Why do we have to suffer because Congress didn't do their jobs?

Why do we have to suffer because Congress didn't do their jobs?
Wounded Times
Kathie Costos
October 10, 2013

My husband did his job in Vietnam much like my Dad did his in Korea. My Dad was 100% disabled and never once had to worry about not getting paid once his claim was approved. My husband and I were not so lucky because his claim took six years to have approved and yes, again, another 100% disabled veteran. They did their jobs and had to pay for it.

That last thing we thought was that we would end up suffering because Congress has not done their jobs.

How is it that it became acceptable to the American people for the Congress to refuse to work together and pass a budget?

Continuing Resolutions: The New Norm?
ABC News
By Amy Bingham
Sep 23, 2011

Unless Congress passes a continuing resolution in the next week, the federal government will shut down.

Sound familiar? It should. This is the ninth CR that Congress has had to pass this year to keep federal funds flowing to government agencies in the absence of a year-long budget. But this saga of stop-gap funding is not unique to the 112th Congress.

It had been 14 years since the House, the Senate and the president have all agreed on a bill to fund the government for an entire fiscal year. In the past 26 years, Congress and the president have agreed to a year-long budget only three times, in 1989, 1995 and 1997, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
read more here

By December 16, there was this piece of news.

The legislation, worth about $915 billion and covering the remainder of fiscal 2012, would set spending levels for the Defense Department and other federal agencies still operating under the continuing resolution. Fiscal 2012 began Oct. 1.

So what is really going on here? How much time did they play games to repeal the Affordable Care Act, take time off and then not come up with a budget that would pass the House and the Senate along with getting it signed by President Obama.

Want a Job With 239 Vacation Days? Become a Member of Congress and get paid $174,000 a year.

Compensation of Members of Congress and Related Benefits
Compensation

The most recent pay adjustment for Members of Congress was in January 2009.1 Since then, the compensation for most Senators, Representatives, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico has been $174,000.

The only exceptions include the Speaker of the House ($223,500) and the President pro tempore of the Senate and the majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate ($193,400). Additional compensation is not provided to other Members of congressional leadership or committee chairs. Article I, Section 6, of the U.S. Constitution authorizes compensation for Members of Congress “ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.” Adjustments are governed by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Members of Congress only receive salaries during the terms for which they are elected.

We shouldn't have to go through this now and we shouldn't have to worry about going through this in another month.

Plus this latest deal doesn't even open the government back up again, but they still get their paychecks and us, well, we have disabled veterans unable to work for a living because they gave their bodies and too often their souls to the country for what the congress decided needed to be done at the time. The only time we matter to those folks in Washington is when they can use us for a speech to pretend they care.

I know it is easy to blame the Republicans for this mess and it is mostly their fault but the Democrats are not off the hook either. None of them got on TV to tell the American people what was coming when they were supposed to pass a budget to avoid sequestration.

The long nightmare of the 112th Congress ends today

The long nightmare of the 112th Congress ends today
by Kathie Costos
Wounded Times Blog
January 2, 2013

If you want proof of how much mid term elections matter, this is it. This is what we got when average people didn't show up to vote. All of this can be tracked back to this 8 second announcement from Senator Mitch McConnell. "Our top priority is to deny President Obama a second term."


While some may have thought that was a great idea, they didn't bother to consider what it would cost them in terms of real life.

Those words meant the country had to suffer in order to make the President fail. Nothing was done. No budgets other than emergency ones, the list of sufferings is very long and ended the two year nightmare of our suffering last night. Not with the deal congress finally managed to get done or the fact McConnell was a huge part of it, but as of tomorrow, a new congress comes in. The long nightmare of this congress is over!

112th Congress legacy: Unfinished business
Politico
By JONATHAN ALLEN
1/2/13

"The members of the 112th Congress just hope they don’t get sworn at."

The 112th Congress came in with a bang, but it is crawling out with the soft whimper of failure.

For two years, President Barack Obama and Congress ignored virtually every other pressing matter to engage in an ideological war over the size of government and who should foot the bill for it.

They racked up more processes than policies: a blue-ribbon White House commission, Vice President Joe Biden’s working group, bilateral talks between Obama and Speaker John Boehner, a “supercommittee,” a “Gang of Six” that became a “Gang of Eight” and, finally, Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) coming to a deal that leaves open as many politically thorny issues as it solves.

They didn’t even hit their deadline. The Senate voted two hours past the zero mark of midnight on New Year’s morning, and House Republicans spent most of Tuesday wrangling with each other over whether and how to move forward — with a final late-night vote that passed the Senate bill on the strength of a majority of House Democrats and a minority of House Republicans. Their uncertainty was a stark reminder of how fractious the House majority has been over the past two years. After all, the bill had just passed the Senate with all but five Republicans supporting it.
read more here

The article from Politico points out all the massive failures this congress still managed to get paychecks for. The average people I talk to are very patriotic because they are either military families or care about them.

"The members of the 112th Congress just hope they don’t get sworn at."

Too late for that because while they were playing political games trying to take President Obama down, that is exactly what we've been doing.

We have been watching this country fall apart but we've also been watching families fall apart while congress just kept spending money, holding hearings, pretending they really cared about the military suicides and attempted suicides. This wasn't just about the active duty forces, but National Guards, Reservists and yes, veterans.

The most disgraceful thing of all is these men and women were will to die for the sake of others yet the 112th congress was not willing to work together to save their lives. Political games in Washington is nothing new, but they've been playing politics instead of holding people accountable for the failures in the DOD and the VA. When they kept funding the same programs that failed, we should have been asking who was being protected against the results.

