GOP Supports the Troops......... NOT!

[JohnnyBz00LS]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/13/vets.budget.ap/

Bush budget cuts veterans health care in 2009

POSTED: 8:08 a.m. EST, February 13, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration's budget assumes cuts to veterans' health care two years from now -- even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.

Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012. But even administration allies say the numbers are not real and are being used to make the overall budget picture look better.

After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly -- by more than 10 percent in many years -- White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends -- its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Bush took office -- sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.

"Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care," said Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA's budget. "Or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions."

A spokesman for Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the top Republican on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, called the White House moves another step in a longtime "budgeting game."

"No one who is knowledgeable about VA budgeting issues anticipates any cuts to VA funding. None. Zero. Zip," Craig spokesman Jeff Schrade said.

Edwards said that a more realistic estimate of veterans costs is $16 billion higher than the Bush estimate for 2012.

In fact, even the White House doesn't seem serious about the numbers. It says the long-term budget numbers don't represent actual administration policies. Similar cuts assumed in earlier budgets have been reversed.

The veterans cuts, said White House budget office spokesman Sean Kevelighan, "don't reflect any policy decisions. We'll revisit them when we do the (future) budgets."

The number of veterans coming into the VA health care system has been rising by about 5 percent a year as the number of people returning from Iraq with illnesses or injuries keep rising. Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans represent almost 5 percent of the VA's patient caseload, and many are returning from battle with grievous injuries requiring costly care, such as traumatic brain injuries.

All told, the VA expects to treat about 5.8 million patients next year, including 263,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The VA has been known to get short-term budget estimates wrong as well. Two years ago, Congress had to pass an emergency $1.5 billion infusion for veterans health programs for 2005 and added $2.7 billion to Bush's request for 2006. The VA underestimated the number of veterans, including those from Iraq and Afghanistan, who were seeking care, as well as the cost of treatment and long-term care.

The budget for hospital and medical care for veterans is at $35.6 billion for the current year, and would rise to $39.6 billion in 2008 under Bush's budget. That's about 9 percent. But the budget faces a cut to $38.8 billion in 2009 and would hover around that level through 2012.

The cuts come even as the number of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is expected to increase 26 percent next year.

In Bush's proposal to balance the budget by 2012, he's assuming that spending on domestic agency operating budgets will increase by about 1 percent each year.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

http://veterans.house.gov/democratic/press/109th/3-17-05budget.htm

HOUSE REPUBLICANS VOTE TO CUT VETERANS’ BENEFITS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 17, 2005

Washington, D.C. – “Yesterday, the House Republicans voted to reject increased funds for veterans’ health care in the war supplemental and today they voted to actually cut veterans benefits in their budget resolution. This is wrong,” said Lane Evans (IL), the senior Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee.

The budget resolution passed, primarily along party lines, by 218 to 213.

The GOP budget resolution contains reconciliation orders requiring the House Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Committee to cut benefits or to tax veterans by increasing their fees. For fiscal year 2006, the VA Committee must identify $155 million in benefits cuts or increased fees; and $798 million over the next five years.

The amount available for veterans medical programs, including construction, and benefits administration is $127 million below the amount the Congressional Budget Office estimates would be necessary to maintain the level of services that exist in fiscal year 2005. Over five years, the Republican budget resolution cuts almost $16 billion from these discretionary programs.

One proposal found in the Bush budget and embraced by Republicans on both the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees is a new enrollment fee for some veterans. Other ways of finding savings in veterans programs might include cutting the cash payments made to veterans with service-connected conditions, cutting pension benefits, reducing vocational rehabilitation services or education benefits. Monies could also be raised by increasing the fees charged to veterans who obtain a VA home loan.

Along the path to approving the Republican budget resolution, a Democratic alternative budget resolution offered by Rep. John Spratt, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, which would have added $2.4 billion to veterans’ benefits and services, was defeated. An amendment offered by Rep. David Obey, the Democratic leader of the Appropriations Committee which would have added $2.9 billion to the President’s Budget, was also defeated.

