|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Elections & Legislation |
|
U.S. Representative Tim Johnson's Carefully Hidden Slap In The Face To Veterans |
Current rating: 0 |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
25 Apr 2003
|
This vote should stand out like a scarlet letter demonstrating the duplicitous nature of those in Congress who have been cheerleaders of Bush's war of aggression. In the name of those serving in the armed forces, we hope that the News-Gazette and other media has the guts to ask Rep. Johnson about why he voted for a slap in the face to the troops just as they went into battle. It appears that tax cuts for the rich are a far higher priority than actually supporting the troops for Republicans. They wave the flag while picking the pockets of those in the service.
Photo by Ellen |
Just as the War on Iraq began on March 21, the House of Representatives voted an early morning resolution of support for the troops beginning the attack. This vote was much publicized in the media. Carefully hidden from view by the News-Gazette and other local media was a more telling vote on whether Congress, whose privileged sons and daughters were far from the zone of battle, was actually willing to put its money where its mouth is in supporting those who were at that moment risking their lives under the U.S. flag.
Never reported on in the News-Gazette was a 3a.m. vote by U.S. Representative Tim Johnson in support of cutting the budget for the Veteran Administration by $15 billion over the next ten years. Maybe the News-Gazette’s sources in Washington were all asleep at the time the vote was taken, which could be one explanation why this vote was never reported on in the Sunday, March 23 paper’s B section, where the votes of Congress are reported to the public. More likely, it was a vote that the News-Gazette’s editorial board, which has often, but not always, supported Rep. Johnson, would rather the public not realize the hypocrisy of by burying the news to avoid this rather embarrassing demonstration of what “supporting the troops” really means to many politicians.
While the News-Gazette and Rep. Johnson make political hay from their support of this aggressive war, it appears that this support weakens considerably when it comes to paying for the benefits promised to the troops who are now occupying Iraq after a speedy, but far from bloodless, rout of Saddam’s weak military forces. When they return and are discharged, they will likely find that benefits they were promised are just that – promises – unfulfilled by those who were too gutless to actually declare war, as provided for in the Constitution, on Iraq.
Groups such as the Paralyzed Veteran’s of America have spoken out against the already weakened status of veteran’s health care. From the PVA’s website is this report, issued _before_ the March 21 vote that passed the Republican budget outline which contained the $15 billion benefit cut poison pill for the veterans:
“The VA health-care system is in critical condition. Severe budgetary shortfalls have resulted in health-care rationing, with over 200,000 veterans currently waiting six months or longer for initial and follow-up medical appointments. The VA has also decided, as of January, to refuse to enroll any new Category 8 veterans. The Administration’s FY 2004 budget request also proposes additional steps to restrict access, continuing its policy of refusing to enroll Category 8 veterans, proposing a $250 “enrollment fee” for non-service connected Category 7 veterans and all Category 8 veterans currently in the system, and increasing various co-payments.”
PVA’s National President Joseph L. Fox, Sr. condemned the cuts before they occurred, saying “It is a dark day when Congress takes the budget knife to the hard-earned benefits and health-care services earned by the veterans of this Nation to support an ill-conceived tax cut. I find it unconscionable that a majority of the members of the House Budget Committee think it appropriate to strip benefits and health care earned on the field of battle and in defense of freedom to promote their tax cut proposal, particularly at a time when we are in the process of sending more young men and women into harm’s way. The funding cuts supported by the House Budget Committee are an ‘in-your-face’ insult to the veterans of this country. More importantly, however, they are evidence that many members of Congress are willing to degrade the quality of life of tens of thousands of veterans who honorably served and sacrificed.”
The PVA objected to the vote to cut $15 billion over 10 years--$463 million in FY 2004 alone—in VA mandatory spending, as justified under efforts to eliminate “fraud, waste and abuse.” PVA strongly asserts that this funding, which are payments made to war-disabled veterans, pensions for the poorest disabled veterans and G.I. Bill benefits for soldiers returning from Afghanistan, do not constitute “fraud, waste and abuse.” In fact, 90 percent of the spending for VA entitlements is contained in monthly payments to veterans and survivors.
This vote should stand out like a scarlet letter demonstrating the duplicitous nature of those in Congress who have been cheerleaders of Bush’s war of aggression. In the name of those serving in the armed forces, we hope that the News-Gazette and other media has the guts to ask Rep. Johnson about why he voted for a slap in the face to the troops just as they went into battle. It appears that tax cuts for the rich are a far higher priority than actually supporting the troops for Republicans. They wave the flag while picking the pockets of those in the service.
For more info on this issue from the Paralyzed Veteran’s of America:
http://www.pva.org/
http://www.pva.org/NEWPVASITE/newsroom/PR2003/pr03018.htm
For details of the vote showing that Rep. Johnson voted “yea” on this measure:
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=82
The Clerk of the House’s website has more info, but the links to Thomas giving the details were down as this was written and posted. Look for Roll Call 82, House Congressional Resolution 95, “Congressional Budget for FY 2004” at the link below:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/ROLL_000.asp
Past stories on UC IMC relevant to this:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/10377 |
Related stories on this site:
US Rep Tim Johnson To Vote For $100,000 Tax Cut For Millionaires?
|
Comments
|
'A Warm Hand Cools Quickly' |
by Paul Vitello
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
25 Apr 2003
|
Posted on Sunday, April 06
At about 1 a.m. on March 21, soon after the start of the war, members of the House of Representatives gave our troops a warm hand in the form of a resolution commending their bravery in launching Operation Iraqi Freedom.
