"Support Our Troops": GOP Words v. Actions

by Linda Barney Burke

America’s military strongly leans Republican, with
President Bush winning a 57 to 41 percent majority of
the veterans’ vote in 2004.

But how well do Bush and the Republican-controlled
Congress really support our troops, especially those
returning from America’s wars?

"We have a responsibility to our men and women in
uniform, who deserve to know that once our politicians
vote to send them into harm’s way, our support will be
with them in good days and in bad days," said Bush in a
Jan. 10 speech to a gathering of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars.

Fine words, but actions tell a different story. Our
veterans’ needs have been cruelly shortchanged by the
President and Republicans of the Senate and House, by
the very same folks who argued for the war in Iraq and
voted to authorize it. At the same time, Democratic
legislators have voted as a bloc to protect and enhance
veterans’ programs, including the increased needs of the
Veterans Administration (V.A.) healthcare system. The
senators and congressmen who most strongly support our
troops are almost without exception those who defied
Administration pressure by voting against the war,
including Sens. Durbin, Murray, and Stabenow. Outside of
veterans’ organization websites, there has been almost
no attention paid to this stark partisan divide.

Our already underfunded V.A. healthcare facilities are
struggling to meet the needs of thousands returning
wounded both physically and mentally from Iraq and
Afghanistan. Financial shortfalls have forced the
closing of facilities, hiring freezes, obsolete
equipment, and excessive waits for basic care and
rehabilitation, even for newly returned veterans with
severely disabling injuries.

The obvious solution, strongly urged by veterans’
organizations such as the American Legion, the Disabled
American Veterans, and the Paralyzed Veterans of
America, is adequate funding of the V.A. healthcare
system to meet the needs of wartime. Incredibly, this
common-sense approach has been obstructed both by
President Bush and most Congressional Republicans.

The annual federal budget process starts off with the
President’s Budget, a detailed proposal submitted every
February by the current Administration. In 2005, Bush
recommended V.A. funding at a level termed grossly
inadequate by Thomas L. Bock, National Commander of the
American Legion. In a move that outraged veterans’
groups and was later squelched by Congress, he also
called for a $250 fee for some veterans to enroll in the
V.A. system and the doubling of veterans’ copays for
medication. In 2006, the President’s Budget reinstated
the proposed enrollment fee and copays.

It gets worse. In June 2005, under pressure from Sen.
Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the Administration acknowledged
a $1 billion shortfall in covering current programs at
the Department of Veterans Affairs. Emergency funding
was authorized by Congress in a unanimous vote, but only
after V.A. hospitals had suffered further in a scramble
to maintain their programs.

V.A. healthcare could be stabilized if Congress voted to
make funding "mandatory," meaning it would be
automatically renewed each year with adjustments for
inflation and increased enrollment. (Medicare and
Medicaid are mandatory programs.) This move would ensure
that V.A. funding is predictable, scaled to increasing
needs, passed in a timely manner, and immune from the
vagaries of the political process. In October 2005, Sen.
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) introduced an amendment to the
Department of Defense spending bill to do just that.
Although strongly supported by veterans’ organizations,
the Stabenow Amendment was defeated 48-51 in a straight
partisan vote, with almost all Democrats (including
Durbin and Obama) voting yes, and almost all Republicans
voting no.

Adding insult to injury, the Chairman of the House
Veterans Affairs Committee, Steve Buyer (R-IN),
announced in November 2005 to the Veterans Service
Organizations (including the American Legion) that they
would no longer be permitted the annual opportunity to
present testimony before the combined House and Senate
Veterans’ Affairs Committees. Buyer was chosen by the
House Republican leadership to replace former Veterans
Affairs Committee Chairman Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ)
because Smith had advocated more generous funding for
veterans’ programs.

What can Americans do to remedy this shameful
mistreatment of those who have sacrificed so much?
First, every citizen should look beyond the party line
rhetoric to hold our legislators accountable for their
actions on veterans’ issues and not just their words.
Veterans’ groups could better focus their advocacy on
measures that really help their membership. And our
mainstream media should investigate and report on the
plight of our veterans’ programs, especially their
medical care.

Linda Barney Burke, a professor of English at Elmhurst
College, is a Chicago-area political writer and
activist. lindaebb@aol.com

published by portside