“The Republican budget resolution will decrease critical services and inflict real pain upon servicemembers, veterans and military families during a time of war,” said Evans. “Congress should be ashamed.”

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/02/25/News/Party_needs_to_feel_t.shtml

Party needs to feel the discomfort

By PHILIP GAILEY
Published February 25, 2007

I have this crazy idea for how Washington can show its support for our troops, who rarely intrude on the city's political and social life.

The White House Correspondents Association will hold its annual dinner next month, bringing together Washington's journalistic and political elite for an incestuous evening of entertainment and partying. The guest of honor is traditionally the president of the United States, who is expected to perform as comedian-in-chief at the black-tie gala. News organizations try to outdo each other with their celebrity guests, usually big-name actors and entertainers. No doubt Britney Spears already has received more than one invitation.

As in past years, the program will include a brief salute to our troops, nothing, mind you, to dampen the fun and frivolity of the evening. I think our soldiers deserve better. If the journalists who plan the dinner really want to show their appreciation for our fighting men and women, they should ask news organizations to tear up their celebrity guest lists - yes, dis-invite the Hollywood swells - and extend invitations to some of the hundreds of soldiers recovering from their wounds at nearby Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Let them be the real guests of honor. And let their presence remind everyone that presidential decisions have consequences, as does the press' failure to hold government accountable.

When he steps up to the speaker's dais, let President Bush survey an audience of the powerful sharing an evening, however uncomfortably, with the powerless, the soldiers badly wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let him see amputees in wheelchairs, and let him look at the faces of the physically disfigured and psychologically damaged, victims of snipers and roadside bombs in Iraq.

Make room on the program for some of the soldiers to speak about the disgraceful treatment they have endured as outpatients on the Walter Reed compound where some of them live in physical squalor - in rooms with leaky pipes, holes in the ceiling, mold in the carpets, a broken elevator and cockroaches and rats. Let them tell how they are warehoused for as long as 18 months while the military tries to decide whether to discharge them or return them to active duty.

Let them speak about how amputees and patients on heavy drug regimens are expected to report for 7 a.m. formation, even in the snow. And let someone mention the soldier who had to show his Purple Heart in order to get a new uniform (his was ripped off by medics trying to save his life) as an outpatient.

And let them tell of how military bureaucrats add insult to injury by looking for excuses to deny or reduce the disability pay that wounded soldiers are counting on when they leave the military.

The war wounded at Walter Reed, about 5 miles from the White House and the U.S. Capitol, have been out of sight too long. They would still be invisible were it not for a four-month investigation by Washington Post reporters Dana Priest and Anne Hull that exposed bureaucratic contempt and callous neglect of patients living on the Walter Reed compound.

The scandal is not the care soldiers receive at Walter Reed's gleaming hospital - it is first-rate, by most accounts. The scandal is what awaits the wounded once they are moved from the hospital into out-patient housing in nearby buildings, places members of Congress apparently never visit. On Capitol Hill, lawmakers expressed shock and anger and promised an investigation. It shouldn't be limited to Walter Reed.

Most of us have no personal connection to the war. We don't fully appreciate the sacrifices our troops and their families make, or the hardships they bear. That's why the idea of seeing wounded soldiers mixing with their commander in chief, Cabinet secretaries, members of Congress and journalists at the White House correspondents dinner appeals to me.

I know, it would be a real downer. It would make for an awkward evening, especially for President Bush, who is supposed to poke fun at himself and the press. And, of course, news organizations would have to decide whether to invite amputees and other disfigured soldiers to the lavish parties they host in hotel suites after the dinner.

Not to worry - it's not going to happen. After all, the White House correspondents group is still trying to make amends for last year's controversial performance by Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert, who zinged President Bush with some edgy remarks that some reporters thought crossed the line.

This year the association is taking no chances. It has booked impersonator Rich Little as the evening's entertainment.

 

[Calabrio]

Bush budget cuts veterans health care in 2009

The Bush administration's budget assumes cuts to veterans' health care two years from now...