At 3 a.m., however, by a narrow margin, the Congress flipped the finger at the future of those same troops - in the form of a budget resolution that cut $14 billion from veterans programs over the next 10 years.
In all, 215 House members voted to cut veterans' benefits, and 212 voted against it. It was part of the huge House budget resolution for 2004, and it came up at 3 in the morning because ... to tell you the truth, I don't know why it was 3. I guess the members have a lot of work to do during the day, saluting the flag, reciting the pledge, attending funeral services for constituents killed in the war.
Anyway, the main feature of the 3 a.m. budget plan was a proposed $1.4-trillion tax cut - the backbone of the Republican vision for a future of economic health, faith-based social services, privatized national parks and prisons, and more wealth for the wealthy.
The cuts in veterans benefits would be a sort of collateral damage in the service of that objective.
Other programs that would be damaged included Medicare, Medicaid, school lunches, student loans, disability compensation, environmental protection. But in the context of the then-2-day-old war - the sandstorms, the 100-degree fighting in chemical suits, the dying - it was the veterans benefit cuts that must have caused a pause among even the most radical tax-cut loonies in the House.
House members voting in favor of this resolution - and to be completely fair about this, they were all Republicans, all beholden to the tax-cut fundamentalists who hold leadership in the House, and all pretty sure their lunacy would be checked and balanced by the Senate, which has since already passed a smaller tax cut with far fewer cuts in services - knew perfectly well they wouldn't be featured on the morning news shows that day for this, um, hypocritical and slimy mugging of veterans.
There was a war going on. Every talking head, and every front page in the country, would be all war all the time. And sure enough, the House budget resolution of March 21 has received about as much attention during these weeks as the weather on Mars.
Except among those who know war. Those who know what happens to warriors after war.
"We have a history in the military of never leaving our wounded behind," said Fred Denninger of Rocky Point, one of 15 local veterans assembled Friday by Rep. Tim Bishop (D-Southampton) for a meeting about the impact of the budget resolution on veterans benefits. "But we bring them back for what? To be thrown out of the VA hospital when they get old?"
As it stands, the House budget would cut about $1 billion in medical benefits for veterans in 2004 and tighten income eligibility requirements for veterans receiving the services that remain.
Drug benefits are cut. Disability benefits are cut.
In a speech defending a $265-billion package of service cuts that included the veterans-program cuts, Rep. Jim Nussle, the Iowa Republican who chairs the House Budget Committee, denounced Democrats who opposed it for being unwilling to confront "waste and abuse in this government."
Veterans groups have organized to restore these programs of "waste and abuse" that may mean medicine for an 80-year-old World War II vet or drug treatment for a 23-year-old Iraq war veteran next year.
"Cutting already under-funded veterans programs to offset the costs of tax cuts is indefensible and callous," Edward R. Heath Sr., national commander of the Disabled American Veterans organization, said in a statement last week. The Senate already has passed budget measures that would increase some veterans benefits - measures that must be reconciled with the House bill. And so, it will probably end up in a draw.
Bishop told the veterans Friday that if they mobilize - "get your posts to send letters ... " he told them, most of them VFW and Legion post commanders - the Congress probably would not cut veterans benefits $14 billion over the next 10 years.
Well, hallelujah. Maybe it will even restore benefits in the year of the war, and then bleed them off a little at a time when there is less attention being paid. Hardly anyone notices, for example, that the VA Hospital in Northport has closed one wing after another over recent years; hardly anyone notices except people who can calibrate the loss.
"I'm one of the [Northport] VA Hospital's success stories," said Jim Vaughan, a Vietnam combat veteran who attended Friday's meeting with Bishop at the American Legion Hall in Patchogue, and who credits the VA's detoxification unit and in-patient alcoholics' treatment program with saving his life in 1989. Both units have since closed. "They still have outpatient treatment," he said. "But if you go in for detox and they discharge you at night and tell you to come back the next day ... I don't know about anyone else, but if that was me I would have headed to the nearest bar."
What do you call it when political leaders hype war at every turn, but dis the warriors when no one is watching?
They call it supporting the troops.
You also can call it supporting those very wealthy campaign contributors who paid for their tax cut and want it now, dammit, to hell with everything and everyone else.
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.
http://www.newsday.com
|
|
Re: U.S. Representative Tim Johnson's Carefully Hidden Slap In The Face To Veterans |
by Mink!
mink (nospam) tcp.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
26 Apr 2003
|
|
Maybe the News Gazette's sources in Washington were all asleep when the vote was taken. But hey, they might have all brought paper clips with 'em to handle the situation while they dozed.
