Posted on 09/27/2003 1:09:20 PM PDT by surely_you_jest
Election 2004
Disabled vet vote in play for 2004
Democrats court the group after GOP leaders balk at expanding benefits for them. By SARA FRITZ Published September 27, 2003
WASHINGTON - As the 2004 election year approaches, Democrats are making a strong bid for the support of a traditional GOP constituency: disabled military veterans.
Democrats in Congress seized an opportunity to appeal to veterans recently after the Bush administration indicated it does not support a proposed improvement in disability benefits. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has told members of Congress that he will ask President Bush to veto the measure if Congress passes it. The administration estimated that the bill, which would affect nearly 600,000 veterans, would add an estimated $58-billion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.
For nearly two decades, House Republicans such as Rep. Michael Bilirakis, R-Tarpon Springs, have been outspoken sponsors of legislation that would allow retired disabled veterans to collect both full retirement and disability benefits. At present, if they receive disability pay, their retirement benefits are trimmed by a commensurate amount.
But Bilirakis' bill has never come to a vote in the House, though the Senate has approved a similar proposal several times and it has had as many as 400 House co-sponsors in some years. Most recently, the Senate voted in August for a measure offered by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., that would make the change in benefits as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2004.
Administration opposition to the measure has put Bilirakis and other House Republicans with close ties to veterans in a bind. If they move to bring the measure to a vote in the House, they will be defying their party leaders. If they don't, they will be disappointing veterans.
Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga., meanwhile, has drawn urgency to the issue by collecting signatures on a so-called "discharge petition" that would bring it to a prompt vote in the House. If it were to pass in the House, the measure would likely become part of the final version of the defense bill sent to Bush.
Veterans group leaders think the timing of this Democratic initiative may force the administration to back down from its opposition to the improved benefits for disabled veterans - an issue that is commonly referred to as "concurrent receipt."
Bob Manhan, Veterans of Foreign Wars director of national security and foreign affairs, notes that American military personnel are now being killed and wounded in Iraq, the president's popularity is declining and both parties are vying for the veterans' vote in the 2004 election.
"This is vote-getting time," Manhan observes. "For whatever reasons, the Republican leadership seems to be giving Democrats an opportunity to make a political issue of this."
In Florida, this issue already seems to be having an impact. Bobby D. Howell of Largo, who voted for Bush in 2000, says the president's stance on concurrent receipt will probably cause him to vote for a Democrat in 2004.
"I won't vote for President Bush," says Howell, whose military retirement pay is cut by $500 a month because he also receives disability. "He told military personnel during his campaign that he would take care of the military, and he hasn't kept his promise."
House Republican leadership, bowing to the administration's wishes, has instructed GOP mem-bers not to sign the discharge petition.
So far, 202 House members have signed the petition, virtually all of them Democrats. But 218 signatures are needed to bring concurrent receipt to a House vote.
Rep. Jim Davis, D-Tampa, was among the signers of the discharge petition; Republican Reps. Bilirakis, Ginny Brown-Waite of Brooksville and C.W. Bill Young of Largo were not.
Marshall said he was told these Republicans are being restrained "under penalty of death," meaning they will lose their party's support in the next election if they disobey.
"I think it is indefensible for the Republicans not to step forward and make it happen for veterans," Marshall says. "Now is the time for them to put up or shut up."
Bilirakis declined to comment. But Brown-Waite has tried to explain to veterans in her district why she has not signed the petition.
"Discharge petitions are tools of last resort to be used only when all other options have been exhausted...," argues Brown-Waite. "I am confident an agreement can be reached to ensure federal funding for concurrent receipt and that a bill can be passed under Republican leadership in both houses of Congress."
Jill Greenberg, spokeswoman for Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., says this is just one of several issues on which the Bush administration has disappointed veterans. She notes the administration is also taking steps to close some Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals.
"This administration hasn't been particularly generous to our veterans," Greenberg says.
White House spokesman Taylor Gross disagrees. He notes that Bush's budget for the VA is the largest proposed by any president. Bush asked for $63.6-billion for fiscal 2004, about $33.4-billion of which will go for benefits for 3-million veterans and spouses.
"The president is committed to America's brave servicemen and women," Gross says. "We know that Republicans in the House are committed to concurrent receipt and we will look closely at any congressional proposal."
As veterans groups see it, the House Republican leadership and the White House have further compounded the problem by proposing a compromise that is unacceptable.