After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head....

The budget for hospital and medical care for veterans is at $35.6 billion for the current year, and would rise to $39.6 billion in 2008 under Bush's budget. That's about 9 percent. But the budget faces a cut to $38.8 billion in 2009 and would hover around that level through 2012.

I'm not going to read all three articles, I'll presume they all say the same thing. But let me put it back into context.

The administration has put a long term proposal out there that says next year they will increase the funding from 35.6B to 39.6B- that is a 4 Billion Dollar increase for 2008.

And then in 2009-2012 the number would hold steady around $38.8 Billion.

So that would be $3.2B more annually than what is currently being spent, following an additional 4 Billion dollar boost next year.

Furthermore, this is just a long term proposal. And more importantly, the President doesn't have the ability to spend money, that lies entirely under the control of the Congress. The Executive branch can create a proposal, they can suggest, they can ask, but that's it. The executive branch doesn't control the purse.

But in the liberal world, a $3,200,000,000 increase following a one year increase of $4,000,000,000 increase is considered a cut.

 

[Calabrio]

It's always interesting which threads don't generate activity and which responses aren't replied to.

 

[MonsterMark]

I guess we tire easily of the wisdom bestowed upon us by all the liberals with the macro-economic degrees.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

It's always interesting which threads don't generate activity and which responses aren't replied to.

Geez, must you stoop to that level of triviality by nitpicking how long it takes to reply? Unlike you "three amigos" who apparently have no life outside of the LvC politics forum, my participation here is firmly at the bottom of my list of life's priorities. I usually expect that level of griping to come from the likes of Brian and Percy, who apparently have nothing better to do than "pile on" to these swipes:

I guess we tire easily of the wisdom bestowed upon us by all the liberals with the macro-economic degrees.

But back on topic....... the purpose of this post was to draw attention to the GOP's hypocracy of touting "We support the troops" while at the same time placing a noose around the neck of funding veteran services. Your "9% increase" may allow you to validate your position that funding vet benefits have increased, but that 9% falls severly short of the needs required by the expected 26% increase in vets needing those services in the near future, which you've convieniently omitted from the excerpt you quoted:

The budget for hospital and medical care for veterans is at $35.6 billion for the current year, and would rise to $39.6 billion in 2008 under Bush's budget. That's about 9 percent. But the budget faces a cut to $38.8 billion in 2009 and would hover around that level through 2012.

The cuts come even as the number of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is expected to increase 26 percent next year.

...... and it does not change the fact a cut has been proposed the following year, and no increases thereafter to cover the costs of new vets' needs from this eternal GWOT.

This is no different that your typical RWW/GOP claim that "the economy is great because inflation is only 5%" while at the same time ignoring the fact that wage increases have only been averaging around 3%.

 

[fossten]

Pretty weak response, considering you hate the military almost as much as you hate Christians. Talk about hypocrisy (a.k.a. hypocracy[sic]).

Your best argument is speculative, based on the predicted needs of the future? LOL that is so pathetic in so many ways, one doesn't even know where to start.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Pretty weak response, considering you hate the military almost as much as you hate Christians. Talk about hypocrisy (a.k.a. hypocracy[sic]).

Quit pretending to know me and projecting your twisted perceptions of the real world onto others, because you couldn't be more wrong.

Your best argument is speculative, based on the predicted needs of the future? LOL that is so pathetic in so many ways, one doesn't even know where to start.

And you have a better projection that shows otherwise?? This I gotta see.

