home loans to veterans who have taken out a VA home loan in the past.

Cuts in medical and prosthetic research. The President budget calls for a $50 million cut in award-winning VA medical and prosthetic research. This would set the research grant program back six years to FY 1999 funding levels, just as many of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming home with terrible injuries that may require this expertise.

Health services for Gulf War & Iraqi veterans fail to meet growing need. The President's budget calls for only about 6% more for the Gulf War programs to provide health-related services to veterans of the Gulf War, as well as veterans now returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, funds for counseling for post-traumatic stress disorders will increase by only 8%, and readjustment counseling will increase only 3%. To meet the needs of returning troops, these programs will likely have to increase significantly more.


February 4, 2004
Source: Based on information provided by non-partisan Veterans Service and Military Retiree Organization resources and Web Sites.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 2, 2004
CONTACT: Susan Edgerton @ 202-225-9756

VETERANS HOUSE GOV.COM

BUSH ADMINISTRATION ?05 VA BUDGET REFLECTS MISPLACED PRIORITIES, PLACES GREATER BURDEN ON SOME VETERANS

Washington, D.C. -- Calling this year?s Bush Administration budget proposal for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) a matter of ?seriously misplaced priorities,? Rep. Lane Evans (IL), the Ranking Democratic Member of the House Veterans? Affairs Committee said ?a significant portion of this document should be quickly and soundly rejected.?

?I?m not aware of anyone who will celebrate an increase in the veterans? medical care budget of less than 2 percent,? Evans said. ?Plus, we?ve seen before?and rejected on a bipartisan basis?many of the Administration?s proposals that would increase pharmacy and primary care copayments and establish user fees for veterans,? Evans continued.

The Bush Administration requested about a $500 million increase for veterans? medical care, for a total of $27.4 billion, which does not include money collected from veterans and their insurers. In sharp contrast, without the projected savings from legislative initiatives or management efficiencies, VA would require more than $2 billion in additional appropriations. ?The President said this was a ?tough? budget and he wasn?t wrong about that in terms of its impact on America?s veterans,? said Evans.

Evans said the VA health care system has costs that are not within its control?federal pay raises are mandated, for example, and the system must negotiate within the high-cost health care industry for everything from prices of its pharmaceutical drugs to contracts for physicians with highly specialized skills. Also, the Administration?s budget calls for $340 million of vaguely defined management ?efficiencies? in addition to the almost $1 billion of ?efficiencies? it already has imposed on the system.

Other provisions of this year?s budget submission that Evans called into question include:
? Cuts in VA?s nursing home program that will bring its average daily census below the capacity mandated by federal law;
? Cuts in VA?s research program that will take staff and resources away from already thin support services;
? Overly optimistic medical care cost recovery collection targets which are meant to substitute for appropriated resources.
? Insufficient resources in the VA construction program to make a significant start in the Department?s major infrastructure restructuring process.

Evans cites the Administration?s newest ?disappointing? budget proposal as a ?profound example of the need to take VA spending out of the political arena.? Evans has introduced legislation, the ?Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2003,? which has nearly 150 cosponsors in the House. Two companion bills have been introduced in the Senate. The bill would establish a formula based on the number of veterans enrolled for VA health care and the hospital inflation rate projected for each year and provide necessary funding directly from the U.S. Treasury to VA.

Evans said four major veterans? service organizations?AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States?have produced a budget recommendation of about $31.1 billion for all VA medical programs and construction. These organizations and five other major veterans? service organizations have made passage of a ?mandatory funding? bill, such as Evans?s, their top legislative priority this year.

Evans said he is deeply concerned by Bush budget proposals to reduce the number of VA employees available to process claims for compensation and pension, education, home loan and vocational rehabilitation benefits. VA acknowledges that a significant number of employees responsible for processing of compensation and pension claims will be eligible for retirement in 2005 and will be replaced by trainees. Nonetheless, VA expects these trainees to process an increased workload, without loss of timeliness and accuracy.

?This is unrealistic. A country that can afford to send men and women into harm?s way can afford and must provide the resources to care for them on their return,? said Evans.

Evans called upon the President to revisit his priorities. ?This budget is certain to come under broad-based scrutiny because it lacks funding for the continued missions in Iraq and Afghanistan,? said Evans. ?We?re in a time of war?veterans and defense should be high priorities, even if the wealthiest Americans have to wait a little longer for their tax relief,? he said.

###

Now....................THAT is what you've gotten so far from Bush & Company!