|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
Hidden with code "Submitted as 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
|
