"Don't cross the GOP on VA funding"

97silverlsc

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
953
Reaction score
0
Location
High Bridge, NJ
Don't cross the GOP on VA funding
http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Scott_071505,00.html
July 15, 2005


When VA Secretary Anthony J. Principi resigned last year it took everyone in the veteran community by surprise. Principi had all the qualifications: he is a staunch Republican, has a background in healthcare, and has the incredible ability to always say “yes” to the Bush Administration.

What happened? Principi stopped saying “yes” and wanted more funding for the VA, and the White House didn't. Insiders say he was forced out to make room for someone who would toe the Administration line. Jim Nicholson replaced Principi as VA Secretary. Nicholson's only qualifications: being Chairman of the Republican National Committee and Ambassador to the Vatican.

The insiders appear to be right, because just a few days before his resignation, Principi gave an interview to his hometown newspaper outlining his plans for the VA for the next four years. Later we learned he asked for $1.2 billion for VA healthcare and didn't get it.

Now come new revelations about what happens when you push for more VA funding. Syndicated columnist Robert Novak gives us an interesting look into the demise of Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), former Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Novak, by anyone's definition an arch-conservative, has stinging words for the Bush Administration in his column, “GOP: The Price of Being Right.” His basic thesis is: step out of line and pay the price.

Rep. Smith was always considered a friend of veterans, but was known to lock horns with Republican leadership when he pushed for more VA funding. He was unceremoniously removed from his Chairmanship and replaced with Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), who has shown himself to be no friend of veterans.

What we now know is that both Principi and Rep. Smith were right. The VA is terribly underfunded, especially the healthcare portion of the budget. And, the Bush Administration has had to do an about-face and deal with that reality.

The Senate is asking for $1.5 billion more for VA healthcare and the House, on orders from the White House, is asking for only $975 million. Now the White House is rethinking that lower number and wants to add $300 million. All of this will be sorted out the week of July 25th when Congress works out a VA budget compromise.

Principi was right, and he's gone. Rep. Smith was right, and he was demoted. The lesson to be learned here, according to Novak, is “an orderly Republican Party does not dwell on mistakes, even to figure out what went wrong.” And the GOP still hasn't figured it out. They keep applying Band-Aids to the gaping wounds in the VA healthcare budget.

Not only does the GOP sacrifice their own who disagree with the Party, they completely ignore legitimate legislative efforts from the opposition. The hard work of Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) and many other Democrats to fully fund the VA have been consistently voted down on party lines.


The sad part of all of this is that veterans end up paying the price. No matter what compromises are reached on VA healthcare funding, the dollar figure will fall far short of what is needed to treat all qualified veterans.

Every day more veterans come into the VA system. More than one million troops have cycled through Iraq and Afghanistan. Studies show at least 30 percent of those troops will have PTSD issues. Add to that the wounded and injured, and you have a patient load the VA cannot possibly handle without proper funding.

It's time for veterans to realize that partisan politics must be put aside when it comes to VA funding. As the politicians argue about who did what to whom and what amount is the right amount, veterans are waiting for healthcare. Some of those veterans never get the healthcare. Some of those veterans die.

Former VA Secretary Principi, well before he was removed from office, gave all veterans the call to arms. Principi said, "History is littered with governments destabilized by masses of veterans who believed that they had been taken for fools by a society that grew rich and fat at the expense of their hardship and suffering."


Larry Scott (former E-5) served four-plus years in the U.S. Army with overseas tours as a Broadcast Journalist at AFKN HQ, Seoul, Korea and AFN, Lajes Field, The Azores, Portugal and a stateside tour as a Broadcast Journalism Instructor at the Defense Information School (DINFOS). Larry was decorated four times including the Joint Service Commendation Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster. He was awarded DOD's First Place Thomas Jefferson Award for Excellence in Journalism. After the Army, Larry was a news anchor on WNBC Radio in New York City. He receives VA compensation for a service-connected disability. Today, Larry resides in Southwest Washington and operates the website VA Watchdog dot Org.
 
