CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
June 30, 2008 – 11:47 p.m.
Democrats Hope to Boost Image With Veteran’s Programs
By David Clarke, CQ Staff
The symbolism was a bit heavy-handed, but that was probably the point: Last November House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was brandishing a baseball bat for the cameras in her office as three fellow Democratic lawmakers stood by. The Disabled American Veterans group had given the bat to the House Democratic leaders to thank them for “going to bat” on funding hikes for vets’ programs in bills funding both the Iraq War and the Veterans Affairs Department’s annual budget.
It was a benchmark moment for Pelosi and company: Early in their leadership tenure, they’d targeted veterans’ issues as a prime item on the new majority’s to-do list. Some veterans’ matters, such as enormous backlogs in VA disability treatment and the quality of medical care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, cried out for remediation.
And in that strategy there was also a not-so-subtle political calculation: Taking a leading role in vets’ issues would help inoculate Democrats opposed to the Iraq War from charges that the party was not valuing the service of American soldiers. What’s more, a growing contingent of the estimated 1.7 million U.S. soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan had become disenchanted with the Bush White House’s management of the conflicts, making a pro-vets, anti-war message that much more politically salable.
The Democrats had highlighted this approach prior to their return to the majority, making veterans’ issues a key part of their 2006 election platform and recruiting high-profile veteran candidates such as former Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb and Joe Sestak , a retired Navy vice admiral. Democrats also fielded several Iraq veterans for House seats, such as Pennsylvania Rep. Patrick J. Murphy .
All these strategic reckonings have produced a striking result: Democrats in the 110th Congress have not missed a single opportunity to boost programs to benefit veterans or injured soldiers returning from the battlefield.
But Democrats are finding that their veterans’ agenda also comes with tradeoffs. To get Republicans and the White House to agree last month to a proposal from Webb to expand veterans’ college education benefit, they had to use it as a bargaining chip in exchange for continued funding of U.S. operations in Iraq — a commitment they were confident they could end after sweeping into power in 2006. In addition, they have faced some opposition from Democratic Blue Dog budget hawks such as Reps. Allen Boyd of Florida and John Tanner of Tennessee who support the Webb education measure but want its steep price tag — $62.8 billion over the next 11 years — offset with spending cuts or tax increases.
GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona, his party’s presumed presidential nominee, has endorsed a less costly plan that he says is more in line with the thinking in the Pentagon, where officials worry that a too-generous aid program will harm long-term retention rates in the armed forces. But Republicans and the White House cast that plan aside last week in holding up their end of the deal to get through the supplemental war-funding bill.
This marks a far cry from the reputation the Democrats got after the Vietnam era, when they gravitated toward an anti-war movement that could be hostile to the individual soldiers returning from Southeast Asia.
“The anger that should have been directed at the politicians who blundered into that war instead was all too often directed at the returning veterans,” said Wisconsin Democrat and House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey as he touted the record-setting $118.7 billion Military Construction-VA funding bill that the House Appropriations Committee approved last week.
“I think that what this Congress has done last year and this year demonstrates that ain’t gonna happen this time if we have anything to say about it,” Obey said.
Julian E. Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, said the new push on vets’ issues could also restore the Democrats’ image to the party’s World War II-era stature, when it sponsored the first federal plan to pay for vets’ higher education, the 1944 GI Bill.
“It’s a very concrete form of social spending that’s going to influence an important group of people,” Zelizer said. “And if they can position Republicans as the ones who are not going to really deliver to people in the service or veterans, I think that could potentially impact voters in different states.”
The Democrats’ solicitude for veterans’ issues hasn’t escaped the attention of vets’ advocacy groups, although the leaders of such groups said some of their members remain wary of the party’s anti-war stance.
Democrats Hope to Boost Image With Veteran’s Programs
“Right now this has really, really been tough because, yes, the Democratic party has fulfilled its promises on VA health care and stuff like that, but a lot of veterans still support the military and what they are doing and support the war,” said Steve Robertson, the American Legion’s legislative director. “It’s really been a tough vote for a lot of guys and gals.”
Some veterans’ advocates say the party’s core message is coming through to the rank and file. “The general membership is aware of it,” said Dennis Cullinan, legislative director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. “It’s making a difference, I know it’s influencing people.”
The Upward Bidding War
The major parties aren’t divided on the need to increase veterans’ spending. They’re split, rather, on the question of how much more to spend. The Bush administration has sought to tamp down federal spending in many areas, but has kept veterans’ programs off the chopping block. Since President Bush took office, the VA’s discretionary budget has grown from $22.4 billion in fiscal 2001 to more than $43 billion for fiscal 2008. While Congress has been the major force pushing that number, Bush has asked for sizeable increases in recent years. In fiscal 2007 and 2008, he requested the VA’s budget be increased by 8 percent. But congressional Democrats have bid Bush’s figures up further. When he requested an 8 percent hike in the VA’s budget last year, Democrats came back with a 18 percent increase.