Under that compromise, full benefits would be phased in over the next five years, but would be limited only to those veterans who are disabled in the performance of their duty.
As a result, an estimated two thirds of the current and future disabled veterans would be ineligible for disability benefits.
"The VFW and other veterans groups do not support redefining service-connected disability," says Manhan.
Marshall says that with this proposal, the GOP is telling military personnel currently fighting in Iraq that their benefits are being cut.
"What kind of a president puts the military into combat and then says he's going to cut their benefits?" he asks.
In response to the White House proposal, veterans groups say, Bilirakis and Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., have drafted an alternative compromise that would allow concurrent receipt to become law, but limit it to veterans with the most severe disabilities. Unlike the GOP leadership proposal, this one would still cover veterans with disabilities unrelated to military duty.
But veterans groups say Bilirakis and Jones so far have been unable to persuade the White House and the House GOP leadership to accept their proposal.
The issue of concurrent receipt has been debated in Washington for more than 100 years. According to the VFW, it was the 53rd Congress, which met in 1893-95, that decided to prohibit disabled veterans from receiving full retirement benefits.
Since then, military veterans have argued that they should be treated no differently than other government retirees. A disabled veteran who retires from the Agriculture Department, for example, is not subject to a decrease in retirement benefits, according to veterans groups.
Opponents of concurrent receipt argue that it would be abused. Even now, they say, some veterans are receiving disability pay for injuries they had before they joined the military.
But Marshall, who receives some disability pay for his service during the Vietnam War, says it makes no sense that he can collect it after spending less than two years in the military while those who serve 20 years to earn retirement pay cannot collect it.
"It's a case of "serve more, get less,"' Marshall says.
For discussion.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has told members of Congress that he will ask President Bush to veto the measure if Congress passes it. The administration estimated that the bill, which would affect nearly 600,000 veterans, would add an estimated $58-billion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.
Of course always plenty of money available to make more disabled veterans...and for AIDs to Africa
and most important millions of US taxpayers dollars to Arafat and HAMAS and the RoadMap to Peaze
Politicans have always said in their nice campaign speeches that "Nothing is too good for our Combat Veterans"
If this is true than Rummie and Pres Bush are once again proving this is exactly how our leaders feel...and exactly what disabled combat vets can expect for their wounds and service.....
Nothing.......very sad....but pretty much par for Washington's elite..who of course will vote themselves another round of raises and fantastic benefits with golden parachutes..
Rep. Tom Cancredo of Colorado is the only Republican who has not been scared away of H.R. 303 by the Rumsfeld veto threat and pressure from the White House as to retaliation of Republicans help pass the measure. 350 original co-sponsors and now the GOP runs for cover. It's a bit hypocritical to criticize Democrats for their questionable use of the filibuster against judicial candidates and then let the White House get away with threatening their own party members for signing a discharge petition to get this bill out for debate, whatever its merits are or are not. But if you think that this is the only time that this White House has cut or opposed benefits for our veterans or troops, you will be totally shocked by this recent editorial in the Army Times about cuts for our troops that were sent behind the scene to Congress at the same time as the Abraham Lincoln carrier landing. For instance, did you know that the White House proposed a cap on the pay raise for troops in the lowest enlisted and officer ranks?
Someone has to wake up at the White House. How can we approve $54 million in the $87 billion Iraq bill for building two prisons there at $50,000 a bed and then cut troop benefits? And we thought that Clinton was the only one who failed our troops? I volunteer on the service officer program of the American Legion post here. There are a lot of people in my post shaking their heads over this SNAFU in priorities. Rep. Young from Florida got the White House to wake up for a moment this moment to back H.R. 2998 that will stop the billing of wounded troops for their hospital bills. That resulted from a scathing editorial in the Stars and Stripes Sept. 12. Maybe people on this board can contact their representatives and demand that they sign this discharge petition, especially the chickens who originally co-sponsored it?
--Raoul
Take this article with a grain of salt. The St. Pete Times is just the NYtimes South. In addition, Largo Fl. is in Pinellas county, which is a liberal cesspool. I have a friend thats a 100%er and he gets the best of treatment at the BayPines center. Don't believe a word that comes out of the St. Pete Times.....they are on a par with the National Enquierer.
The DVA has become an entrenched lobbying group that focuses on more money as the solution to every problem. The system needs some repairs before we simply make it bigger and biggger. I have yet to meet a vet that needed help that could not get medical care at a VA.
