FACEBOOK
TWITTER
First Iraq War Vet elected to Congress loses seat
Will Right-Wing victories bode well for Veterans benefits such as the Post 911 GI Bill?
Focusing on the background and controversy surrounding the establishment of the Post 911 GI Bill, combined with the Republican track record in making VA cost cutting a higher priority than Veterans, we at Veterans Today do not believe it will.
Rick Maze at Army Times (well Military Times) has just written an article about Elections Remove Top Military and Veteran Advocates from Congress in which he notes that quite a few Democrats who have been top supporters of Veterans and the military have lost seats.
I believe this is not surprising given the apathy in the nation and electorate toward Vets, troops, and the wars which were glaringly off the radar this election. I foresee efforts by both parties and the few Tea Party candidates who got elected to keep the wars off the political radar if not the Vets and troops. Thus, you see that there can be support for Vets and troops but not support for the wars polls still reflect a majority of Americans question the wars if not in the streets.
Nevertheless, these loses, especially the loss of the first Iraq Veteran elected to Congress, Democrat Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania may not bid well for younger Veterans despite the Republican and Tea Parties ability to also bring a few Iraq and Afghanistan War Vets to Congress and state legislatures.
Writing in his article From Combat to Capitol Hill: The New Vet 27 Paul Rieckhoff, the Executive Director and Founder, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) notes that “no one is really talking about: the surge of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans running [for political office] this year. Today, 27 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan will seek national office. Twenty-five are campaigning for House seats and two are running for the Senate. Eighteen are running as Republicans, nine as Democrats. They are as ideologically diverse as the electorate they hope to represent and share only one agenda item: their desire to continue their service.”
Given the opponents of the Post 911 GI Bill, which still has it’s critics within the Veterans and political community. The initial opposition to the 21st Century GI Bill came from conservatives. Prior to passing the bipartisan Post 911 Bill, some Department of Defense officials, John McCain and President Bush had argued that the measures would hurt servicemember retention in a time when retention is critical for the military.
A Congressional Budget Office report that had been cited by opponents states that [active duty military] retention will drop by 16%, while proponents counter that the same study predicts recruitment will be up by 16% due to the new incentives this bill would create. Senator Jim Webb (D.VA) who introduced the bill that would become the Post 911 GI Bill also pointed out that currently, “recent studies show that 70% of all enlisted members get out at or before their initial enlistment.”
While President Bush had initially threatened to veto the bill, in early June 2008 the White House signaled he might be willing to sign it along with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Bush wanted to see transferability between spouses and dependents added onto the new G.I. Bill, making it more valuable to career military personnel that would like to pay for their spouse or child’s education. On June 19, 2008 this provision was added to the war funding bill and President Bush indicated he would sign such a bill. This provision already existed with respect to the Montgomery GI Bill for regular servicemembers (the MGIB-AD).
During the 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign the Post 911 GI Bill became a campaign issue with each candidate introducing diverse legislation trying to out do one another on benefit package. In all fairness, Senator McCain’s version was designed to make the bill more beneficial to active duty military retention. He introduced a competing bill. Sen. McCain’s bill would have increased the basic education benefit by the current G.I. Bill by almost $3,000 a year and added another $4,200 a year for service members who stayed in the military for at least 12 years. With the added transferability provisions for continued military service desired by the Bush administration, Sen. McCain came to support the bill because it was changed to encourage additional military service beyond three years, mitigating his earlier concerns. Sen. McCain, who had not voted in the Senate since April 8, was campaigning in Ohio on June 26, 2008 and was not present for the final senate vote on the bill. The only other senator not voting was the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, who was recovering after surgery to remove a brain tumor. Then-United States Senator from Illinois and Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, who had expressed early support for the Webb version of the veteran education benefits, voted for the final bill on June 26. McCain’s failure to vote on the Post 911 GI Bill was successfully used by political opponents, including young Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans who ran an ad campaign giving the impression that McCain did not support any bill.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration continued quietly opposing Webb’s proposal — charging that it costs too much and will encourage military personnel to leave service early. Supporters of the Webb initiative counter that it’s the least the country can do to recognize the troops’ sacrifice. As for the military’s troubles keeping troops in their boots, well, Bush critics point out that it’s probably not an education benefit that’s discouraging higher numbers.
“The Iraq war is the reason for the retention problem they have,” Webb spokeswoman Kimberly Hunter said
Why this long winded background on the political controversy surrounding the passing of the bipartisan Post 911 GI Bill?
Well the bean counters and budget cutters are now in control of the House if not Senate. They will be looking in all directions outside of the defense budget, which Veterans benefits does NOT fall under, to make CUTS to (snicker) balance the budget. These same folks have successfully with the assist of mainstream media managed to keep Vets and Wars out of the public eye this election with a focus on the economy without connecting the dots between the costs of wars and our economic meltdown.
