[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Usa Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

alt.politics.democrats.d

Hey, vets, it's time to hang "support our troops" Republican flunkies

Harry Hope

7/16/2005 7:04:00 PM


From The Associated Press, 7/16/05:
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB6FB...

Shortfall for Veterans' Services Foretold, but House GOP Leaders Fired
the Messengers

By Suzanne Gamboa Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -

Fellow Republicans warned House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority
Leader Tom DeLay more than a year ago that the government would come
up short - by at least $750 million - for veterans' health care.

The leaders' response: Fire the messengers.

Now that the Bush administration has acknowledged a shortfall of at
least $1.2 billion, embarrassed Republicans are scrambling to fill the
gap.

Meanwhile, Democrats portray the problem as another example of the GOP
and the White House taking a shortsighted approach to the cost of wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan and criticize their commitment to the troops.

New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith, as chairman of the House Veterans'
Affairs Committee, had told the House GOP leadership that the Veterans
Affairs Department needed at least $2.5 billion more in its budget.

The Senate passed a bill with that increase; the House's bill was $750
million short.

Smith and 30 other Republicans wrote to their leaders in March 2004 to
make the point that lawmakers who were not the usual outspoken
advocates for veterans were troubled by the move.

Failure to come up with the additional $2.5 billion, they contended,
could mean higher co-payments and "rationing of health care services,
leading to long waiting times or other equally unacceptable reductions
in services to veterans."

Still, the House ignored them.

Smith was rebuked by several Republicans for sounding the spending
alarm, and House leaders yanked his chairmanship in January.

Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., lost his chairmanship of the VA health
subcommittee, and Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., is no longer on the
committee.

They too had signed the letters to Hastert, R-Ill., and DeLay,
R-Texas.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Smith refused to blame
House leaders or discuss his firing.

"I'm not doing any of this 'I told you so' nonsense," he said.

"Now that we're here, let's just get it right."

Ben Porritt, a spokesman for DeLay, said that a year ago "we didn't
see any indication that there was going to be a shortfall."

He said House leaders will "make sure that every veteran will receive
the coverage they need."

Hastert's office did not respond to a request for comment.

The White House first told Congress that it could handle this year's
shortage by shifting money from other programs.

A chagrined Jim Nicholson, the VA secretary and former national
Republican chairman, then acknowledged last month that his department
still was $975 million short.

The House voted almost immediately to give it to him.

Last week, the Bush administration raised to $1.2 billion the amount
it says is needed.

Two days later, however, White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten
told the House Budget Committee that the VA for the past three years
has gotten more money than it needs for medical care.

About $250 million of the shortfall can be attributed to soldiers who
have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, the VA said.

The agency had predicted 23,000 of those war veterans would need its
services. The department now puts the number at 103,000.

"We know VA provides good care, so veterans increasingly are coming,"
Simmons said.

"So, we cannot afford to be optimistic about low numbers. They just
haven't worked out that way."

Some lawmakers say the shortfall is a product of the administration's
scrimping on veterans' care to reduce the size of federal deficits.

"Most everybody is thoughtful of veterans, but it seems when comes it
comes time to roll up your sleeves and look at the correct amount of
money, it seems, sometimes, people don't want to roll up their sleeves
and face it," said Rep. Walter Jones Jr., R-N.C.

The VA has come up short before.

In 2003, the agency wrote in the Federal Register that it had $21.6
billion for medical benefits but needed $23.5 billion, a $1.9 billion
shortfall.

That preceded a decision by the department to stop enrolling veterans
whose injuries or illnesses were not service-related and veterans who
were not considered indigent.

About a month before the House Republicans warned Hastert and DeLay,
then-Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi disclosed in a
hearing that the White House's Office of Management and Budget had cut
his budget request by $1.2 billion.

It was a rare criticism from within the administration.

The White House's disdain for presidentially appointed officials who
publicly waver from the administration's position was well-known.

In 2002, the administration fired Mike Parker, the civilian head of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, after he complained to the Senate
Budget Committee about the water projects Bush wanted to cut.

Principi survived his moment of candor, but he stepped down after Bush
was re-elected.

He now heads the Base Realignment and Closure Commission.

He did not respond to requests for an interview on the VA medical care
issue.

Bush repeatedly has proposed - and Congress has rejected just as often
- making better-heeled veterans pay a $250 enrollment fee and
increasing their $7 prescription drug co-payments.

Bush's budgets assumed the enrollments fees and higher medicine
co-payments would save $232 million in 2005 and $440 million in 2006
even though it was clear Congress was not going to approve them.

Congress also rejected the administration's plan to cut the VA's
nursing home beds by 5,000 in 2005.

Nonetheless, the department put some of the blame for this year's
shortfall in budgeting for only 8,500 beds rather than the 13,000
mandated by Congress.

VA officials were unable to explain why fewer beds were budgeted.

Additionally, the administration assumes in the VA's budget that the
agency will come up with $340 million in savings this year and $590
million in 2006 from what it describes as "management efficiencies."