Or does that only work with voting machines, and not recording devices?
|
|
Re: U.S. Representative Tim Johnson's Carefully Hidden Slap In The Face To Veterans |
by Robert Porter
rporter (nospam) newtonbigelow.com (verified) |
Current rating: 8
28 Apr 2003
Modified: 08:29:04 AM |
On the afternoon of Sunday, April 27, there was a sparsely-attended "Support Our Troops" rally in downtown Urbana. The famous flag-on-a-crane was there, as well as a powerful sound system which made the rally seem like a much bigger event than it actually was. Among the speakers was Rep. Tim Johnson.
I wonder if the folks in the crowd knew about Johnson's vote to cut VA funding?
Does "Support Our Troops" mean what it says, or is it doublespeak for "Support the hamhanded policies of the overprivileged chickenhawk who happens to be occupying the White House?"
Let's support the Americans who have been sent to fight our wars, but still can't get benefits for injuries they sustained during Gulf War I, and even Vietnam. These people deserve the best care possible, but instead they get shafted and ignored. |
|
Re: U.S. Representative Tim Johnson's Carefully Hidden Slap In The Face To Veterans |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Apr 2003
|
ML,
Although I do not support cuts in Veteran's Benefits, I do have a question. If you spend more money than the prior year, is that actually a cut in spending? What you are not aware of, is the way Washington spends money. Line items are increased every year and the rate of rise is cut. The fact remains that more money will spent from the prior year. This is known as Base Line Budgeting. Only in Washington would this be considered a cut. Check it out.
Jack |
|
Re: Jack Ryan |
by Doctor
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
29 Apr 2003
|
Jackie,
Come for your shot, Jackie. The world is getting scarier by the minute for you, Jackie. Come on down to the clinic before it's too late. Remember the last time you waited too long, Jackie....... |
|
Re: U.S. Representative Tim Johnson's Carefully Hidden Slap In The Face To Veterans |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
29 Apr 2003
|
Anon, aka (Doctor)
Hey bud, you are free to make fun of me as much as you would like, but get some new material. Let me help you. When using humor try to base it on truth. Secondly, try not to repeat the same joke over and over again. Even the thickest among you will eventually get tired of it.
Just trying to help,
Jack |
|
Re: U.S. Representative Tim Johnson's Carefully Hidden Slap In The Face To Veterans |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
29 Apr 2003
|
'A Warm Hand Cools Quickly'
by Paul Vitello
Anon, did you write this?
|
|
More Evidence Government Couldn't Care Less About Vets |
by TomPaine.com
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
01 May 2003
|
Rumsfeld Blinks: Pentagon Reverses Policy at Eleventh Hour, Averts "Public-Relations Nightmare"
WASHINGTON - April 30 - Averting what one veterans' advocate called a "public-relations nightmare," the Pentagon reversed itself yesterday by announcing that it has now decided to perform medical exams on troops returning from the Iraq war, as required by law. The military must test troops both before and after deployment, according to Public Law 105-85, but the Pentagon has admitted that it did not test troops bound for the Iraqi conflict, and it had said it would not do so upon their return.
The Pentagon's admission and its intransigence led to criticism from veterans' advocates, members of Congress, and doctors who advised the military on soldiers' health.
That criticism inspired today's TomPaine.com opinion advertisement on the op-ed page of The New York Times, and accompanying articles posted at www.TomPaine.com. The Pentagon made its announcement yesterday at 6:20pm, long after the Op Ad had been submitted to the Times and after the articles were posted on line.
The announcement "looked like a pre-emptive strike" by the Pentagon's press office, said Steve Robinson, a former Army Ranger who now heads the National Gulf War Resource Center, a veterans' advocate. "At the eleventh hour and the fifty-ninth minute, it appears that DoD has averted a public relations nightmare by changing certain aspects of the deployment policy for soldiers. Someone must have gotten wind that this ad by TomPaine.com was going to run."
"When Mr. Rumsfeld says that America has conducted the Iraq war with 'compassion,' just remember: He's the guy who disobeyed a law passed to protect our soldiers' health," said TomPaine.com Editor John Moyers. "When he's about to get a black eye in the media, he shows plenty of compassion -- for his reputation."
To view the ad, visit http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/7673.
For additional detail, read http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7661.
TomPaine.com is a nonprofit, nonpartisan Internet journal. Since 1999, its online content and ads have been praised by Rolling Stone, Forbes.com, the Columbia Journalism Review, Chicago Tribune, PC Magazine and many others. |
|
Can Tim Johnson Top This Hubris? |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
04 May 2003
|
After showing what he really thinks of veterans, US Rep. Tim Johnson has yet another opportunity to show where he really stands.
See: http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/11642/index.php
Maybe sombody should ask him about this at the "Thank-A-Vet" rally that he is scheduled to attend in Pontiac at the Elks Club at 7:30am on Friday.
Yeah, let's hear all the rich folks thanking vets very loudly for giving up their health care so that the wealthy can enjoy the tax cut they so richly deserve...sheesh. |
|