They got away with all the "preventative" steps to make the armed forces "resilient" and prevent PTSD when the reality is, they just prevented and prolonged healing. They were not help accountable but everything the troops did, they were held accountable for. Discharged for drinking and being overweight but no one was held accountable for what was the cause of these things. PTSD has a lot to do with both in too many cases. If you read this blog then you know how much they have all suffered.

When will people ever learn that all elections matter and holding them accountable for what they do afterwards should matter even more?

Who is investigating Congress?

Who is investigating Congress?
by Kathie Costos
Wounded Times Blog
May 14, 2013

AP blasts feds for phone records search but it was done legally with subpoenas and in the category of National Security, much like Congress had no problems with when so many surveillance tactics were going on in the Bush administration. Now it appears Congress is suddenly appalled.

There is a fight over Benghazi talking points that has been going on in Congress as if they had no role in any of it considering they cut funding for security for embassies. There have already been more hearings on Benghazi than they had after 9-11 and that is pretty disgusting. Remember the families that were left behind after almost 3,000 people were killed and every defense this nation had all failed actually had to force congress to ask how it all happened?

The IRS targeted conservative groups and again much like what went on before but not for the reasons you'd think. Groups say they intend to do one thing but end up doing something else. We all hit the roof when we heard "church" people crossing the line into politics. I bet if reporters really wanted to uncover the truth they'd take a look at every election and see the same thing going on that had nothing to do with political sides but was about holding non-profits accountable to the other tax payers in this country. That is if they felt like really investigating.

All this matters but most of us are wondering how much these stories really matter to us. Where are our lives in any of these reports? Where are the jobs Speaker of the House John Boehner used to whine about during the election? Guess he figured they really don't matter. Or is a matter of he had no intention of doing something for us for real? What about healthcare and the "Obamacare" he is hell bent on ending instead of fixing? Does he think it is ok for us to not be able to go to a doctor when we are sick?

Then we had sequestration and the massive cuts. When the cuts effected the lives of Congress they acted fast to fix it. Remember the issues at the airports? Sure they fixed that but didn't manage to make sure old people had meals to eat and poor people were able to get cancer treatments. Members of Congress love to say how much they love the troops but when these cuts hit them and their families, well, sorry folks but they don't have time to do anything for military families.

This was the top story on CNN

Why? Because it is a celebrity or because breast cancer matters to a lot of women? I think it is a combination of both. CNN must have known this story would matter more than the rest of the stuff going on.

So why not the stories that do matter to all of us? What about tell us the truth on them? What about investigations into what Congress has not been doing? What about investigating what they have not been holding hearings on?

Do you know Congress has not held one hearing on the massive amounts of money being spent every year on "suicide prevention" in the military? No hearings on the ever growing number of charities popping up raising enormous sums of money while veteran suicides and military suicides have gone up. No hearings on what the Department of Defense spends along with the VA, National Institute of Mental Health, Department of Health and Human Services any more than they investigate who should be held accountable.

This is why I am an Independent. I've seen too much nonsense coming out of both sides while people suffer. Congress has a responsibility to all tax payers since the American people pay their salaries. Who is holding hearings on what Congress does? Who is holding them accountable? It isn't the people in their districts, that is for sure. There are too many people putting the "D" or "R" as the only reason they vote. Maybe if things suck enough for them they will start making sure they hold the people they do vote for accountable but I doubt it.

Saying "no" or calling for something to be ended is not the solution and it is doubtful they have any answers other than playing political games. They should ask questions and get answers but when the answer is the truth, they shouldn't keep asking until they get the answer they want to hear. They should find out what kind of shenanigans the IRS has been up to just as much as they should make sure Associated Press was investigated legally. The truth is someone needs to be investigating members of congress at this point because the rest of us are paying for what they have failed to do and reporters haven't been too interesting in doing the jobs they used to do.

We're all screwed!

Will Congress Notice Neglect of Veterans Began With Congress

Neglect of Veterans Began With Congress!
Wounded Times
Kathie Costos
November 29, 2015

"Gus Bilirakis represents Florida's 12th congressional district" wants to hold the VA accountable. Sounds good however veterans are wondering when members of Congress will hold themselves accountable in the first place. It isn't as if he hasn't known about all these problems.

He heard them just last year. Veterans tell Bilirakis about heath care complaints

Holding the VA accountable
Washington Examiner
By GUS BILIRAKIS
11/28/15

Our veterans have bravely fought for our country. They have sacrificed so much for the freedoms we enjoy on a daily basis, and I am forever grateful for their service.

As vice chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have the privilege to work with my colleagues in the House to serve our nation's heroes. This is not a job I take lightly. This is my top priority – to ensure our veterans receive the support and care they deserve.

Unfortunately, as the committee has seen firsthand through many reports, hearings and meetings, our veterans often face unnecessary barriers when it comes to accessing quality care.

Earlier this year, a Department of Veterans Affairs Inspector General report found "serious" problems with enrollment data for veterans seeking healthcare. The VA's inspector general confirmed that nearly 900,000 military veterans have officially pending applications for healthcare. Of those 900,000, an estimated 307,000 veterans listed died before their applications for care were processed.
read more here

Why not mention that a VA Claim does not go away until the veteran gives up? They can keep a claim in appeals for as long as they have the will to fight in them. Even when they pass away, the family can keep the claim in the system. Justice for veterans does not end when their lives do.

Why not mention the simple fact that veterans have been living on a rollercoaster of claims going way up over and over again as the line gets longer? While we're on the subject, how about mentioning the fact that Congress approved of the VA paying contractors to process claims as well as provide substandard care members of Congress always blame the VA employees for?
Not that he hadn't heard about all these problems going back to when he was first elected.

Congressman Gus M. Bilirakis is a Republican from Palm Harbor, representing Florida’s 12th Congressional District, which includes all of Pasco and northern parts of Pinellas and Hillsborough counties. He was first elected to Congress on November 7, 2006, and is currently serving his fifth term in the United States House of Representatives.

