Bush Admin & DeLay, et al. take a stand against tax cuts...for disabled veterans!!!!

If this is true, this sucks royally.


Joe Conason's Journal
The self-styled super-patriots in the GOP praised veterans -- then cut their healthcare funding.

- - - - - - - - - - - -




Nov. 6, 2003 | Why vets won't be celebrating
Yesterday evening on the House floor, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., offered some angry perspective on the Bush administration's "support for our troops." A Vietnam-era Air Force veteran (although his own Web site omits that fact), DeFazio rose to contest the happy-face rhetoric of his Republican colleagues in anticipation of Veterans Day next Wednesday. DeFazio's remarks about the real record of the self-styled super-patriots in the GOP deserve to be quoted at length:

"Here are some real facts, unlike what we heard earlier today: 150,000 veterans are waiting six months or longer for appointments; 14,000 veterans have been waiting 15 months or longer for their "expedited" disability claims; 560,000 disabled veterans are subject to the disabled veterans tax, something we have tried to rectify.

"We have 373 cosponsors [to repeal that tax in the House]. There are only 435 people here. If 373 people want something, we should be able to do it, should we not? That is a super, super, super majority. But guess what? The Republican leadership, under urging from the president and Secretary Rumsfeld and threats of veto from the president, are refusing to bring up a repeal of the disabled veterans tax.

"We can have tax breaks for people who do not work for a living, the investor class. We can have tax breaks for whole hosts of people and things. But we cannot have tax relief for disabled veterans. Is that not extraordinary? President Bush refused to spend $275 million in emergency money for veterans' health care provided by Congress in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill. But of course he wants to do everything he can to recognize the service of our veterans and our young men and women.

"[On] January 8 of this year, the Bush administration cut off [Veterans Administration] health care for 164,000 veterans. They put them in a new category called Category 8. They are wealthy veterans just like the wealthy people they are giving tax breaks to. Well, not quite. The wealthy people the Bush administration is raining tax breaks on earn over $311,000 a year. But these vets are 'wealthy.' They do not deserve that veterans health care, according to the Bush administration. They earn $25,000 a year. They should pay for their own health care ...

"In March, House Republicans voted in favor of their budget resolution that cut $14 billion, 'B' billion dollars, from mandatory veterans benefits over 10 years, including veterans pensions, education and other benefits. That was an hour after we voted to support the troops in Iraq.

"Maybe it would have been a better message if we just had not bothered with the words, but had duly voted for the money. But, no, the Republican majority, pushed by President Bush, could not vote for that money, and that budget passed by one vote.

"The House Republican budget resolution also cut $14 billion from veterans health care and other discretionary veterans programs. The Republican budget also included the president's proposal to impose a $250 enrollment fee on our veterans for the free health care that they were promised ..."

 

Rather than presenting a congressional speech as fact, and judging by the fact that it was in "salon.com", and the fact that I have neither read the congressional record nor independently researched such matters, indeed I left the qualifier there.

Rest assured if it comes to my attention that a retraction or correction is in order I will post it as well.

I still await your defense of supply side economics or are you still hightailing it through the Russian countryside?

 

How about we play a Hegleian game? Here is the full text of the speech. I have generated a thesis based thereon. Now it's your job to come up with an antithesis. Maybe if you are successful theere can be a synthesis eventually.

Code:

 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, next week is November 11. And often, I believe, in this Chamber we pay lip service to our veterans; and we fail to deliver on solid votes and programs that would better demonstrate our recognition of their sacrifice and service. And this year, unfortunately with the budget and the appropriations passed, is no exception.
  I was astonished earlier today when a colleague from the Republican majority stood up to pretend to document how great things are for our veterans, all these new services and things we are providing. I am hearing a very different assessment from my veterans and their dependents. And facts are stubborn things.
  Here are some real facts, unlike what we heard earlier today: 150,000 veterans are waiting 6 months or longer for appointments; 14,000 veterans have been waiting 15 months or longer for their ``expedited'' disability claims; 560,000 disabled veterans are subject to the disabled veterans tax, something we have tried to rectify.
  We have 373 cosponsors. There are only 435 people here. If 373 people want something, we should be able to do it, should we not? That is a super, super, super majority. But guess what. The Republican leadership, under urging from the President and Secretary Rumsfeld and threats of veto from the President, are refusing to bring up a repeal of the disabled veterans tax.
  We can have tax breaks for people who do not work for a living, the investor class. We can have tax breaks for whole hosts of people and things. But we cannot have tax relief for disabled veterans. Is that not extraordinary? President Bush refused to spend $275 million in emergency money for veterans health care provided by Congress in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill. But of course he wants to do everything he can to recognize the service of our veterans 
and our young men and women.
  January 8 of this year, the Bush administration cut off VA health 
care for 164,000 veterans. They put them in a new category called Category 8. They are wealthy veterans just like the wealthy people they are giving tax breaks to. Well, not quite. The wealthy people the Bush administration is raining tax breaks on earn over $311,000 a year. But these vets are wealthy. They do not deserve that veterans health care, according to the Bush administration. They earn $25,000 a year. They 
should pay for their own health care.
  The President's budget also proposed doubling the prescription drug copayment from $7 to $15 for veterans, the ones who are still able to qualify, and a $250 enrollment fee on another category, Category 7 and 8. These could be people with low incomes, distinguished service, but under the Bush administration, we just cannot quite afford to give them 
the service we promised when they enlisted.
  Now we either believe in the all-volunteer military or we do not. And we are either going to recognize the sacrifice and service of veterans or we will not. And if we do not, probably the next generation is not going to want to enlist for what is a very tough and today very bloody and dangerous job because they are not quite sure of the promise that 
we will take care of them and we will take care of their families and their dependents.
  A few other problems. Rather than funding the VA, the Bush 
administration sent a memo to regional VA facilities that forbid 
Veterans Administration employees from proactively informing veterans about the services available to them in order to reduce the number of veterans using VA facilities.

                              {time}  2100

  That is supportive. Is that not great?
  In March, House Republicans voted in favor of their budget resolution that cut $14 billion, ``B'' billion dollars, from mandatory veterans benefits over 10 years, including veterans pensions, education and other benefits. That was an hour after we voted to support the troops 
in Iraq.
  Maybe it would have been a better message if we just had not bothered with the words, but had duly voted for the money. But, no, the Republican majority, pushed by President Bush, could not vote for that money, and that budget passed by one vote.
  The House Republican budget resolution also cut $14 billion from 
veterans health care and other discretionary veterans programs. The Republican budget also included the President's proposal to impose a $250 enrollment fee on our veterans for the free health care that they were promised.
  The Republican budget also included the President's proposal to 
double the prescription drug copayment from $7 to $15. The President had already raised it from $2 to $7, but, hey, we need money. We have got to send a lot of money over to Iraq, and we cannot ask them to pay any of it back, so we have to double the prescription drug benefit fee for our veterans.
  Now, the House VA-HUD appropriations bill funded VA at the level requested by the President, which was $1.8 billion below the House Republicans' own budget, and it was $3.3 billion below the level requested by national veterans organizations in their independent budget proposal.
  Let us really celebrate Veterans' Day, and give them the services they earned and need, and pay for them.

Now, since you're the challenger, why don't you find me an alternative source that contradicts the facts contained herein?

 

Oh my god I just destroyed my own thread. Damn you no edit.

The stench of hubris.

 

Regardless of my vB ineptitude and quick trigger, the challenge stands.

Actually, I have multiple challenges outstanding with you to provide basis. So I'm probably beating a dead horse, but the continuing exposure of your lack of substance is too addictive to give up.