We at Veterans Today believe that the budget cutters will focus on that which they did not support in the first place Senator Jim Webb’s Post 911 GI Bill.
Previous opponents in the Congress will be looking in that direction to CUT COSTS on the back of America’s Veterans. Remember which party it was under the Bush administration that shut the doors of the VA Hospitals by means testing America’s Veterans. Are Vets ready for a return of Congressman Steve Buyer as Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee? Who was the point man for the Bush administration sent in to cut cost at the Department of Veterans Affairs? That’s right Congressman Steve Buyer (R.IN)
I hope I’m proven wrong, and I do believe that such at attack on Veterans benefits will remain easier to stave off as long as our troops are at war and enough Veterans “Service” Organizations stand up for Veterans instead of whichever political party they lean towards.
Fortunately, or unfortunately (depending on how one looks at it), the critics of the current Post 911 GI Bill are more constructive and focused on making it better, closing gaps in it, and trying to attract more Vets to use it. That’s a very good approach. (See Post 911 GI Bill Update – May 2010 on military.com AND 9 ways to improve the Post-9/11 GI Bill: Vet groups, and critics say changes needed to spur participation on Military Times.)
We have even began to give coverage to the issues surrounding Educating Veterans in the 21st Century here at Veterans Today. Let’s hope and pray that the focus of critics remain on ways in which to make the Post 911 GI Bill better as opposed to having to fend off ways to cut cost on the backs of America’s Veterans.
On a more broader note, we can look forward to Republican and Tea Bay Party efforts to roll back Obama’s promises to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan by any set date.
We at Veterans Today believe that these directions the country will be taken (foreign policy) effectively kept off the election radar will be more neo-conservative in nature, and that Bush hold overs in the Pentagon will be more emboldened to continue challenging President Obama on maintaining a footprint in Iraq and Afhganistan indefinitely. If President Obama moves further right-wing in an effort to appease the Republican majority in Congress, he will only lose the rest of the Democrat Party base and that’s a fact.
It remains to be seen what Tea Party candidates who lean Libertarian will do, because a few just might look at the wars in fiscal conservative terms if nothing else.
Robert L. Hanafin, Major, U.S. Air Force-Ret, GS-14, U.S. Civil Service-Ret, Veterans Issues Editor, Veterans Today News Network
Elections Remove Top Military and Veteran Advocates from CongressWritten by Rick Maze, Wednesday, 03 November 2010 16:52 |
| “Tuesday’s elections swept some key Democrats from [the] House of Representatives, including the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress.
Also gone is a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee who was one of the key proponents of improvement in military family housing and barracks, the House Budget Committee chairman who made sure there was money for improvement in military pay and benefits, and chairman of the veterans’ disability assistance subcommittee who have been pushing to eliminate the backlog of veterans’ benefits claims while trying to reduce the number of errors. The lawmakers were defeated in an election that will result in control of the House of Representatives shifting in January to Republicans. Veterans for Common Sense (VCS) Note: Out of 18 Democrats on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, 13 or 14 will be gone by January 2011.One of the biggest Democratic bulls to fall in the election is Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the House Armed Services Committee chairman… He had shown unusual concern…about the professional education of people in the military, and he played a key role in the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act that gave combatant commands more power and forced joint-service education and cooperation on a reluctant Defense Department. A self-taught military historian, Skelton believed that young military officers could learn lessons from the past, and created a list of books he felt every officer should read. A decision about who succeeds Skelton as the Armed Services chairman will be made later in November, but Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., is expected to get the job. McKeon, currently the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, has less experience than Skelton in working on personnel issues, but he has been a key advocate for getting colleges to make it easier for Guard and reserve members whose education is disrupted by military duties to receive refunds for tuition and fees. He has also pressed for changes in the Post-9/11 GI Bill so that students attending California schools are not disadvantaged by heavily subsidized tuition at public institutions. Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., came to Congress in 2007 as the first Iraq war veteran to be elected, and he used a seat on the Armed Services Committee to press a number of issues that affected the war and returning service members. He also became the leading advocate in Congress for repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Working on military and veterans issues appeared to be of little help in the election. Among the defeated incumbents was Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee responsible for funding veterans programs and construction on military bases. Edwards had been the person behind dramatic improvements in the quality of family housing and barracks on military bases, and led efforts to greatly expand the number of on-base child care centers after hearing complaints about long waiting lists. Also defeated were Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., chairwoman of the Veterans’ Affairs economic opportunity subcommittee, who had worked on [the Post 911] GI Bill, veterans employment and rehabilitation