But this part sums it all up!

Vice-Chairman, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Health: Legislative, oversight, and investigative jurisdiction over the Veterans Health Administration, including medical services, medical support and compliance, medical facilities, medical and prosthetic research, and major and minor construction.

Bilirakis wrote,

They are depending on us to ensure the commitments made to them are upheld, as they have honored their commitment through service and sacrifice.

And he's right on that but what he is wrong about is the fact they blame members of Congress since they have jurisdiction over the VA. They heard all the speeches, read all the claims members have made since 1946 and they are fed up. Tied of promises delivered over and over again only to discover their pockets have been picked as they are pushed to the back of the line past sessions of Congress promised to fix.

Here's a few links to what they already know.

VA is buried in a backlog of never-ending veterans disability appeals

History Repeated on Veterans Waiting for the VA and Congress!

Veterans Crisis Proves the Devil is in the Details

Daily Show Jon Stewart credited for clueing in Congress?

Congress had 68 years to fix the VA

Wounded Times
Kathie Costos
July 26, 2014

The House Veterans Affairs Committee was first seated in 1946. Among their duties was to ensure our veterans had whatever they needed to recover after putting their lives on the line for this entire nation. 68 years later members of Congress accepted no responsibility for what happened to veterans.

Representatives and Senators want to pretend everything they have been hearing about veterans issues are all news to them. How dumb do they think we are? We know veterans have been calling their offices, reporters have been covering the news in their districts and we also know they have been getting an earful during their campaign stops to get support for their political life.

It has been their job to know and fix it.

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives was authorized by enactment of Public Law 601, 79th Congress, which was entitled "Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946." Section 121(a) of this Act provides: "there shall be elected by the House at the commencement of each Congress the following standing committees": Nineteen Committees are listed and No. 18 quotes: "Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to consist of 27 Members." This Act has since been amended so that there are now 22 Standing Committees in the House of Representatives. The number of Members (Representatives) authorized to serve on each Committee has been changed from time to time. There are currently 29 members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is the authorizing Committee for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Committee recommends legislation expanding, curtailing, or fine-tuning existing laws relating to veterans' benefits. The Committee also has oversight responsibility, which means monitoring and evaluating the operations of the VA. If the Committee finds the that VA is not administering laws as Congress intended, then it is "corrected" through the hearing process and legislation. We are the voice of Congress for veterans in dealings with the VA.

You read the details on Congressional VA failures on Wounded Times all the time but they are so detached from reality they may actually believe they have gotten away with it. Last night on The Rachel Maddow Show it was made very clear too many of these people, elected to do their jobs, just show up to get a paycheck and free healthcare.

RACHEL MADDOW 07/25/14 Will do-nothing Congress do nothing on VA?

Senator Bernie Sanders, chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, talks with Rachel Maddow about whether this Congress, arguably the worst Congress ever, has the ability to pass a badly-needed bill addressing the needs of veterans and the V.A.

Bernie Sanders, Chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee is right about treating veterans should always be considered a price associated with what it costs to send troops into combat. So how is it that members of Congress have been able to get away with whining about not having enough money in the budget to take care of our veterans? How is it they think the other part of their job, in control over what the VA doesn't do as much as what they do do, is not their responsibility?

They got away with it because no matter how much our veterans are loved in this country, voters are no longer interested in the best and brightest serving them. They are no longer interested in voting on the issues. What is worse about most of us is the fact we hold none of them accountable for anything they fail to do.

This country is in deep trouble but the one obligation we have, no matter what part of the country we live in, is to take care of our veterans. They risk their lives, put up with extreme hardships in our name and suffer for the rest of their lives after being wounded or disabled. Widows and orphans mourn the loss of someone they love and then have to face needing this nation to step up for their sake.

They do all of this with political ideals in the proper ranking far behind what their buddy needs up to and including them to take a bullet to save their lives. Members of our congress are too cowardly to take on their own party for the sake of veterans and stand up for them.

That is the biggest shame of all. If they fail veterans, what else are they willing to sacrifice for some political game?

Romney lied to veterans again

First lie is that CONGRESS DID IT no matter what President Obama wanted. As Obama opened the door to more veterans being able to file claims the congress did not come up with the funds to hire enough workers to do it. Now Congress is demanding answers? They are right to question the spending on conventions but how about someone in congress demand answers from the Veterans Affairs committee and how all of this got so bad for veterans when they were supposed to be taking care of them AND ACTUALLY DOING THEIR JOBS?

Second is that Congress is the BANK ACCOUNT HOLDER so it is up to them to come up with the money and figure out who gets stuck with the bill. How Obama managed to do anything is shocking when you consider that members of congress said getting him out of office was their number one job in 2010.

Next lie is more of an omission. Romney and Ryan want to cut everything the troops and our veterans not only need, but already paid for when they served risking their lives.

All of the massive failures on veterans' issues are directly tied to CONGRESS! Romney wants to make it all worse with the full support of his group in congress!

Romney Says Obama Has Failed Veterans
Aug 30, 2012
Military.com
by Mike Hoffman

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told service members and veterans he would not raise their TRICARE medical insurance fees among other campaign promises in a speech Wednesday to the American Legion National Convention.

Pentagon leaders over multiple presidential administrations have proposed raising TRICARE fees in order to prevent personnel costs from overtaking the Defense Department's annual budget. Congress has repeatedly rejected the proposal.

Romney said as commander-in-chief he would not allow such a proposal to reach Congress.

"I will not ask our war time military to shoulder sacrifices while the rest of government grows," Romney said. "I will not ask our service members, active and retired, to pay more for their health care to free up room for Obamacare."

