|
Gop cuts 30b veteran benefits 3 am { April 7 2003 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7624341&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18041&rfi=6http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7624341&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18041&rfi=6
GOP says budget cuts won’t affect veterans’ programs
Evan Brandt, ebrandt@pottsmerc.com April 07, 2003
In the midst of a war, area Republican Congressmen voted unanimously to support President Bush’s budget package despite the fact that it calls for cuts of nearly $30 billion in veterans’ programs over the next 10 years, according to Democratic analysis.
But those same Republicans dismissed that Democratic analysis as nothing more than partisan sniping over the budget and argued that funding for veterans programs will actually increase if the budget now being considered is adopted.
Congressmen James Gerlach, R-6th Dist., Patrick J. Toomey, R-15th Dist., Curt Weldon, R-7th Dist. all voted in favor of Bush’s full tax cut package, as did Pennsylvania’s two senators, Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum, both Republicans.
The two Democratic Congressmen with districts in the area -- Joseph Hoeffel III, D-13th Dist. and Timothy Holden, D-17th Dist. --both voted against the budget measure, which initially called for $726 billion in tax cuts.
The budget vote in which funding for veteran programs was included occurred in the House of Representatives on the same day all area Congressmen participated in the unanimous passage of a resolution in support of troops in Iraq.
Passed on March 21, House Resolution 104 reads, in part, "Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring) that the Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation ... to members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are carrying out their missions with excellence, patriotism, and bravery; and to the families of the United States military personnel serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom."
At about 3 a.m. the same day, the House of Representatives approved the budget resolution including the tax cuts by a 215-212 vote.
But in the Senate, the tax cuts Bush sought were cut in half, down to $350 billion, when three Republican senators joined the Democrats seeking to diminish what they said would be the disastrous fiscal impact of the Bush plan.
Neither of Pennsylvania’s senators were among the three Republicans who deserted the full tax cut plan.
Because the two houses of Congress approved different versions of the budget resolution, the matter will now be decided by a conference committee which The New York Times reported is "dominated by allies of the President."
Attempts to reach Weldon for comment were unsuccessful.
Toomey, who is mounting a primary challenge for Specter’s seat in the fall, said contrary to the Democrats’ claims, funding for mandatory veterans programs will increase at "four times the rate of inflation" under the House proposal.
"The fact of the matter is, this budget calls on us to spend more money on veterans health care and benefits than we have ever spent before in the history of this country," he said.
Gerlach agreed.
"The 2004 budget calls for $61.1 billion for veterans programs," said Gerlach. "That’s a 6.9 percent increase over fiscal year 2003," he said.
"These budget votes are only from one year to the next, so projecting out what they would be in ten years makes no sense, because next year we’ll be looking at the issue again," said Gerlach.
He pointed out that he does not support everything in the budget resolution, which he said is only the beginning of the federal budget process and merely sets the spending ceiling beneath which final budget figures must fall.
"I was not pleased at all with education funding and when the appropriations bills come through, if things haven’t changed, I won’t vote for it," said Gerlach.
In addition to concerns about Medicare, Gerlach said he does not yet believe the full slate of Bush tax cuts are warranted.
"These are very uncertain times, with the costs of the war, the costs of the post-war, the costs of the war on terrorism, the condition of the economy and the deficits we’re starting to see," he said.
"I’m not convinced we need the tax cuts at the level the President has proposed," said Gerlach, who joined Hoeffel Monday in announcing a bill calling for the establishment of a veterans cemetery in the region.
But while they agree on that veterans issue, on the issue of funding, the two are on opposite sides of the fence.
"These cuts to veterans programs are indefensible," Hoeffel said last week. "We are at war and our current troops will be our future veterans and this funding is inadequate, it’s wrong and it’s an insult."
Referring to the vote that same day supporting the troops, Hoeffel said "everybody is united behind the troops, which is all the more reason why its so ironic that the Republicans should choose this time to do something that shouldn’t happen anyway."
Staffers for Congressional Democrats explained that veterans funding on the federal level is split into two basic parts. One part is funded like Social Security, which is a permanent law and the other part is funded on a year-by-year basis, they said.
The second is the part Gerlach described.
And considering the increase in medical costs expected in the next year, the 6.9 percent increase Gerlach cited looks more like 0.6 percent, staffers said.
That works out to a $14.2 billion cut over 10 years, said Ari Strauss, Holden’s legislative director.
One staffer who serves Democrats on the all-important appropriations committee and who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said, "Look at it this way, if every veteran is supposed to get a check that’s the same as they got last year, you might need to increase funding by 3 percent. If it cost the country $100 to provide a service this year, we might need $110 to provide the same service next year. When you calculate it that way, the increase is actually .06 percent."
The second part is the permanent law which has effects over a longer span and is more cumbersome to change.
In that aspect of veterans funding, "this vote told the veterans committee to make a reduction in the permanent law and to spend less money," said the staffer.
That works out to a $14.6 billion cut in disability and education benefits for veterans, said Strauss.
"Congressman Holden felt it was unconscionable to vote for a budget with $700 billion in tax cuts and to help pay for it with $14.6 billion in cuts to veterans benefits," Strauss said, "especially at a time when we are sending troops into harm’s way. It’s a slap in the face to veterans," he said.
But Toomey said the Democrats’ projections are specious.
"The fact of the matter is the total mandatory spending will grow at a slightly slower rate than was projected last year and some have extrapolated that out as a cut," Toomey said.
The savings, he added, are only to be earned by "eliminating waste and fraud in the program. There will be no cuts in the actual program," said Toomey.
"It’s only a ‘cut’ in the strange language of Washington," said Toomey. "English is not an adequate language to describe the budget process in Washington."
©The Mercury 2003
|
|
