Cross-posted at the Next Hurrah
I'm in perfect agreement with calls to make Rove pay for his
incendiary words. But I think we ought to focus our response using today's announcement that the VA is
$1 billion short on healthcare funds to highlight the ways the GOP isn't supporting the troops. Focusing on VA shortfalls is going to fracture GOP unity a lot more quickly than calling on politicians (outside of the Atlantic seaboard area, at least) to
denounce Rove's words, because GOP legislators already know they're vulnerable.
When I first heard of the problem from an NPR report, I thought the shortfall was just poor accounting--a failure to anticipate all the healthcare costs associated with the GWOT. Indeed, that's what the appointees at the VA would like you to think:
"We weren't on the mark from the actuarial model," Perlin testified. He
said that the department has already had to use more than $300 million from a fund that had been expected to be carried over to the fiscal 2006 budget, and that as much as $600 million for planned capital spending will have to be shifted to pay for health care.
But the shortfall has all the trappings of Bush lying and mean-spiritedness.
For starters, it's not like the VA recognized the shortfall and came to Congress to alert it of the problem. Rather, the shortfall only came out "
only during lengthy questioning of Jonathan B. Perlin, VA undersecretary for health, by House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) at a hearing yesterday" (emphasis mine). Sounds to me like the VA wasn't going to tell Congress about the shortfall, but was instead going to make up for it with some Enron-style accounting (which is what they'll do for the remainder of this year anyway).
Further, the VA had warning of the shortfall back in April, at a time when Patty Murray had proposed an amendment to the emergency supplemental to increase VA funding.
Murray aides said they obtained a draft copy of the midyear review
in early April, suggesting that the department knew of the budget
problems [then].
VA spokesman Terry Jemison refused to release a copy of the document, saying, "We
don't provide information about pre-decisional budget passback and midyear reviews."
Perhaps the VA doesn't want to release the document because it would reveal they were lying when they were lobbying against Murray's request for increased funding.
Murray cited an April 5 letter written by Nicholson to the Senate in a bid to defeat her amendment:
"I can assure you that VA does not need emergency supplemental funds in FY2005 to continue to provide timely, quality service that is always our goal," he had said.
Now consider that the GOP earlier this year played committee musical chairs to make sure they could cut back VA funding.
Veterans groups are particularly angry with Buyer, who was specially chosen by the House leadership to chair the House Veterans Affairs Committee to keep spending down. Buyer was elected to replace Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), who had alienated House leaders by pushing for high levels of spending on veterans programs.
Buyer recently sparked new controversy in an interview published by the American Legion Magazine in which he said the department should
concentrate on serving a "core constituency," and he disputed
assertions that "all veterans are veterans and all veterans should be
treated the same."
Take it all together, and you can make a pretty good case that the White House and House leaders maneuvered to shortchange the VA. And though other Republicans haven't said it yet, I don't think it'd take much to make the case with them. After all, they've been voting against funding increases (including Murray's amendment, which would have included $600 million in health care funding) based on assurances that existing VA funding was sufficient. They're going to want to blame the White House and the VA for giving them wrong information. And they've been taking a lot of heat from Veteran's groups, too.
The disclosure of the shortfall angered Senate Republicans who have been voting down Democratic proposals to boost VA programs at significant political cost. Their votes have brought the wrath of the American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and other organizations down on the GOP.
As it is, Republican stinginess over VA funding has already improved the Democrats' image among some Veterans' groups, which is bound to make it easier for GOP legislators to criticize House leadership and the White House for getting them into this mess.
Leaders of the American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans and the Disabled American Veterans all noted a striking partisan division in Congress on veterans issues, with Democrats giving them much more support than Republicans.
Traditionally, Violante said,"Republicans have been supportive of defense," but he said Bush administration policies and votes in the House and Senate suggest that the GOP does not view the care of veterans as "a continuing cost of war."
Patty Murray is already
accusing the VA of deliberately causing this mess.
"This shortfall results from either deliberate misdirection or gross incompetence by this administration and the Department of Veteran Affairs," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington.
The VA shortfall was apparent in April. Murray tried to fix the problem--which would have meant more Veterans would now be getting the care they need. But rather than let Senators fix the problem, the VA and the White House lied about funding. And Karl Rove says
Democrats are the ones that don't support the troops?
Rather than simply calling your Republican legislators and asking them to denounce Rove's comments, you might ask instead:
"Back in April, Democrats tried to ensure the VA had enough funding to provide those who have served their country with needed healthcare services. Karl Rove, the White House, and the VA lied to you to make sure this didn't happen. Knowing that, do you think Karl Rove should be lecturing Democrats about supporting the troops?"