legislation; and Rep. John Hall, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs disability assistance subcommittee, who had worked with Edwards to find funding for extra employees for the Veterans Affairs Department to process benefits claims with hopes of reducing a growing backlog. Skelton isn’t the only…incumbent to be defeated. Also losing a re-election bid was Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., the House Budget Committee chairman and a senior member of the Armed Services Committee who was an expert on nuclear weapons and arms control, and Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., chairman of the Armed Services subcommittee on sea power and expeditionary forces. Spratt had served in Congress since 1983, and Taylor had served since 1989. Iraq Wat Vet Jon Soltz, Chairman, VoteVets.org had this to say about the defeat of military veterans in the Democrat Party. “Let’s not mince words. Tuesday night was a rough one for many candidates we supported. Yet, at the same time, there is some hope…. Unfortunately, we lost some great Iraq and Afghanistan veterans in Congress, including Patrick Murphy (D.PA), Joe Sestak (D.PA), Chris Carney (D.PA), and John Boccieri (D.OH). In an election that trended against their party, though, they all were competitive. In Minnesota, though, Tim Walz won his reelection battle. At the same time, we were able to help a great veterans advocate – Senator Harry Reid – win reelection in Nevada. To remind you, VoteVets put $600,000 into that race…. And, while there are votes to still be counted, one of the best friends that veterans have ever had, Senator Patty Murray (D.WA), looks like she’ll win, as well. VoteVets worked hard in that state, knocking on thousands of doors, spreading word about her record on vets’ issues. Additionally, we worked in Colorado to return Senator Michael Bennet (D.CO), who has been a friend and ally to veterans, and he won his race. What’s this all mean? Well, first of all, it means we’re going to have to work even harder during this new Congress to preserve veterans programs from the budget ax. It means we’re going to have to fight even more tenaciously to push for energy independence that gets us off Middle East Oil. It means we’re going to have to speak even more loudly when it comes to continuing to restore America’s place in the world. Veterans Today Editorial Note: We are almost on the same page with Jon here, see my comments above about the Post 911 GI Bill, and which political party was it that closed the doors of VA Hospitals to Veterans who made (or had made) too much money after serving in the military (wink). Jon continues. Second of all, it means that we will need to encourage more veterans to run for public office, and help them win. And, in that area, there is some good news. While a good number of our Congressional allies lost on Tuesday, we had some great victories among our Emerging Leaders. Young veterans running for lower office.
So, the next generation of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans entering public life are well on their way. Still, VoteVets has a lot of tough work ahead – tougher because of the results on Election Day. But, as tough as it is, it’s nowhere near as tough as what our men and women in uniform face every day, or what veterans faced when they came home. We’re not going to lay down or quit – we never have – and you can’t either. So, dust yourself off, and commit to working even harder with VoteVets, starting today. |
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=58401
Posted by Robert L. Hanafin on Nov 6 2010, With 0 Reads, Filed under Vet News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ty, DrBlindBat, iPundit, Peter Guidry, Veterans Today and others. Veterans Today said: New post: First Iraq War Vet elected to Congress loses seat http://bit.ly/9jjg3k [...]
How will the new Congress affect Agent Orange compensation? Are they going to decide it is too expensive?
It has always struck me as strange that many, if not most, of those on the right while wrapping themselves in the flag simultaneously short-change veterans.
Ethan Allen,
Is that your real name? What I mean is I believe Ethan Allen was a somewhat famous Revolutionary War figure beside making Colonial Period furnishings (a wood worker).
Anyway, Ethan to answer your question, first let me apologize if I left the impression that I was only focusing on younger Vets of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars AND only on the Post 911 GI Bill.
I did mention that if one looks closely at the Support a Veteran track records first monitored by the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and then later somewhat copies by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) any dummy will note that Democrats have been rated higher in supporting Veterans than any other party bar none.
By that I mean ACTION support of Veterans Medical benefits not political do nothing crap like Stolen Valor Acts and Flag Amendments that do not cost Veterans or Congress anything except EGO and PRIDE.
However, I did mention that even before 911 and the invasion (liberation) of Iraq, depending on how one looks at it, which party was it under President G.W. Bush that beefed up means testing to keep far too many Veterans out of the VA Medical system unless we paid co-pays and such.
The problem I personally have with means testing AND I’m a retired occifer covered by TRICARE (almost same as active duty coverage except I pay premiums for it) until I turn 65, so I don’t need the VA Medical system IS THAT who in the hell asked you or me how much we or our parents made when we enlisted or were drafted during Vietnam???
I frankly do not recall anyone in a position of authority asking that question. Should the answer from us had been we are children of the elite then instead of Vietnam we would have been given the option of joining the National Guard unless of course we were black or any other color but white (that is until around 1975/76 when the National Guard was forced to join the rest of the Regular Armed Forces and integrate the races.
