Re: Veto threatened over extra vet funding
- From: "free.tuneup@xxxxxxxxx" <free.tuneup@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 31, 10:09 am, Jim Higgins <gordian...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"...and that the White House says would “needlessly burden taxpayers.”
And the earmarks so popular in Congress would not "needlessly burden"
taxpayers?
Veto threatened over extra vet fundinghttp://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/07/military_veto_threat_073008/
A threatened presidential veto involving a $118.7 billion House veterans
and military construction funding bill is being called a “slap in the
face” to veterans.
The White House isn’t threatening to veto the bill that includes $93.7
billion for veterans and $24.8 billion for facilities. Instead, it is
threatening to veto all other federal funding bills unless they are
reduced by the $3.4 billion in spending over the Bush administration’s
request that the House of Representatives is proposing to spend.
“In my 18 years in Congress, this is one of the worst decisions I have
ever seen come out of the White House,” said Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas,
chairman of the House Appropriations Committee panel that prepared the
funding bill.
“For a country to send its sons and daughters to war and then to cut
corners on their health care, benefits, and housing when they return
home does not reflect the values of the American people,” Edwards said
in response to a July 30 policy statement from the White House’s Office
of Management and Budget threatening a veto if the bill is not
substantially changed.
““This is a slap in the face to every veteran in the nation, especially
our Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans,” Edwards said. “I do not
understand the values that would suggest, during a time of war, we
provide tax breaks for people making over $1 million a year, but we
cannot afford to provide the health care our veterans deserve and the
housing our troops need.”
The White House statement says is supports the goals of improving
treatment of veterans and the quality of bases but believes Congress has
gone too far with a bill that provides $10.3 billion more in fiscal 2009
than for the current year and has $3.4 billion more than the Bush
administration requested. If Congress wants to spend more, extra money
for veterans and construction needs to be offset but cuts in other
programs, the policy statement says.
This is not an unexpected position. The Bush administration made a
similar argument last year in fighting attempts by Congress to increase
the Department of Veterans Affairs budget that led to a compromise where
some extra spending was provided as emergency spending that under
government accounting rules was considered off-budget, although it did
add to the national debt.
In the military construction portion of the bill, HR 6599, Congress has
included more than 100 projects costing more than $500 million that the
administration did not request and that the White House says would
“needlessly burden taxpayers.” Additionally, the bill cuts $140 million
from the administration’s request for $241 million for construction
related to a missile defense site in Europe, a reducing the White House
statement says “could jeopardize the security of the United States and
our European allies by delaying the fielding of missile defense assets
to protect against the emerging missile threat posed by Iran.”
On veterans’ funding, the White House says it “appreciates” continued
support of Congress for veterans but the Bush budget “provides the
resources needed to ensure that the Nation’s veterans, including those
returning from current combat operations, receive the quality care and
services that they deserve.”
One provision of the House bill that sets aside funding to restore VA
medical care for mid-income veterans who do not have service-connected
injuries or disabilities drew a direct complaint, with administration
officials saying money spent on these veterans could reduce access to
medical care for other veterans.
“The administration continues to believe that the VA medical care system
should focus on its core population — veterans with service-connected
disabilities, lower-incomes, special needs, and those returning from
combat,” the policy statement says.
--
Civis Romanus Sum
Those vets are getting out of hand. They are getting to greedy. They
always have their hands out..or a hook or a bionic hand. They should
just be content and proud they served under Bush, the great figher
pilot of Nam. He killed off more bottles of whisky than folks thought
was humanly possible.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Veto threatened over extra vet funding
- From: Jim Higgins
- Veto threatened over extra vet funding
- Prev by Date: Somebody should tell Hussein the surge in Iraq worked
- Next by Date: JM Multi Strategy NFO
- Previous by thread: Veto threatened over extra vet funding
- Next by thread: Re: Veto threatened over extra vet funding
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