Those efficiencies have never been fully described to members of
Congress.

_________________________________________________________

Whew! Let's get those do-nuthin' Repug flunkies the hell outa there.

Harry
7 Answers

Harry Dope

7/16/2005 7:15:00 PM

0


Mad because your party cant win shit?



Jake WK

7/16/2005 8:37:00 PM

0

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:15:15 GMT, "Harry Dope" <HD@earthlink.com> wrote:

>
> Mad because your party cant win shit?

Really? I didn't know the Repugs held every seat in Congress.

If they do, why can't they all get together and pass John Bolton's nomination?


Jake

Tempest

7/16/2005 8:46:00 PM

0



Jake WK wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:15:15 GMT, "Harry Dope" <HD@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Mad because your party cant win shit?
>
>
> Really? I didn't know the Repugs held every seat in Congress.


And didn't the Repugs lose seats in the last election?


> If they do, why can't they all get together and pass John Bolton's nomination?
>
>
> Jake


--
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do,
because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
- Susan B. Anthony, 1896

Big Al

7/16/2005 9:42:00 PM

0


"Tempest" <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42D972FB.9060806@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Jake WK wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:15:15 GMT, "Harry Dope" <HD@earthlink.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Mad because your party cant win shit?
>>
>>
>> Really? I didn't know the Repugs held every seat in Congress.
>
>
> And didn't the Repugs lose seats in the last election?
>

No, they actually gained seats, but you could never tell by the way they are
unable to get anything done.

>
>> If they do, why can't they all get together and pass John Bolton's
>> nomination?
>>
>>
>> Jake
>
>
> --
> "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do,
> because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
> - Susan B. Anthony, 1896
>


Tempest

7/16/2005 10:41:00 PM

0



Big Al wrote:
> "Tempest" <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:42D972FB.9060806@hotmail.com...
>
>>
>>Jake WK wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:15:15 GMT, "Harry Dope" <HD@earthlink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Mad because your party cant win shit?
>>>
>>>
>>>Really? I didn't know the Repugs held every seat in Congress.
>>
>>
>>And didn't the Repugs lose seats in the last election?
>>
>
>
> No, they actually gained seats, but you could never tell by the way they are
> unable to get anything done.


They lost a lot of seats at the state level. Several states turned blue
in 2004.


>>>If they do, why can't they all get together and pass John Bolton's
>>>nomination?
>>>
>>>
>>>Jake
>>
>>
>>--
>>"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do,
>>because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
>> - Susan B. Anthony, 1896
>>
>
>
>


--
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do,
because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
- Susan B. Anthony, 1896

Big Al

7/17/2005 12:11:00 AM

0


"Tempest" <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42D98DEB.5010502@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Big Al wrote:
>> "Tempest" <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:42D972FB.9060806@hotmail.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Jake WK wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:15:15 GMT, "Harry Dope" <HD@earthlink.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Mad because your party cant win shit?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Really? I didn't know the Repugs held every seat in Congress.
>>>
>>>
>>>And didn't the Repugs lose seats in the last election?
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, they actually gained seats, but you could never tell by the way they
>> are unable to get anything done.
>
>
> They lost a lot of seats at the state level. Several states turned blue in
> 2004.
>

At the rate thing are going, they are going to lose a hell of a lot more in
2006. I would imagine that OH will go Democratic with all the scandals
there, maybe pick up a house seat or two from the metro San Diego area as
well.

>
>>>>If they do, why can't they all get together and pass John Bolton's
>>>>nomination?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jake
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do,
>>>because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
>>> - Susan B. Anthony, 1896
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do,
> because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
> - Susan B. Anthony, 1896
>


Jake WK

7/17/2005 3:06:00 AM

0

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:11:05 GMT, "Big Al" <bigald1@sbcglobal.net.spamsucks>
wrote:

>
>"Tempest" <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:42D98DEB.5010502@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>> Big Al wrote:
>>> "Tempest" <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:42D972FB.9060806@hotmail.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jake WK wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:15:15 GMT, "Harry Dope" <HD@earthlink.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mad because your party cant win shit?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Really? I didn't know the Repugs held every seat in Congress.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And didn't the Repugs lose seats in the last election?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, they actually gained seats, but you could never tell by the way they
>>> are unable to get anything done.
>>
>>
>> They lost a lot of seats at the state level. Several states turned blue in
>> 2004.
>>
>
>At the rate thing are going, they are going to lose a hell of a lot more in
>2006. I would imagine that OH will go Democratic with all the scandals
>there, maybe pick up a house seat or two from the metro San Diego area as
>well.


That's today's Republican party for you. Big hat, no cattle.


Jake


>
>>
>>>>>If they do, why can't they all get together and pass John Bolton's
>>>>>nomination?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Jake
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do,
>>>>because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
>>>> - Susan B. Anthony, 1896
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do,
>> because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
>> - Susan B. Anthony, 1896
>>
>