That said this is a political landmine that needs to be addressed. All people right now are hearing is that the vets want more money and the administration is not sending it. Once again the Dems will spin the failure to increase funding as a cut, guaranteed, just read the article.
But they have no qualms about adding $400+ Billion to the budget for medicare huh? Or giving illegals free reign, guess we know where this administrations priorities are.
From the story: The administration estimated that the bill, which would affect nearly 600,000 veterans, would add an estimated $58-billion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.
BlueNgold: The VA disability system is a mess. This bill would simply throw more money where it isn't necessarily needed. Veterans complain when their service disability check cuts into their retirement check. This is insane.Then the reps should sign the discharge petition and bring out the bill from committee, right? After all, more than a hundred GOP reps co-sponsored it. And we know that the GOP believes in openly debating bills and not letting them be stalled in committee by filibuster--like the Democrats bottle up judicial nominees--or arcane rules or threats of a veto by the president, right? Let the bill be debated. If you are right, those facts will be presented.
Too true. And there are a number of other examples of misplaced priorities.
Politicans have always said in their nice campaign speeches that "Nothing is too good for our Combat Veterans"
Yep, they feel our pain.
Hold on Raoul. I saw Rep Young on MSNBC last night and told you about it on another thread. There was never any resistance to HR 2998 from the White House mentioned by Young, and in fact he said the President "enthusiastically supported" it. As we discussed before, it corrects a pay system which has been in place since 1981 which addresses double-dipping food allowances.
While I applaud your fervor in protecting your interest group (after all, I'm a Vet too), I'd be careful of being pandered to by the Democrats who would like nothing better than to drive a wedge between the Republican Party and one of its traditional constituencies. Believe me, you'll do vets and active duty personnel No favor by strengthening the hand of the Democrat Party in the upcoming elections. Work through your local representatives to promote your agenda. Just my two cents...
That is rapidly becoming the case where I live, too.
My pleasure.
Rep. Tom Cancredo of Colorado is the only Republican who has not been scared away of H.R. 303 by the Rumsfeld veto threat and pressure from the White House as to retaliation of Republicans help pass the measure.
My local congress-critter is the Ms Brown-Waite referenced in the article. She is a first term Republican, who eked out a win over the previously entrenched Democrat. This county, per the '00 census, has an adult population that is 27% (!!!) veterans. And yet, there she is, toeing the party line. What this demonstrates, I think, is that these folks are more afraid of Tom DeLay and Dennie Hastert, than they are of their own constituency. I assume that this is because they believe that we will stay on the reservation, and support them regardless of whatever they do. This type of thinking may well turn Tom DeLay into the Minority Leader.
It's a bit hypocritical to criticize Democrats for their questionable use of the filibuster against judicial candidates and then let the White House get away with threatening their own party members for signing a discharge petition to get this bill out for debate, whatever its merits . . . .
I said pretty much the same thing to my VFW VSO this past Monday.
How can we approve $54 million in the $87 billion Iraq bill for building two prisons there at $50,000 a bed and then cut troop benefits? And we thought that Clinton was the only one who failed our troops?
Don't forget the cell phone system. And, as joesnuffy pointed out above, AIDS for Africa.
I am aware of that. But here's the point. Pres Bush won by a little over 500 votes last go-round. There are a lot of Democrats here that would move heaven and earth to defeat him next time, and trust me when I tell you there are a heck of a lot more votes that will be swung by this issue than the 500 he won by last time. And many of those voters are in areas where the St Petersburg Times, and the various county-specific editions it puts out, is the local paper.
Bingo.
Yes, I'm sorry to say, I guess we do.
The leadership of the Republican party has, amazingly, allowed this issue to fester, thus presenting the Democrats the opportunity to drive in a wedge. The leadership has, apparently, decided to treat this as an issue of party discipline. It is, at best, ill-advised. They need to fix it, now, and remove this as an opportunity for Democrats to exploit.
Work through your local representatives to promote your agenda.
You are describing the same people that will not bring the bill fixing the problem, the very bill that an overwhelming majority of them sponsored, up for a vote. Why? Because the party leadership is apparently treating it as a party discipline issue.
This whole issue is a loser for the Republicans. It would be very easy for them to fix. Failure to do so will probably carry some sort of penalty for them in the next election. And if it does so, it will have been a self-inflicted wound.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.