Socio-economic, political concerns aside it is DOWN RIGHT WRONG to ask Veterans how much money WE make. Uncle Sam didn’t ask when I enlisted in the Army in 1969, and it sure as hell ain’t any damn business of the VA today.
The Democrats in the short time they’ve been in Congress managed to loosen up on the means testing a little bit, but regardless it is still wrong to ration health care based on socio-economic status. The Tea Baggers and Republican raised hell about Obamacare when we Vets have been under Socialized Medicine that makes the image of the VA Hospitals as Charity Hospitals, and Veterans as Charity cases still linger on.
Although no expert or having a crystal ball to assess what Congress will do about any Veterans’ benefits, I personally believe that the main ingredients needed for any Congress to affect Agent Orange compensation or any other VA compensation depends on not only holding control of the House but also the Senate AND most important incentive to cut costs at the VA comes from the White House as in the relationship between Congressman Steve Buyer and President Bush. I do not believe that Buyer had the incentive alone to cut costs at the VA, he was Bush’s point man to do so. The incentive came from the White House to the House Veterans Affairs Committee. Mind you the Secretary of Veterans Affairs works for the President so it is a given that he is going to do whatever the incentives are that his boss gives him.
OK, this Congress riding a wave of voter dissatisfaction, and voter inability to count (how many billions wasted on the wars might have saved jobs here at home?) THIS CONGRESS has the incentive to try cuttings costs, and they WILL NOT focus on active duty military benefits or incentives to serve or reenlist. However, once WE as Veterans are not longer of use to the Pentagon or the War machine, we become expendable.
Are they going to decide it is too expensive? Most likely, however without the incentive or collaboration of President Obama to cut cost at the VA bean counters in the Congress even if they control the House will not be able to do too much to tell the Executive Branch how to cut costs.
We as Veterans could and should make the counter argument (after all other socialized programs already in existence are cut by a balance budget) that the Defense Budget with the exception of safely bringing our troops home needs to be cut BEFORE Veterans benefits are sliced up. Generals in the field and at the Pentagon are already showing signs of being given the incentive to challenge the Commander-In-Chief on his plans or promises to leave Iraq or Afghanistan, especially the part about when or setting any date. Military leaders say that the draw-down or pull out will depend on the situation on the ground – a situation BTW that the Pentagon and our National Intelligence Agencies (CIA) have total control of due to lack of mainstream media attention to the wars or to really try determining how things are going in both Iraq and Afghanistan outside of Pentagon propaganda.
I strongly believe that unless President Obama and the Democrats remaining in Congress desire to lose the rest of the Democrat base that they make it clear to the Pentagon that domestic politics will determine when our troops come home not situation briefs prepared by individual predisposed to staying the course in both Iraq and Afghanistan for whatever reason.
Bobby Hanafin
Veterans Today News
There was a time when the GOP would be ashamed to admit what they really think about veterans. They should be sued for false advertising for always talking about how much they support the military and our veterans when the truth is, they support the military contractors and only want to be supported by veterans. They have had the bulk of the support by veterans and the troops, that is, until the election in 2008.
McCain lost them because of his voting record. If more knew how bad it was, they would have ditched him too. I ask veterans all the time why they supported him and they had no clue that he was not voting for them, but fighting against most of the bills that have been done for them.
The GI bill, wow was he against that one. He said it was “too good” and “too generous” that he thought it would cause the troops to quit the military so they could go to college. The pay raises was something else he was against. Guess he didn’t have the same problem voting for the contractors to get billions of taxpayer money with no strings attached.
The truth is there for anyone to see that when it comes to doing anything for the troops or veterans, the GOP has a lousy record. All of their votes are on record. The coward way out in the Senate has been for them to just block bills from even being voted on. Now it may even get worse now that they have decided to go the direction of the Tea Party folks who don’t want to pay any taxes at all but still want their Social Security checks, Medicare and still have all the things like police, fire and defense. They want to privatize the VA and Social Security but never seem to be able to explain how any of this will work if either one fails. I wonder how much support they’ll have in the next election when they tell the American people what they really just voted for? The problem is it will be too late to do any good once they take charge of the committees in the House and people like Filner are not in charge of it anymore. He was not perfect but he sure did get a lot done for veterans. So we head back to the same attitude now that PTSD veterans are just looking for a free ride and watch all the programs for PTSD, TBI close down along with the goal of getting all veterans a place to live by 2014. Just a shame all the way around.
[...] In these midterm elections the first Iraq veteran elected to congress lost his seat. This may not be of benefit to veterans, the less support in congress, the less people they have to fight for them here at home. Veteran’s Today [...]
Sen Webb is a Democrat