Members of the Senate Veteran Affairs Committee accused Veterans Affairs Administration officials of, in the words of Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), "either deliberate misdirection or incompetence" in "failing to predict a $1 billion shortfall they face in this year's federal medical services budget," the Boston Globe reported Wednesday.[1] -- [NOTE: For a picture of Bob Rudolph of Veterans for Peace and UFPPC at the VA Hospital in Seattle expressing appreciation to Sen. Murray on Jun. 27, 2005, for her efforts on behalf of wounded U.S. service personnel, see here. Bob writes: "I told her that she was the best friend that we vets could have and that we appreciate her support for all veterans very much. I also told her that 'you have more "fortitude" then most of the men in the Senate, if you understand what I mean.' She gave me a cheeky grin and she said that she knew what I meant. We were the only VFP organization in attendance, or at least visible. Attached is a photo of me presenting Patty the VFP Cap, kind of hidden by the lectern." --D.Q.] -- The Globe reported: "The shortfall results from a larger-than-anticipated number of veterans seeking medical services, said VA Secretary James Nicholson. The original budget had calculated that 23,553 military veterans from the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan would require care, but new, midyear estimates indicate that 103,000 veterans will need treatment at VA medical centers, he said." -- It would seem to be only a matter of time before an even greater scandal emerges: "It was unclear why more veterans are seeking care from the agency, and the committee members didn't ask Nicholson for a clearer explanation," wrote Kaitlin. -- Less than three months ago, Sen. Patty Murray said, VA director Nicholson repelled her and other senators' efforts to demand increased funding, assuring the Military Construction and Veteran Affairs Subcommittee in writing on Apr. 5: "I can assure you that VA does not need emergency supplemental funds in FY 2005 to continue to provide timely, quality service that is always our goal." -- Republicans are scrambling because of their long-standing and irresponsible refusal to acknowledge the problem, apparently for fear that doing so would interfere with flagging support for the Iraq war and plummeting military recruitment: "For the past four months, House and Senate Republicans have repeatedly defeated Democratic amendments to boost VA medical funding," Thomas Edsall of the Washington Post reported Wednesday in a piece that was also reprinted in the Seattle Times.[2] -- Even yesterday, as the problem emerged, "The House yesterday rejected an Edwards move to boost 2005 VA spending on a party-line vote, 217 to 189," the Post reported. -- (Chet Edwards is the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee on military quality of life and veterans affairs.) -- Given the magnitude of claims that emerged from the Gulf War and the longstanding refusal to acknowledge the problem of illnesses caused by U.S. weapons themselves, especially depleted uranium, on the part of the U.S. government (as well as on the part of the U.S. mainstream media -- neither of these articles refers to these important background issues) it is not difficult to foresee that a fiscal problem of truly gargantuan proportions will soon be emerging. -- Yet on Jun. 28, 2005, just as these problems were coming to light, President George W. Bush was making a trek to Fort Bragg to announce, with full militarist trappings: "To the soldiers in this hall, and our servicemen and women across the globe: I thank you for your courage under fire and your service to our nation. I thank our military families -- the burden of war falls especially hard on you. In this war, we have lost good men and women who left our shores to defend freedom and did not live to make the journey home. I've met with families grieving the loss of loved ones who were taken from us too soon. I've been inspired by their strength in the face of such great loss. We pray for the families. And the best way to honor the lives that have been given in this struggle is to complete the mission. -- I thank those of you who have re-enlisted in an hour when your country needs you. And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces. We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our nation's uniform. When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom." -- What can such rhetoric mean in the present context? -- What circle of hell is reserved for acts of such irresponsibility? -- And as the war goes from bad to worse, the president chooses to give his speeches in the one place where an honest reaction from an audience member could be grounds for a court-martial. -- Can George W. Bush really think U.S. service personnel believed in his sincerity when he concluded his speech yesterday by praising them? -- Can he, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove really think American youth are so stupid as to embrace the service of a state that does not even provide funding for those whose idealism it has betrayed and whom it has permanently maimed? -- Yet the gist of the president's Jun. 28 speech was his intention to continue to sacrifice the lives and limbs of U.S. soldiers to his disastrous war in Iraq....