The Pentagon's efforts to raise TRICARE fees predate the Obama administration and the Affordable Health Care Act, but Romney's remark drew applause from the Legionnaires.

The Republican nominee addressed the convention a day before his speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. Romney's speech was a rare opportunity for the presidential candidate to speak about military issues as the economy has dominated the campaign.
read more here

Here's a thought. This is what the House Oversight Committee is supposed to do.

Oversight Committee Mission Statement

We exist to secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent. And second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect these rights.

Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. We will work tirelessly, in partnership with citizen-watchdogs, to deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy.

This is the mission of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Bush threatens to veto veterans again!

Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report

Administration News White House Threatens To Veto $118.7B Military Construction-Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill
[Jul 31, 2008]
The White House on Wednesday said that President Bush will veto a $118.7 billion fiscal year 2009 Military Construction-Veterans Affairs appropriations bill (HR 6599) unless Congress finds $2.9 billion in offsets in other appropriations bills to meet the overall spending level he requested, CQ Today reports. In addition, in the event that Congress cannot find the offsets, Bush might veto the other 11 appropriations bills, the White House said. The Military Construction-VA appropriations bill includes $72.2 billion in discretionary spending, an $8.8 billion increase from FY 2008 and $3.4 billion more than President Bush requested (Johnson, CQ Today, 7/30). The bill would provide VA with $47.7 billion in discretionary spending. Under the legislation, VA would receive a $4.6 billion increase in discretionary spending from FY 2008 and $2.9 billion more than Bush requested.

The White House Office of Management and Budget in a letter said, "If Congress determines that additional resources above the president's request are needed, Congress must provide reductions in other appropriations bills to offset this increase and meet the president's top line (discretionary spending cap) of $991.6 billion," adding, "If Congress ... does not offset this increase with spending reductions in other bills, the president will veto any of the other bills that exceed his request until Congress demonstrates a path to reach the president's top line." According to the letter, the current spending level for VA is "104% above the level when the president took office" and "provides ample resources to ensure veterans receive the quality care they deserve" (Sanchez, CongressDaily, 7/30).

Comments
House Appropriations Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Subcommittee Chair Chet Edwards (D-Texas) 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. I believe our veterans, military families and the American family will be as offended by this veto threat as I am" (CQ Today, 7/30).

A Democratic aide to the House Appropriations Committee said, "This Congress is dedicated to meeting the needs of our nation's veterans, no matter the political maneuvering of a callous president," adding, "Veterans are not political bargaining chips" (CongressDaily, 7/30).
go here for more
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=53627


UPDATE 8/1/08

This was on the Huffington Post claiming Bush did not threaten Veto on this. Your guess is as good as mine.

House set to pass budget bill today before recess

ANDREW TAYLOR August 1, 2008 07:41 AM EST

Compare other versions »
Compare 07:41 AM EST07:40 AM EST07:36 AM EST and 07:41 AM EST07:40 AM EST07:36 AM EST versions

WASHINGTON — The House took up its first spending bill Thursday after weeks of delays that have left efforts to pass next year's Cabinet budgets in shambles. The bill is slated to pass on Friday as the House leaves Washington for a five-week recess.

The measure _ one of just a handful that may become law before Congress adjourns for elections _ awards generous increases for veterans medical care and military base construction and base closures. It is easily the most bipartisan of the 12 annual appropriations bills since it funds politically sacred veterans accounts, despite exceeding President Bush's already generous budget increase for veterans and military construction by $3.4 billion.

The measure calls for increasing spending on Veterans Administration health programs by $3.1 billion over current levels, some 9 percent. A $1.8 billion increase for military base construction is 20 percent above current levels. There's also a $2 billion increase in base closure accounts for items such as improving conditions at bases slated for troop increases and assisting states and localities in preparing closed bases for economic development projects and other uses.

Despite the increases, the White House has not threatened a veto, even though Bush has taken pride in clamping down on domestic spending accounts funded by Congress each year and generally has promised to veto bills that exceed his request.
go here for more
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080801/congress-spending/

The question is, when do we actually prove we are a grateful nation?

This morning I got into an email exchange with Rick Stacy over at 105.9 FM. I listen to his show everyday and he never fails to make me laugh. He's the type of guy who can insult you and you end up hugging him for it. That is, other than this morning when he was talking about POTUS extending the privatization of veterans healthcare like it was a good thing.

Ok, I'm sure you know that made my head explode! I tried to call the station but they didn't answer the call. I collected my senses, sort of, and let my blood pressure almost go back to normal, before I fired off an email.

I didn't expect and answer, but he answered it when he was off the air. It took a couple of tries but he understood what I was trying to say and I understood where he got his information from. I told him I still think he's smart and a couple of other things and have no regrets being a daily listener.

I'm sure you can see this got to me but not for the reasons you think. I know he cares about our troops and our veterans. So why would he think treating veterans like civilians was acceptable? Why would he think that sending veterans into the same mess the rest of us deal with was worthy of their service?

This is the thing that gets to me all the time. Folks seem to think this is the best this country can do for our veterans? Seriously?

So why do we have a Congress? Why did they want to serve on the House Veterans Affairs Committee and produce these disgusting results? Yet, we the people, electing these yahoos simply let them pull off this crap all the time.

They show up at the DAV, VFW and American Legion conventions, make their speeches while begging for votes instead of begging for forgiveness? 