97silverlsc said:
Don't cross the GOP on VA funding
http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Scott_071505,00.html
July 15, 2005


When VA Secretary Anthony J. Principi resigned last year it took everyone in the veteran community by surprise. Principi had all the qualifications: he is a staunch Republican, has a background in healthcare, and has the incredible ability to always say “yes” to the Bush Administration.

What happened? Principi stopped saying “yes” and wanted more funding for the VA, and the White House didn't. Insiders say he was forced out to make room for someone who would toe the Administration line. Jim Nicholson replaced Principi as VA Secretary. Nicholson's only qualifications: being Chairman of the Republican National Committee and Ambassador to the Vatican.

The insiders appear to be right, because just a few days before his resignation, Principi gave an interview to his hometown newspaper outlining his plans for the VA for the next four years. Later we learned he asked for $1.2 billion for VA healthcare and didn't get it.

Now come new revelations about what happens when you push for more VA funding. Syndicated columnist Robert Novak gives us an interesting look into the demise of Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), former Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Novak, by anyone's definition an arch-conservative, has stinging words for the Bush Administration in his column, “GOP: The Price of Being Right.” His basic thesis is: step out of line and pay the price.

Rep. Smith was always considered a friend of veterans, but was known to lock horns with Republican leadership when he pushed for more VA funding. He was unceremoniously removed from his Chairmanship and replaced with Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), who has shown himself to be no friend of veterans.

What we now know is that both Principi and Rep. Smith were right. The VA is terribly underfunded, especially the healthcare portion of the budget. And, the Bush Administration has had to do an about-face and deal with that reality.

The Senate is asking for $1.5 billion more for VA healthcare and the House, on orders from the White House, is asking for only $975 million. Now the White House is rethinking that lower number and wants to add $300 million. All of this will be sorted out the week of July 25th when Congress works out a VA budget compromise.

Principi was right, and he's gone. Rep. Smith was right, and he was demoted. The lesson to be learned here, according to Novak, is “an orderly Republican Party does not dwell on mistakes, even to figure out what went wrong.” And the GOP still hasn't figured it out. They keep applying Band-Aids to the gaping wounds in the VA healthcare budget.

Not only does the GOP sacrifice their own who disagree with the Party, they completely ignore legitimate legislative efforts from the opposition. The hard work of Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) and many other Democrats to fully fund the VA have been consistently voted down on party lines.


The sad part of all of this is that veterans end up paying the price. No matter what compromises are reached on VA healthcare funding, the dollar figure will fall far short of what is needed to treat all qualified veterans.

Every day more veterans come into the VA system. More than one million troops have cycled through Iraq and Afghanistan. Studies show at least 30 percent of those troops will have PTSD issues. Add to that the wounded and injured, and you have a patient load the VA cannot possibly handle without proper funding.

It's time for veterans to realize that partisan politics must be put aside when it comes to VA funding. As the politicians argue about who did what to whom and what amount is the right amount, veterans are waiting for healthcare. Some of those veterans never get the healthcare. Some of those veterans die.

Former VA Secretary Principi, well before he was removed from office, gave all veterans the call to arms. Principi said, "History is littered with governments destabilized by masses of veterans who believed that they had been taken for fools by a society that grew rich and fat at the expense of their hardship and suffering."


Larry Scott (former E-5) served four-plus years in the U.S. Army with overseas tours as a Broadcast Journalist at AFKN HQ, Seoul, Korea and AFN, Lajes Field, The Azores, Portugal and a stateside tour as a Broadcast Journalism Instructor at the Defense Information School (DINFOS). Larry was decorated four times including the Joint Service Commendation Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster. He was awarded DOD's First Place Thomas Jefferson Award for Excellence in Journalism. After the Army, Larry was a news anchor on WNBC Radio in New York City. He receives VA compensation for a service-connected disability. Today, Larry resides in Southwest Washington and operates the website VA Watchdog dot Org.