1.
News
Nation
Washington
SENATORS BLAST VA ON $1B SHORTFALL
By Kaitlin J. Bell
Boston Globe
June 29, 2005
Original source: Boston Globe
WASHINGTON -- Members of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee admonished Veterans Affairs Administration officials yesterday for failing to predict a $1 billion shortfall they face in this year's federal medical services budget and demanded to know why the organization did not level with them earlier about the lack of funds.
At a hearing yesterday, Senate veterans' committee members, clearly upset that they didn't know about the problem when they sought up to $1.9 billion more for the agency in April, scolded VA Secretary James Nicholson and two other VA officials for what they called a lack of full disclosure.
"From what I've learned, this shortfall is either deliberate misdirection or incompetence, and either way, it's unacceptable," said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington.
The emergency hearing, scheduled after a VA official told the House last week about the funding gap, was called to clarify the agency's true financial needs for the coming year so that the Senate can make up the difference when it votes on an appropriations bill later this month. The Senate is also expected to vote tomorrow on an emergency supplemental funding measure for the VA that would make up for this year's shortfall. Yesterday afternoon, the House voted against a Democrat-proposed amendment that would have added an extra $1 billion for veterans healthcare for the next fiscal year.
The shortfall results from a larger-than-anticipated number of veterans seeking medical services, said VA Secretary James Nicholson. The original budget had calculated that 23,553 military veterans from the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan would require care, but new, midyear estimates indicate that 103,000 veterans will need treatment at VA medical centers, he said. All veterans returning from combat are eligible for services at the VA, which can range from dental care and psychological counseling for wartime stress to physical therapy and prostheses for amputated limbs.
At the hearing, Nicholson stressed to the committee that current estimates show that soldiers returning from recent combat account for just $273 million of the shortfall. The remainder, he said, results from other military vets seeking care in greater numbers. It was unclear why more veterans are seeking care from the agency, and the committee members didn't ask Nicholson for a clearer explanation.
Nicholson said the $1 billion miscalculation was not unreasonable because the administration's budgeting system relies on data and projections from previous years to come up with future budgets. The current VA budget, he explained, was sketched out using statistics from 2002. "It's complex and it's not an exact science, and it's something we're going to have to keep working on," Nicholson said.
Committee members were not satisfied with Nicholson's explanation and said the agency should come up with a better way to anticipate its needs.
Murray, the Washington Democrat, castigated Nicholson for previously insisting that his administration was on track with its budget. A member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Murray had led Democratic efforts to boost VA funding in April.
She read from an April 5 letter Nicholson submitted to the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. "'I can assure you that VA does not need emergency supplemental funds in FY 2005 to continue to provide timely, quality service that is always our goal,'" Murray read.
Nicholson disputed Murray's characterization of the shortfall as a ''crisis," stressing that officials could cover the deficit by shifting several hundred million dollars from the agency's longer-term operation and maintenance funds. But several committee members, referencing promised new VA medical centers in their home states, said shifting funds leaches much-needed money from other important needs such as renovating medical centers.
Other senators, though, suggested that Nicholson, who has held his position for just a few months, may not be entirely to blame. Senator Ken Salazar, Democrat of Colorado, pointed to the White House and the Office of Management and Budget for what he called ''arbitrary restrictions on funding," while Murray accused the Bush administration of insensitivity to veterans' needs.
"It really benefits no one, I think, to fudge the numbers on this," said Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois. "If we're starting to play budgetary games, then it's hard for us to make inevitable choices."
Whoever is responsible for past mix-ups, senators said, the important thing is to correct the problem as soon as possible, before the VA faces even worse shortfalls for the next fiscal year.