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP07-001/$File/rwp_07_001_bilmes.pdf

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This paper analyzes the long-term needs of veterans returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, and the budgetary and structural consequences of these needs. The paper uses data from government sources, such as the Veterans Benefit Administration Annual Report. The main conclusions of the analysis are that:

(a) the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is already overwhelmed by the volume of returning veterans and the seriousness of their health care needs, and it will not be able to provide a high quality of care in a timely fashion to the large wave of returning war veterans without greater funding and increased capacity in areas such as psychiatric care;

(b) the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is in need of structural reforms in order to deal with the high volume of pending claims; the current claims process is unable to handle even the current volume and completely inadequate to cope with the high demand of returning war veterans; and

(c) the budgetary costs of providing disability compensation benefits and medical care to the veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan over the course of their lives will be from $350 - $700 Billion, depending on the length of deployment of US soldiers, the speed with which they claim disability benefits and the growth rate of benefits and health care inflation.

Key recommendations include: increase staffing and funding for veterans medical care particularly for mental health treatment; expand staffing and funding for the “Vet Centers,” and restructure the benefits claim process at the Veterans Benefit Administration.

Introduction
The New Year has brought with it the grim fact that 3000 American soldiers have been killed so far in Iraq. A statistic that merits equal attention is the unprecedented number of US soldiers who have been injured. As of September 30, 2006, more than 50,500 US soldiers have suffered non-mortal wounds in Iraq, Afghanistan and nearby staging locations – a ratio of 16 wounded servicemen for every fatality1. This is by far the highest killed-to-wounded ratio in US history. For example, in the Vietnam and Korean wars there were 2.6 and 2.8 injuries per fatality, respectively. World Wars I and II had fewer than 2 wounded servicemen per death2.

While it is welcome news and a credit to military medicine that more soldiers are surviving grievous wounds, the existence of so many veterans, with such a high level of injuries, is yet another aspect of this war for which the Pentagon and the Administration failed to plan, prepare and budget. There are significant costs and requirements in caring for our wounded veterans, including medical treatment and long-term health care, the payment of disability compensation, pensions and other benefits, reintegration assistance and counseling, and providing the statistical documentation necessary to move veterans seamlessly from the Department of Defense payroll into Department of Veterans Affairs medical care, and to process VA disability claims easily.

<snip>

Open wide Percy......... *owned*

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

More.....

http://vawatchdog.org/senatecvademsnews/senatecvademsnews09-29-06.htm

GAO Report Found the VA Misled Us

That's why the GAO report is such a bombshell. Professional, independent government investigators found that the Bush Administration has not told us the facts about its budget and planning problems.

Think about that -- if the people we rely on for the facts are not telling us the truth, we've got a real problem. If they're hiding the truth, we won't be able to provide veterans with the services they need. And one of the answers has to be more oversight and more accountability, so we can get to the truth.

Let me turn to the three main points that are relevant here:

* First, the Bush Administration does not have a real plan to meet the needs of our Iraqi War veterans – and that failure is impacting the care we provide all veterans.

* Second, the Bush Administration misled this Congress and it is still not providing us with up-to-date, timely information.

* And third, we in Congress need to provide real oversight and demand real accountability -- or our veterans are gonna fall behind.

The Bush Administration has No Plan To Serve Iraq & Afghanistan War Veterans

Mr. President, I'm very concerned that the Bush Administration still does not have a plan to meet the needs of our returning service members. And to prove that I want to point to three sets of figures hat come from the VA itself.

No Plan Example #1 – VA Underestimated Demand by 68 Percent for FY 2006

The first piece of evidence concerns the number of veterans the VA expected to treat this year.

For FY 2006, the VA planned to take care of about 110,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. 110,000. How many are they actually treating? 185,000. So in this fiscal year – that is just about to end -- the VA underestimated demand by 68 percent. And that's just for those veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. If the VA had an accurate plan, they wouldn’t have been so far off.

No Plan Example # 2 – VA Projects FEWER Iraq War Veterans Will Enroll in FY 2007

Let's go to the second piece of evidence that shows the VA has no plan. As I said, this year we're treating 185,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. How many will we treat next year? The VA estimates that it will only be 109,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. We're treating 185,000 today, but the VA thinks that number is going to down dramatically next year.

Given what we know about our continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, that simply defies logic. And you have to wonder how the VA ever came up with those figures in the first place. It's projection for next year is even lower than it's projection for this year. Where are they getting these numbers? Why are they so wrong?