Revolutionary WarThe next morning on June 20, the State House was mobbed by as many as 400 soldiers demanding payment. The soldiers blocked the door and initially refused to allow the delegates to leave. Alexander Hamilton, then a delegate from New York, persuaded the soldiers to allow Congress to meet later to address their concerns. The soldiers did allow the members of Congress to peacefully adjourn that afternoon.^[3] That evening, a small Congressional committee, headed by Hamilton, met in secret to draft a message to the Pennsylvania Council, asking them to protect Congress from the mutineers. The letter threatened that Congress would be forced to move elsewhere if the Council did not act.^[2]

Civil WarIt wouldn’t be until the Acts of 1818 and 1832 that full remediation of pensions would take place. Fraudulent claims abused the provisions of these Acts as enough time had elapsed to make it difficult to prove (or disprove) that a claimant had qualifying service.The Civil War wasn’t much better. Confederate soldiers had to rely on state-level pensions, while Union soldiers didn’t get much better treatment from the federal government. It wasn’t until the 20th Century that many of the pensions were paid to Civil War veterans and their widows.

WWIAs many as 20,000 former soldiers and their families had converged on Washington in the summer of 1932, the height of the Great Depression, to support Texas Congressman Wright Patman’s bill to advance the bonus payment promised to World War I veterans. Congress had authorized the plan in 1924, intending to compensate the veterans for wages lost while serving in the military during the war. But payment was to be deferred until 1945. Just one year earlier, in 1931, Congress overrode a presidential veto on a bill to provide, as loans, half the amount due to the men. When the nation’s economy worsened, the half-bonus loans were not enough, and the unemployed veterans now sought the balance in cash. Known as Bonus Marchers, they came in desperation from all across the nation, hopping freight trains, driving dilapidated jalopies or hitchhiking, intent on pressuring Congress to pass the legislation. The administration vehemently opposed the measure, believing it inflationary and impractical given the $2 billion annual budget deficit.

Getting the idea, you can look up more of the stuff Congress forgot to put on their "to do list" after they sent men and women to fight the country's battles.

Congress had been given the jurisdiction over all of it back in 1946 when the first Veterans Affairs Committee was putting their butts in their chairs and have been sitting on that awesome responsibility ever since.

Jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

1. Veterans' measures generally.
2. Pensions of all the wars of the U.S., general and special.
3. Life insurance issued by the government on account of service in the Armed Forces.
4. Compensation, vocational rehabilitation, and education of veterans.
5. Veterans' hospitals, medical care, and treatment of veterans.
6. Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief.
7. Readjustment of servicemen to civilian life.
8. National Cemeteries.

But why would they want to actually do their jobs? Why would any of us actually demand accountability from any of them? Why would we when the press fails to even mention any of the history military families have been dealing with since the Patriots were not just fighting off the best military in the world but had to hide from their fellow citizens wanting to keep things just they way they were?

Easy, because if you are not part of a military family, it is all too easy to forget these men and women are willing to pay any price for defending this nation and dying for each other but the one price they should never, ever, have to pay is our finding any of this acceptable.

The question is, when do we actually prove we are a grateful nation?

Tell congress to cut their own benefits before they go after veterans

by one angry chaplain right now
Chaplain Kathie

Americans have always made it part of national voice to honor the men and women serving this country. Talk is cheap when it comes to politicians even thinking about cutting funds to veterans after they have served. When they risk their lives for this country, that is a debt we owe them. If the wars they are sent to fight are important enough to ask them to go, then we owe them for whatever happens to them afterwards. If they get hurt/wounded on the job, they would expect nothing less from a civilian employer and Workman's Comp. Since when did any elected official decide that what we owe them is fair game in a budget battle?

We've been behind for decades on fully funding the VA to take care of all the wounded veterans. A lot has been done in the last few years and now these people are talking about cutting funding for them. The reason is clear. Serving in the military does not matter as much to these politicians as their own lives.

Do they ever say they should do without healthcare funded by tax payers when we have too much debt? Do they even talk about the fact US tax payers cover their medical insurance? Do they ever say that their paychecks should be cut?

Salaries and Benefits of US Congress Members

A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it.

Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400

House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400
The current salary (2011) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.

Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation.

Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.
read more here

Salaries and Benefits of US Congress Members

Do they feel like their own budgets should be cut or they should go after retired members because there is a budget mess they had a hand in creating in the first place? No, they feel their service was valuable and they were promised their packages when they decided to give lip service instead of risking their lives. Veterans on the other hand are fair game. The debt congress owes them is subject to debate but their own benefits are sacred.

Take a look at what servicemen and women make.

Military Factory.com

1) Basic pay for an O-7 to O-10 is limited by Level II of the Executive Schedule which is $14,975.10. Basic pay for O-6 and below is limited by Level V of the Executive Schedule which is $12,141.60.

2) While serving as Chairman, Joint Chief/Vice Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff, Chief of Navy Operations, Commandant of the Marine Corps, Army/Air Force Chief of Staff, Commander of a unified or specified combatant command, basic pay is $20,263.50. (See note 1 above).

3) Applicable to O-1 to O-3 with at least 4 years and 1 day of active duty or more than 1460 points as a warrant and/or enlisted member. See Department of Defense Financial Management Regulations for more detailed explanation on who is eligible for this special basic pay rate.

4) For the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Sergeant Major of the Army or Marine Corps or Senior Enlisted Advisor of the JCS, basic pay is $7,489.80. Combat Zone Tax Exclusion for O-1 and above is based on this basic pay rate plus Hostile Fire Pay/Imminent Danger Pay which is $225.00.

5) Applicable to E-1 with 4 months or more active duty. Basic pay for an E-1 with less than 4 months of active duty is $1,357.20.

6) Basic pay rate for Academy Cadets/Midshipmen and ROTC members/applicants is $974.40.

As you can see they make a lot less than members of congress but they put their bodies on the line instead of their next campaign to keep their "important" jobs for the country.