Senator Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina, warned Nicholson to be upfront about the VA's needs for the coming year.
"This is one opportunity to redo the numbers," Burr said. "Make sure they're right this time."
2.
Nation
VA FACES $2.6 BILLION SHORTFALL IN MEDICAL CARE
By Thomas B. Edsall
** Agency Undercounted Size of Returning Force **
Washington Post
June 19, 2005
Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR20 r05062800545.html
or
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002351504_veterans29.html
[PHOTO CAPTION: Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., during a news conference on Capitol Hill Monday refers to a letter written by Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson declining emergency supplemental funds for 2005. Reid, joined by Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., is seeking an increase in veterans benefits.]
The Bush administration disclosed yesterday that it had vastly underestimated the number of service personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan seeking medical treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and warned that the health care programs will be short at least $2.6 billion next year unless Congress approves additional funds.
Veterans Affairs budget documents projected that 23,553 veterans would return this year from Iraq and Afghanistan and seek medical treatment. However, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson told a Senate committee that the number has been revised upward to 103,000 for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. He said the original estimates were based on outdated assumptions from 2002.
"The bottom line is there is a surge in demand in VA [health] services across the board," Nicholson told the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.
Just last week, the VA revealed that the rise in demand for VA health facilities had caused a $1 billion shortfall in operating funds for the current year. That would more than double in the coming year without congressional intervention.
Senate Republicans, embarrassed and angered over the revelations, yesterday announced plans to pass emergency legislation this morning to add $1.5 billion to the fiscal 2005 appropriation. The move is designed to appease angry veterans groups and preempt a Democratic proposal calling for $1.42 billion in increased VA spending.
The action represents a reversal of GOP policies toward the VA. For the past four months, House and Senate Republicans have repeatedly defeated Democratic amendments to boost VA medical funding.
Nicholson, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, faced criticism from House and Senate committee chairmen at two hearings.
"I sit here having recently learned that the information provided to me thus far has been disturbingly inaccurate," Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) told Nicholson. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) told Nicholson that the failure to alert Congress earlier about the VA's money problems "borders on stupidity."
"Somebody was hoping they could hide the ball for a while and talk about it later, and frankly in this arena you can't afford to do that," Lewis said.
As GOP House and Senate leaders scrambled to deal with the politically damaging shortfall and quell criticism from veterans' advocacy groups, Democrats intensified charges that the Bush administration and the Republican congressional majorities are failing to care for those who put their lives on the line for the country.
Rep. Chet Edwards (Tex.), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee on military quality of life and veterans affairs, said the administration and Republican leadership had been made aware of the problems as far back as 2004 when Reps. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.) and Lane Evans (Ill.), then chairman and ranking Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee, called for major increases in spending.
Instead of dealing with the problem, Edwards said, the House Republican leadership "fired Smith," forcing him out of the chairmanship.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee issued a news release declaring: "Republicans can't hide from their record of neglecting our nation's veterans." The release cited repeated rejection by the Senate Republican majority of amendments sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) to boost spending.
The new efforts by Republican leaders to increase veterans spending may jeopardize administration and congressional efforts to reduce the budget deficit. The budget resolution already passed by Congress calls for $31 billion for VA health care in fiscal 2006, a limit that now appears virtually certain to be broken.
The House yesterday rejected an Edwards move to boost 2005 VA spending on a party-line vote, 217 to 189.
By all accounts, there have been dramatic improvements in VA health care, and its accessibility, over the past 15 years. In addition, the current co-payment on prescription drugs is $7, far lower than that of private plans and the new drug benefit under Medicare.
Nicholson said the VA and its actuarial advisers based their calculations for the patient load in 2005 on data from 2002, before the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts were fully engaged. The revised projection of 103,000 new enrollees this year includes some of the 13,700 veterans wounded in action in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as others who served overseas seeking medical care.
|