Those are the questions we in Congress need to be asking. If the VA really thinks that next year we'll have fewer veterans seeking care, it clearly has no plan to deal with those who will be coming home.

No Plan Example #3 – We're Already Spending More than the VA Projected

Let me turn to the third piece of evidence that shows the VA has no plan to deal with Iraq War veterans. In July, the VA told us it will need $1 billion each year for the next 10 years to care for veterans from Iraq.

But the fact is -- for this year alone – we've already spending MORE than $1 billion. They've given us a ten-year estimate, and they're already wrong in the very first year. And the lion's share of veterans have not separated from the Pentagon yet, so it's a safe bet that demand for VA services will go up and that will require more funding.

So the VA is already wrong in the figures it provided us just a few months ago. That's because they don't have a plan.

* The fact that they predicted 110,000 enrolled Iraq War veterans this year – and they're already serving 185,000 shows they don't have a plan.
* The fact that they think demand for care will drop next year shows that they don’t have a plan.

* And the fact that we're already spending more than they said we would need for Iraq war vets shows they don't have a plan.

Mr. President, this is unacceptable. If we tolerate it, then we are not doing our jobs here in Congress. They don't have a plan, and we better have some oversight and accountability before more veterans end up getting hurt.

GAO Report Found that the Bush Administration Misled Us

Next Mr. President, I want to turn to the facts of the GAO report that I requested. This report -- prepared by independent, credible government investigators -- tells us what's really happening. All of us care about the facts and we all care about getting this right, and that's why we should all take this report to heart. Unless we learn from our mistakes, we're never going to do any better for America's veterans.

GAO's 4 Findings

In that spirit, I want to focus on four findings. First, the GAO found that the VA knew it had serious problems with its budget, but failed to notify us in Congress. Even worse, it misled us.

The report suggests that the VA could still be sending us inaccurate information in its quarterly reports.

Second, the GAO found that the VA was basing its budgets on "unrealistic assumptions, errors in estimation, and insufficient data."

Third, the Pentagon failed to give the VA up-to-date information about how many service members would be coming down the pipeline into the VA.

Finally, the GAO found that the VA did not adequately plan for the impact of service members from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now my question to you David, is what bizzarre universe do you live in where you actually think that the need for verteran benefits will be going down in the near future??

This is another case where the BuSh administration talks out both sides of their mouths, ignores facts and fabricates excuses at the expense of the blood, pain and agony of our wounded soldiers. And you continue to applaud BuSh?? Yeah, there's a civil war coming alright, but it's not going to be over something trivial like a "culture war" you self-rightous, self-serving, grand-standing, ideological idiot.

 

[fossten]

Again, your words are a total waste of time, which I won't bother reading, because everyone here knows how much you hate the military.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Again, your words are a total waste of time, which I won't bother reading, because everyone here knows how much you hate the military.

What a weak response. If I hated the military so much, why would I start a thread highlighting the atrocities comitted against it?? Here, let me put this shovel to work........

 

[Calabrio]

What a weak response. If I hated the military so much, why would I start a thread highlighting the atrocities comitted against it?? Here, let me put this shovel to work........

You can document dump all day. If you're argument is that we should better manage the resources we provide the military, you'd have total agreement here.

But you never stop at the truth. You always push it further in an effort to make some poorly constructed, misleading, political point.

I addressed you early in this thread. You clearly are attempting to mislead. Guys like you are part of the problem, because they aren't interested in solutions you just want to lay politically opportunistic blame.

The problems with that exist within the VA are not the fault of George W. Bush, and presenting them as such demonstrates you're either ignorant, dishonest, or a combination of the two.

If you want to discuss the issue, the actual problems, and some long term solutions, that would be great. Instead you're prefer to mislead manipulate the honest and sincere concern of the public regarding our military into a misappropriated political attack.

Shame on you.

 

[shagdrum]

Congress has won't actually "cut" (in any real sense) the budget. never has never will