According to the VA the compensation rate for disabled veterans, the ones they want to cut, the ones injured serving the country, is

For a veteran alone
10% $123.00
20% $243.00
30% $376.00
40% $541.00
50% $770.00
60% $974.00
70% $1,228.00
80% $1,427.00
90% $1,604.00
100% $2,673.00

Considering that when a veteran reaches the point of 70%, they are usually unable to work, so this is what they have to live off of. Food, rent or mortgages, clothing, utilities, transportation and every other bill we all have to pay are paid by disabled veterans.

But with all of this there are members of congress saying veterans should never be fair game and they are willing to put up a fight.

Pryor tells vets all will be hit by U.S. budget cuts

By the Voice Staff
Thursday, March 3, 2011 10:12 AM CST

The federal budget needs to be balanced and the deficit reduced, but not at the expense of the nation’s active-duty soldiers and veterans, U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor said Friday. He made the remarks at a meeting of the Arkansas Veterans Coalition at the Sherwood VFW Hall.

“The national debt is beyond politics,” he said. “We need to work together to work through this.”

The problem is so severe, he said, that it won’t be possible to balance the budget for a decade, providing Congress acts now. And, he said, that’s just to balance the budget. Paying off the national debt will be another story.

To accomplish a balanced budget, he said, “everything is going to get a cut.”

However, he said, he planned to fight to maintain funding for military and veterans programs. “I’ll be fighting for you all,” he said.
read more here
Pryor tells vets all will be hit by U.S. budget cuts

We've read over and over again that the country is in trouble financially but we have been before and we didn't get here overnight. Most of the people suddenly whining about the debt were responsible for creating it. Most of them were sticking their fingers in their ears when wiser voices were saying invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do. They held their hands over their eyes when the wounded were coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan so they wouldn't have to look at them waiting in long lines at the VA without incomes because no one planed for them. At the same time they cupped their hands around their mouths to shout the words "support the troops" they whispered they were not worth the price when they came home. Now we have proof they are not as valuable as members of congress think their own service is.

Would they like it if they arrived in congress and discovered they would not be paid the way they were promised? Would they like it if they were told they would have to pay their own insurance? What about finding out that after years of service their retirement package was gone? Do they ever consider what it would be like for them to risk their lives on a daily basis, get wounded on the job and then be left to take care of themselves without what they were promised? Would they be willing to wait months or years to have a claim honored and have their wounds taken care of? Would they be willing to wait months for an appointment at the VA?

Where is your congressman/woman in this fight? Are they saying their own service to the people in their area is worth more than a soldier serving the entire nation risking his/her life on a daily basis? Are they saying that the debt we owe veterans is less worthy of honoring than the debt they feel they owe retired politicians? Is their healthcare coverage worth more than taking care of veterans wounded fighting the wars they sent them to fight?

VA leaders promised us reform, and never delivered

Veterans for Common Sense was supposed to be heard but the hearing has been moved to April. After all, the Gulf War veterans, along with all other veterans have waited all this time for congress to really honor them, what's a couple of months more?

Paul Sullivan, Veterans For Common Sense

February 25, 2010 - Veterans for Common Sense thanks Chairman Mitchell, Ranking Member Roe, and members of the Subcommittee for inviting us to testify today.



I am here wearing two hats.



I am here representing Veterans for Common Sense, a non-profit advocacy organization. VCS is here in a spirit of cooperation to offer our seasoned advice for improving VA policies for our nation’s 700,000 Gulf War veterans.



I am also here as a Gulf War veteran who remains ill due to wartime toxic exposures. I have worked on this issue since my return from Desert Storm. Veterans want to know why we are ill, how we can get treatment, and who will pay for our treatment.



Today, VCS presents our written list of 16 detailed policy goals to Congress for specific actions by Congress and the Obama Administration. We ask for our full written statement to be made part of the record.



Our goals are well thought-out and reasonable.



Most of our goals ask VA to do what Congress already ordered VA to do many years ago.



We would also like to thank VA Secretary Eric Shinseki for naming Gulf War veteran and VA Chief of Staff John Gingrich to lead VA’s new Gulf War Task Force.



We look forward to seeing the details of the Task Force report. We have not seen it. At this point, we have more questions than answers.



Mr. Chairman, Gulf War veterans are through with empty gestures from VA for the past 19 years.



Repeatedly during the 1990s, VA leaders promised us reform, and never delivered. In 2002, VA Deputy Secretary Leo MacKay apologized for VA’s shameful treatment of Gulf War veterans and promised reform.



However, behind the scenes, from 1991 through the present, VA bureaucrats scuttled our chances for healthcare and benefits. VCS asks VA to use objective and qualified staff for any new VA effort to assist us.



Let us be clear about today’s expectations: We are willing to work with VA and immediately begin implementing pragmatic solutions.



Here are our nine questions for VA:



1. Will VA Secretary Eric Shinseki publicly confirm that 25 percent of our Gulf War veterans – as many as 175,000 – still suffer from chronic multisymptom illness likely due to toxic exposures? Will the Secretary hold accountable those who blocked or disparaged research, treatment, and benefits?



2. Will VA amend Presidential Review Directive 5? Will our government declare Gulf War illness is a serious public health issue and a long-term cost of war worthy of prompt and high-quality research, treatment, and benefits?



3. Will VA name a specific leader and will VA publicize a timeline for the full implementation of all VA Gulf War Task Force goals?



4. Will Congress fund, and will VA create, a centralized VA office for Gulf War veterans to coordinate implementation of VA policy, training, research, benefits, and outreach?



5. Will Congress fund, and will VA create, a Gulf War advocacy panel?



6. Will Congress act to help VA restore Dr. Robert Haley’s vital research, mandated by Congress, at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center? In a related matter, when will VA investigate the handful of VA employees that VA’s IG concluded had undermined Dr. Haley’s important research? When will VA responded to our FOIA requests about those VA employees?



