Colorado vets may face big cuts from federal budget

Denver Polst ^ | April 8, 2003 | Karen Crummy

[berserker]

Dems, GOP dispute numbers; federal budget bill headed for compromise

As many as 15,000 Colorado veterans may suffer drastic service cuts or huge increases in their health care costs under the budget passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, according to a report from House Democrats.

But Republicans on the House Budget Committee shot back that these numbers are "speculative" and do not take into consideration spending increases for veterans next year.

About 2,000 Colorado veterans are expected to be shut out of VA care because of a provision in the House budget that would cut off enrollment of certain veterans after Jan. 17, 2003, according to a report from Democrats on the House Committee on Government Reform. Another 13,000 may be "priced out" because of a new requirement that would make them pay an additional enrollment fee of $250, based on Department of Veterans Affairs data.

Denise Nichols, vice chairwoman of the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition, said the veterans she knows have been "afraid of what Congress has been doing behind closed doors." "We have been very upset about these cuts, especially with a war going on," said Nichols, who also represents veterans in the Rocky Mountain region. "And some veteran groups don't get it - they see the (budgetary) increases but don't look past it to see what (Congress) is taking away."

The House Democrats' report was based on provisions in the 2004 budget as narrowly passed by the House at the end of last month by a 215-212 vote. The House budget is far from being adopted by the Senate. Although the House voted for President Bush's $726 billion tax-cut plan, the Senate slashed that in half. Now the bill is headed for a House-Senate compromise.

Under the House plan, the Department of Veterans Affairs has estimated that 173,000 veterans nationwide will be denied care, with more than 1 percent of them living in Colorado, according to the report. Additionally, co-payments for primary care would increase by 33 percent, from $15 per visit to $20 a visit. Co-payments for prescription drugs would more than double, increasing from $7 to $15 for a 30-day prescription, according to the report.

In total, Colorado veterans would pay an estimated $3.7 million more a year, the report finds.

Most of the veterans who the report says would be impacted are classified without service-related disabilities and with incomes of less than $39,550. In Colorado, about 23,500 veterans are in that group.

A spokesman for the Republican-controlled budget committee, however, said that trying to read specifics into the broad spending outline is tantamount to reading tea leaves. "To suggest that anything but an overall number has been cut is a tremendous leap of faith," said budget spokesman Sean Spicer, adding that the government reform committee does not specialize in veterans issues. "They are extrapolating how the budget could impact them. It's ludicrous on its face."

But Rep. Diana DeGette, D- Colo., said her office has been "flooded with calls" from veterans worried about their benefits, pensions and hospital care. "It completely mystifies me how the president would send our troops into war and cut the VA budget, and that Congress - the Republican Congress - would vote to go along with it," DeGette said. "We (will) have hundreds of thousands of veterans coming back from Iraq."

The cuts could total $14 billion from proposed spending over 10 years, averaging 3.7 percent a year in reductions, according to Richard Kogan, a budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research group that examines governmental policies and programs.

The spending slowdown would come from reducing mandatory programs the government is required to fund. Seventy-eight percent of that mandatory spending goes to monthly benefits for disabled veterans, and another 10 percent is allotted for burials, life insurance and pensions for veterans with little or no money, Kogan said.

House Republicans have said the cuts will only impact "waste, fraud and abuse" and not benefits. The House budget committee points out that there is a $4 billion increase in funding for veterans programs next year. The budget also protects health care programs and funding for veterans benefits from specific cuts, according to Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.Y., a member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Kogan dismissed those arguments, saying that it would be impossible to cut $14 billion without touching benefits. "Most of mandatory spending is benefits. To say they won't be cut is nonsense," he said.

Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Colo., a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, declined to comment on the government reform report. Beauprez spokesman Allan Fuller said that "veterans are very important to Mr. Beauprez," which is why he "supported an increase for funding by $4 billion for veterans."

Beauprez and Colorado Republican Reps. Scott McInnis, Marilyn Musgrave and Tom Tancredo voted for the 2004 budget, according to congressional records. Democrat DeGette and Republican Rep. Joel Hefley voted against it. Stuck in Colorado's spring blizzard, Democratic Rep. Mark Udall did not vote.

The 2004 budget also cuts about $14 billion more for such things as VA hospitals and salaries of its employees, Kogan said. However, he cautioned that the number is "less significant" because appropriations for discretionary funding is done "one year at a time" and could easily change next year. "Political forces will probably change it," he said.

House Republicans point out that there is a 4.8 percent increase in funding for burials, including new national cemeteries and $225 million in construction services for increased medical services.

[cynicom]

One should always approach the military with one thought, expect nothing, when you receive nothing, you will not be surprised. What you do receive will be a plus.

[cynicom]

To the past???...

Perhaps you missed the former military people testifying in front of congress during the past year. They might well disagree with you. I have a nephew that was in Iraq during Desert Storm, he most certainly would disagree with you.

[Ebony-Patriot]

As an active duty soldier, I am appaled at the way Vets are slowly getting the shaft. Since we have been an all volunteer force, we need to wake up and realize that the way the Veterans are treated directly reflects in the numbers of our young who join the ranks of the military.

After all, would you want to work for a company who promises free health care and a decent retirement stipend only to have the carpet literally yanked out from under you?

[samuel_adams_us]

My father served in WWII, C-47's and C-54's out of Papua New Guinea, Korea, F-86's and Vietnam, 5th AF HQ. When he retired in 1970 he had permanent health and dental for the rest of his life. My mother was also covered. Over the years it has gotten to the point where my father, a retired USAF Colonel only has medicaid and his own money. Considering all of the effort and sacrifice he put into our freedom I am completely disgusted at how he and all of the others are being treated.