You can't continue to hold Bush responsible for [The Downsizer] Clinton's errors.
 
fossten said:
You can't continue to hold Bush responsible for [The Downsizer] Clinton's errors.
Obviously, your idea of history centers around Clinton, but "downsizing", as you refer to it, and I am assuming you're talking about base closure and realignment, has been going on since the 1960's.
This ignores the fact that during time of war when one can expect a greater need for the services of the VA, Shrub wanted to reduce funding for the VA.
:slam
 
97silverlsc said:
Obviously, your idea of history centers around Clinton, but "downsizing", as you refer to it, and I am assuming you're talking about base closure and realignment, has been going on since the 1960's.
This ignores the fact that during time of war when one can expect a greater need for the services of the VA, Shrub wanted to reduce funding for the VA.
:slam

You assume incorrectly. By downsizing I mean the willing depletion of the numbers of our Armed Forces Regular Servicemen/women, as well as reduced funding and capability. Thanks to Clinton, we are spread as thin as we have ever been and Bush is trying to build it back up.

As far as my idea of history, the only reason I mention Clinton is that he is the ONLY Democratic president elected in the last 28 years. I have to give you a reference point because you probably NEVER bashed Clinton while he was in office. So you are on the wrong side of history.
 
fossten said:
You assume incorrectly. By downsizing I mean the willing depletion of the numbers of our Armed Forces Regular Servicemen/women, as well as reduced funding and capability. Thanks to Clinton, we are spread as thin as we have ever been and Bush is trying to build it back up.

As far as my idea of history, the only reason I mention Clinton is that he is the ONLY Democratic president elected in the last 28 years. I have to give you a reference point because you probably NEVER bashed Clinton while he was in office. So you are on the wrong side of history.

The reason we are spread so thinly is because of Shrubs Illegal and ill advised war in Iraq.
 
fossten said:
You assume incorrectly. By downsizing I mean the willing depletion of the numbers of our Armed Forces Regular Servicemen/women, as well as reduced funding and capability. Thanks to Clinton, we are spread as thin as we have ever been and Bush is trying to build it back up.

As far as my idea of history, the only reason I mention Clinton is that he is the ONLY Democratic president elected in the last 28 years. I have to give you a reference point because you probably NEVER bashed Clinton while he was in office. So you are on the wrong side of history.

The only reason you mention Clinton downsizing the Armed Forces is to deflect from the information presented in the article, which says that Shrub fired the man in charge of the VA when he asked for more money. Downsizing has nothing to do with an underfunded VA. More Repug deflection. Barry, you've hit the nail on the head!!!
 
97silverlsc said:
The only reason you mention Clinton downsizing the Armed Forces is to deflect from the information presented in the article, which says that Shrub fired the man in charge of the VA when he asked for more money. Downsizing has nothing to do with an underfunded VA. More Repug deflection. Barry, you've hit the nail on the head!!!

Downsizing has EVERYTHING to do with an underfunded VA, because there are more veterans than ever before since Clinton DOWNSIZED them! It's called "The VA has outgrown its budget" and its author is Bill Clinton! Geez you guys don't think!
 
fossten said:
Downsizing has EVERYTHING to do with an underfunded VA, because there are more veterans than ever before since Clinton DOWNSIZED them! It's called "The VA has outgrown its budget" and its author is Bill Clinton! Geez you guys don't think!

Wow, what a fabricated excuse for GWs desire to reduce VA funding in light of the known bump in injured vets returning from Iraq! You RWWs will go to any length, fabricate any lie, to cover your "dictator wannabe's" arse. Clinton isn't even close to being in the picture on this one.

Put down the red kool-aid. Step away from the bong.
 
My only argument in this thread is that being fired for not supporting your boss is nothing new. I don't know if the accusations are accurate in the editorial or not. But to think that a liberal, Democrat administration would be more tolerant of subordinates who oppose the president is ridiculous.
 
Kbob said:
My only argument in this thread is that being fired for not supporting your boss is nothing new. I don't know if the accusations are accurate in the editorial or not. But to think that a liberal, Democrat administration would be more tolerant of subordinates who oppose the president is ridiculous.
Kbob,
I agree with your point, but the article is about how Shrub wanted to cut VA funding when demand for VA services is on the rise due in large part to the Iraq War.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top