7. Will Congress urge VA officials to order the use of newer, more sensitive depleted uranium exposure tests as recommended by the Institute of Medicine and sought by Dr. Randall Parrish and by Dr. Haley? Will VA expand the population of veterans participating in DU research sought by Dr. Haley and IOM? If VA does not use the Best Available Current Technology, then VA stands accused of intentionally undermining scientific research and harming veterans.



8. Will VA retrain all VHA medical professionals about the harmful impact of toxic exposures on our veterans? Similarly, will VA retrain all VBA staff about the intent and application of Gulf War benefit laws?



9. Will VBA pay retroactive benefits to the 15,000 Gulf War veterans improperly denied benefits by VBA in 2001 for Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue, and Irritable Bowel Syndrome? VBA leaders may have broken the law by failing to advise veterans about these benefits; the loss of benefits also means the veterans may have been improperly denied essential medical care.



Gulf War veterans should not have to continue waiting for VA to act. We are tired of what we call “death by bureaucracy,” where we wait endlessly for research, treatment, and benefits.



After nearly 20 years of delays and denials, today represents a rare opportunity for VA leaders to implement a set of reasonable, progressive, and pragmatic policies that address our needs for research, treatment, and benefits. Our veterans are dying, the time for delays is over, and the time for action is now.



America’s veterans are watching this hearing. They want Congress to press VA leaders to help Gulf War veterans and quickly address two more new emerging public health concerns: Iraq’s toxic burn pits and Camp Lejeune’s poisoned water.



We strongly urge Congress to demand action from VA to address our concerns today. We also thank Chairman Filner for his outstanding leadership and advocacy since 1993.



Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It Doesn't Matter Unless Veterans Really Matter

Why It Matters written by Matthew Daily of Associated Press had this part that is very important.

THE ISSUE: There are an estimated 21.6 million veterans in the United States. Among them, nearly 9 million are enrolled in health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. About 4.3 million veterans get disability compensation from the VA and nearly 900,000 have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

A 2014 law signed by President Barack Obama aimed to alleviate delays many veterans faced in getting treatment at VA hospitals and clinics and end the widespread practice of fake wait lists that covered up long waits for veterans seeking health care. Two years later, many of the problems remain.

But the problem is, none of this is new and since we live with it every day, every year, we know the struggles do not belong to who sits in the Oval Office. Every issue veterans and families face belong to Congress. The President sets, or is supposed to set, the direction the country needs to go in. The Congress has the obligation to fulfill their end of the deal, but they don't.

Congress has had since 1946 to find a way to take care of veterans. Think about that for a second. Then add in the simple fact that no wound is new. They declared two wars when there was already a line of older veterans waiting to be cared for in return for what their service did to them. Congress did not come close to honoring those they sent.

Want proof? Ok, here is what the House Veterans Affairs Committee had been in charge of since 1946.

House Veterans Affairs Committee
History And Jurisdiction
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives was authorized by enactment of Public Law 601, 79th Congress, which was entitled "Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946." Section 121(a) of this Act provides: "there shall be elected by the House at the commencement of each Congress the following standing committees": Nineteen Committees are listed and No. 18 quotes: "Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to consist of 27 Members." This Act has since been amended so that there are now 22 Standing Committees in the House of Representatives. The number of Members (Representatives) authorized to serve on each Committee has been changed from time to time. There are currently 29 members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is the authorizing Committee for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Committee recommends legislation expanding, curtailing, or fine-tuning existing laws relating to veterans' benefits. The Committee also has oversight responsibility, which means monitoring and evaluating the operations of the VA. If the Committee finds the that VA is not administering laws as Congress intended, then it is "corrected" through the hearing process and legislation. We are the voice of Congress for veterans in dealings with the VA.

Legislation Within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
Veterans' measures generally.
Pensions of all the wars of the U.S., general and special.
Life insurance issued by the government on account of service in the Armed Forces.
Compensation, vocational rehabilitation, and education of veterans.
Veterans' hospitals, medical care, and treatment of veterans.
Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief.
Readjustment of servicemen to civilian life.
National Cemeteries
Complete Jurisdiction of the Committee

The Department of Veterans Affairs
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was established March 15, 1989, with Cabinet rank, succeeding the Veterans Administration and assuming responsibility for providing federal benefits to veterans and their dependents. Led by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, VA is the second largest of the 14 Cabinet departments and operates nationwide programs of health care assistance services and national cemeteries.

Care for veterans and dependents spans centuries. The last dependent of a Revolutionary War veteran died in 1911, the War of 1812's last dependent died 44 years ago, the Spanish American War's, in 1962. There are widows and children of Civil War and Indian War veterans who still draw VA benefits. Some 2,190 children and widows of Spanish-American War veterans are receiving VA compensation or pension benefits. The last American Doughboy, Corporal Frank Buckles, passed away on February 27, 2011. His passing signified the passing of the last of the World War I veterans.

As long as we are avoiding the fact that members of Congress have ditched their duty, it really doesn't matter who ends up in the chair. Veterans will continue to be failed by the same people who created their wounds in the first place. It has been going on for decades. Look up the voting record of the people you sent to do their jobs in Washington and then ask them why they didn't take care of those who went to war to do their jobs.

When you're done with that, ask them how much more money they plan on spending while veterans keep committing suicide after they survived those wars and came home to the mess Congress created. The reported number is the same as it was back in 1999 but there are about 5 million less veterans now.

Congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government three years in

Congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government three years in
Wounded Times
Kathie Costos
October 12, 2013

Like most Americans I woke up this morning, did my normal routine but on this 12th day of the government shutdown, it made more sense to just go back to bed and pull the covers over my head especially after turning on the news. Astonishing as it is, it seems as if every reporter has forgotten that this shutdown came after sequestration.

From The White House

Due to Congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government, the information on this web site may not be up to date. Some submissions may not be processed, and we may not be able to respond to your inquiries.