This year, the president asked for a more modest 4 percent increase in the department’s discretionary budget — a number that would still double it from where it stood when Bush took office in 2001. House Democrats again added to the figure, penciling in an increase of approximately 11 percent, from $43.1 billion for fiscal 2008 to $47.7 billion for fiscal 2009.
Much the same pattern held last year, when Democrats moved through the first war spending bill under their new majority. That measure set aside $1.8 billion for veterans’ programs and $3 billion for Pentagon health care accounts. The administration had requested $1.1 billion for the Pentagon account.
Democrats are keen to remind all within earshot that they have modeled their vets’ budget proposals on figures put forward by veterans’ groups in an annual spending blueprint they call the Independent Budget.
GOP lawmakers are just as swift to note that most such measures, except for the Webb education bill, command overwhelming bipartisan support — and scoff at the notion that Democrats will be able to chip away at the veterans’ vote with greater spending outlays.
“Most veterans support public officials who favor a strong defense, who support fighting men and women while they’re fighting, and respect veterans when they come home,” said Senate Republican Conference Leader Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. “And the Republican party has always had a pretty good record on that.”
Still, the GOP has to fight harder in its own right to regain vets’ support — especially following scandals surrounding Walter Reed and the VA’s disability treatment backlog. In addition, veterans’ groups are still irked at GOP congressional leaders for stripping New Jersey GOP Rep. Christopher H. Smith of his Veterans’ Affairs chairmanship in 2005 after he dug in to get greater funding for veterans’ programs.
That track record “puts them on the wrong side of the ledger,” said Bobby Muller, a Vietnam veteran who’s president of Veterans for America and a longtime liberal activist who opposes the war in Iraq. He says it is “inarguable” that Democrats are winning over veterans, particularly those who have fought in Iraq.
Keeping Congress’ Attention
The present skirmishes over vets’ funding are especially pitched because all the interested parties expect this year’s budget to be one of the last that offers overabundant outlays for veterans’ programs. In a souring economy, VA funding is sure to slow down from the clip that’s permitted it to double during the Bush era, and will face more robust competition in future spending bills from other programs and constituencies seeking to retain their funding.
Democrats Hope to Boost Image With Veteran’s Programs
But demand for veterans’ services is not likely to decline anytime soon — especially in the much-discussed scenario of a major withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The American Legion’s Robertson noted that veterans can enroll in benefits programs for up to five years after they’ve been demobilized. It will take about that long, he says, for the veterans’ community to get a firm grasp on the needs of returning Iraq War vets after the effective end of U.S. combat operations.
Just last week, for example, a House panel approved a number of bills aimed at easing the working and educational burdens sometimes faced by military personnel returning from war zones. One bill, for example, would create an office dedicated to improving access to sports by disabled veterans.
Still, even vets’ groups are starting to trim expectations. In deference to the unforgiving numbers in future federal budgets, vets’ advocates are backing off a long-cherished lobbying aim: Enshrining VA health care as a permanent entitlement, as Medicare now is.
“We’re taking a second look at that because of the entitlement problem that Congress is facing,” Robertson said. “You know the first thing they always tell us is, ‘How are you going to pay for it?’ It’s the first statement out of their mouth, and obviously to come up with $40 billion in savings for mandatory money is going to be kind of a trick.”
Instead veterans’ advocates hope to persuade Democrats to include multi-year funding, or advance appropriations, in VA spending bills. That will spare the VA, advocates say, from being routinely forced to scramble to secure its budget wish list when spending bills fail to meet their designated deadlines at the start of each new fiscal year.
But vets’ groups, too, are quite mindful of the broader political landscape. Regardless of how they fare in budget battles, they’re worried about how to keep their issues in the forefront of debate even after troops return in large contingents from Iraq.
Vietnam vet Muller said he expects it to be an uphill fight: “Americans love their soldiers a lot more than they love their vets.”
Comments
The Democrats are trying to turn the veterans' groups into AARP-like benefits junkies, and they're succeeding with some. Spend and spend; elect and elect. Shameful.
The veterans who risk their lives and health fighting for us deserve everything they get and more. I'm very proud that the Democratic Party treats them right. I also believe that if "Disgusted" had served in actual combat or even served at all, he would feel very differently about it.
In my opinion Veteran benefits should after veterans Use the new GI Bills should only convcern those that served in Combat. Why ? Because we should have a national health care plan for americans. Up until now the Veteran Affairs Hospitals have been working overtime trying to help those veterans not covered by health care . Shame on American greed and self rightouness that only those with health insurance get health care.
Well we now see how much Dems care about Disabled Vets. Government employees including Congressmen get COAL increases while Disabled Vets get nothing. Dems lie and always will.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: