Senate Republicans screw veterans AGAIN (editorial)

[steven]

In case you missed it in the Senate yesterday, Daniel Akaka (D-HI) proposed a bill to increase Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2007 and Republicans shot it down with extreme prejudice.

The kiss of death for America’s Veterans was the fact that the additional funding was to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes, which ensured that the GOP-dominated Senate would take care of its corporate donors before worrying about those who truly serve our nation.
The 46-54 vote was entirely down party lines, with all Democrats voting for the Veterans medical care funding and every Republican but Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) voting against it.

"What is again missing -- in dollars and in deed -- is that this Administration still does not count caring for veterans as part of the cost of war,” said Akaka, before the vote was taken. “Defense spending for our service members while in combat has necessarily gone up Accordingly, so must our commitment to caring for veterans once they return home."
Akaka, the ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, called the Bush administration on letting its misleading estimates of how well the Iraq war is going, interfere with the reality of what is needed for Veterans funding.

"We are all too familiar with the scenario last year. The VA wildly underestimated the number of younger vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Akaka. “And this year, the Administration thinks even fewer vets will come for care. This is a terrific gamble, as this miscalculation was one of the primary causes of last year's shortfall.”
And given the chance to mitigate that shortfall, Senate Republicans voted overwhelming to once again say “screw you” out of one side of their mouths, to the same military they praise out of the other side.

Perhaps they're at least honest about it and the yellow ribbons on the SUVs of Republican Senators say "Support Your Corporate Donors."

http://www.veteranstoday.com/article1162.html

[speaker]

This is one of the reasons I went Democrat. We have thousands of young men coming home from the middle east, shell shocked and injured. We need to make it up to them and give them another chance at life. I'm thinking it'll take a while before most of them know what they are able to do, and I'd love to see this bill passed:

"Pentagon biggest obstacle to Democrats' GI bill

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Tue May 13, 3:18 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Veterans groups say it's time to expand college aid for GIs, and Democrats want to use an election year to do it. Their biggest obstacle?

The Defense Department is lobbying against legislation proposed by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would guarantee a full-ride scholarship for service members to any in-state public university. According to defense officials, the plan would hurt its ability to retain service members because the new GI education bill would require only three years before the full benefit kicks in. The Defense Department wants the commitment to be extended to at least six years....."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/...YEUl9sdHADMQ--

[Dumbfounded]

The proposed $1.5 billion would have been approved in a heartbeat if it was slated soley for war contractors and their 180,000+ employees in Iraq

The VA Healthcare system wildly underestimated the number of younger veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanastan?

Don't believe that for a picosecond.
War contractors-profiteers
Mercernaries like Blackwater
COME BEFORE
Our Veterans

Something morally wrong with the Pentagon and Senate?

Hmmmmmm?


Remember buying two "Support Our Troops" at the VA store years ago, proudly putting them on the back of the car and thinking "I'm letting everyone know that I'm a "proud American"

Our troops in Iraq and Afghanastan are literally "cannon fodder";Human shields
for the corporate interests and their "friends" in D.C.

[crabapples]

You guys do realize that you are comparing apples and oranges in the two articles and that one is from 2006 and the other is from 2008 right? You should have started another thread because I am pretty sure the Senate Republicans arent blocking this bill, at least thats not what the article said.

I understand where the military is coming from. They (military officials) are all for extending benefits to the soldiers but they want the perks (like free college education) to kick in after six years of service, not three. They already have a hard time getting and keeping recruits. This could lead to a larger decline in servicemen/women and the reinstating of a draft.

It also appears to be an election year poly, as the article mentions.

[Riven37]

In case you missed it in the Senate yesterday, Daniel Akaka (D-HI) proposed a bill to increase Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2007 and Republicans shot it down with extreme prejudice.

The kiss of death for America’s Veterans was the fact that the additional funding was to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes, which ensured that the GOP-dominated Senate would take care of its corporate donors before worrying about those who truly serve our nation.
The 46-54 vote was entirely down party lines, with all Democrats voting for the Veterans medical care funding and every Republican but Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) voting against it.

"What is again missing -- in dollars and in deed -- is that this Administration still does not count caring for veterans as part of the cost of war,” said Akaka, before the vote was taken. “Defense spending for our service members while in combat has necessarily gone up Accordingly, so must our commitment to caring for veterans once they return home."
Akaka, the ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, called the Bush administration on letting its misleading estimates of how well the Iraq war is going, interfere with the reality of what is needed for Veterans funding.

"We are all too familiar with the scenario last year. The VA wildly underestimated the number of younger vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Akaka. “And this year, the Administration thinks even fewer vets will come for care. This is a terrific gamble, as this miscalculation was one of the primary causes of last year's shortfall.”
And given the chance to mitigate that shortfall, Senate Republicans voted overwhelming to once again say “screw you” out of one side of their mouths, to the same military they praise out of the other side.

Perhaps they're at least honest about it and the yellow ribbons on the SUVs of Republican Senators say "Support Your Corporate Donors."

http://www.veteranstoday.com/article1162.html

Let me see...this makes you made or something. This isn't new you know. Its been going on for many, many years.

For a veteran who is 100 percent disable like my self. our monthly income is abt 2300, a little more if married. in today's world try living on that including having a home.

If a veteran wants to buy a double home in Buffalo he/she cannot because you are then consider self employed, and you'll loss your disability all together.

The goal of the bush administration is, and has been focused on getting rid of the veterans disability act. This started with Bill Clinton because he supported no real veterans bills while in the white house. This is why our troops had no protection like good flak jackets, and many bought their own. This is why Bush wants every veterans from his war to be working missing leg or arms...all must be working. Hell, some veterans will not be able to work even with good prosthetics. So this is old news. I've fight every day for veterans through my DAV, and is all about big business, and politics.

[speaker]

You guys do realize that you are comparing apples and oranges in the two articles and that one is from 2006 and the other is from 2008 right? You should have started another thread because I am pretty sure the Senate Republicans arent blocking this bill, at least thats not what the article said.

I understand where the military is coming from. They (military officials) are all for extending benefits to the soldiers but they want the perks (like free college education) to kick in after six years of service, not three. They already have a hard time getting and keeping recruits. This could lead to a larger decline in servicemen/women and the reinstating of a draft.

It also appears to be an election year poly, as the article mentions.

Election year because--it's more likely to be passed.

And--3years isn't enough? Or six years and a soldier is more likely to be lilled and not need an education.

[crabapples]

Election year because--it's more likely to be passed.

And--3years isn't enough? Or six years and a soldier is more likely to be lilled and not need an education.

No three years is not long enough. As someone with intimate knowledge of the armed forces and others will say this, the first year to year and a half is training. So in reality the armed forces would only be given a 1 1/2 year commitment.

Glad you agree that it is an election year ploy.

[speaker]

Ploy? That's misleading. Both parties should endorse this, maybe some for their own purposes.

If you wanted something from somebody that was near and dear to your heart, wouldn't you choose the best time to make it happen?

[crabapples]

Ploy? That's misleading. Both parties should endorse this, maybe some for their own purposes.

If you wanted something from somebody that was near and dear to your heart, wouldn't you choose the best time to make it happen?

No it is a political ploy. These guys are only proposing the legislation to use it to get re-elected. Thats b.s. If they truly cared about the troops and military they would have done this and many other things over the past 7 years and even before that. So yes, in my mind it is another smoke and mirrors ploy that Congress hopes gets them re-elected and they can pat themselves on the back.

[Cgoodsp466]

All of us guys who served in the 60s,we were given the sales pitch VA health care.Try Sighning up now if you need it.You had better be destitute and living under a bridge.