What Is the Sequester? Why Now?

In the last few years, President Obama and both parties in Congress have worked together to reduce our deficit by more than $2.5 trillion through a combination of spending cuts and increased tax rates.

In 2011, Congress passed a law saying that if they couldn’t agree on a plan to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion — including the $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction lawmakers in both parties have already accomplished over the last few years — about $1 trillion in automatic, arbitrary and across the board budget cuts would start to take effect in 2013.

“The whole design of these arbitrary cuts was to make them so unattractive and unappealing that Democrats and Republicans would actually get together and find a good compromise of sensible cuts as well as closing tax loopholes and so forth. And so this was all designed to say we can't do these bad cuts; let’s do something smarter. That was the whole point of this so-called sequestration." —PRESIDENT OBAMA

Unfortunately, Congress hasn’t compromised, and as a consequence, harmful cuts — known as the sequester — begin March 1.

These cuts will jeopardize our military readiness and eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research, and don’t take into account whether they eliminate some bloated program that has outlived its usefulness, or cut a vital service that Americans depend on every single day.

The Congress had plenty of time to actually prevent this. They had plenty of time to fix it and make it right for the people they just hurt. That wasn't good enough for them. Instead of apologizing to the American people for not doing their jobs, they demanded more suffering from us.

Poll: Just 25 Percent Think Their Own Member Of Congress Deserves Reelection
Huffington Post
Emily Swanson
October 11, 2013

Only one-quarter of Americans think that their own member of Congress should be reelected, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. That's a sharp departure from similar polls conducted before the government shutdown.

In the new survey, 25 percent of respondents said they believe the member of Congress from their district deserves to be reelected, while 47 percent said they did not. Another 27 percent said they weren't sure.

In a Gallup poll conducted last November, 59 percent said their own representative deserved reelection, while only 30 percent said he or she did not. Since Gallup began tracking the question in 1991, the percentage of Americans saying their own representative didn't deserve another term has never been higher than 40 percent.
read more here

These people were elected by their districts but they are paid by the federal government, in other words, by the tax payers of the whole country. That is the way our democracy works. It doesn't matter if we agree with them or not, we pay them to do a job. It is their job to represent the people they got the votes from but it is also their job to work with the others also elected to do a job for their districts. It is not supposed to be about working to defeat the President or the agenda he laid out and won an election by the majority of the whole nation. He is the only one that has been elected that way.

When he was elected the first time, Republican members of House and Senate said their job was to defeat him. Didn't matter what it would do to the American people. We were not their priority.
The only way for that to happen was if they destroyed the nation. They did but the American people were smarter and voted for Obama again. His agenda won and their agenda failed.

So now we watch the country being destroyed by people elected to take care of the whole nation so hell bent on "getting re-elected" they made sure the country no longer functioned. Everyone gets hurt by this. What makes it worse is the military and our veterans, the very people that managed to work together to stay alive in combat for the sake of one another, are the first to suffer.

It isn't just about being paid for what their service to the nation cost them in terms of wounds and disabilities. It isn't about the hardships they all faced so they could be sent into combat or the fact their families faced hardships as well. It is about the fact members of congress did not put the nation first and let it all go to hell because a few members thought they won something. The something they thought they won was destroying every branch of the government no matter who got hurt in the end.

First they said it was about ending Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, that finally tried to do something about letting us live a better quality of life because more were able to go to a doctor. They didn't try to fix it. They just wanted it gone. The voters said they wanted it and re-elected Obama.

Members of congress then kept telling us how we were against it. Ok, then did they notice there was an election where the majority said they agreed with it?

That wasn't good enough so the House kept holding votes on ending it. They didn't get their own way over 40 times later when they were not doing their jobs on everything else.

Then came sequestration because they couldn't pass a budget for the rest of the country.

Still not good enough for them, they wanted more cuts and ending ACA that was passed by the House and the Senate along with being validated by the Supreme Court.

Still not good enough they wanted to just shut down the government. Then they gave up trying to defund Obamacare at the same time they demanded to talk about more cuts.

The only cuts the American people want right now is for them to cut the bullshit while getting paid to do the jobs they haven't wanted to do all these years later.

We're tried to suffering while they talk about what they won't do and what they want.

When someone says they want to burn down a house, do you sit and talk about? Do you ask them if they want to use matches or a lighter? So why did we give them lighter fluid?

Bush's Veteran's Day Challenge with veto pen in hand

Bush's Veteran's Day challenge
Tuesday, October 23, 2007



Nearly three months ago, a bipartisan commission issued six practical recommendations to correct appalling flaws in the medical care our nation provides for its wounded and injured military personnel. Congress should respond with a bill to implement those reforms. And as President Bush urged last week, that legislation should be passed by Veterans Day.

That gives Congress nearly three more weeks to complete this task. Surely that should be enough time for lawmakers to make adjustments that they deem appropriate to the military health-care proposal sent to them last week by the White House. After all, revelations early this year about substandard care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington prompted widespread demands across party lines for a comprehensive transformation of the military health-care system — and prompted the president to appoint that commission.

During a news conference last week, Mr. Bush hailed that panel, led by former Kansas Sen. Bob Dole, who suffered devastating wounds of his own in World War II, and former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala. Citing the need for major reductions in "bureaucratic delay" and a new focus on Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD), President Bush said he's distressed when he sees wives sitting beside their husband's beds at Walter Reed not being supported by the government. "I'm concerned about PTSD, and I want people to focus on PTSD. And so we sent up a bill and I hope they move on it quickly. There's a place where we can find common ground."
click post title for the rest

Did Bush just take office or something?

House democrats were taking out their calculators at a budget hearing last month to figure out what they called the "real increase" in VA's health care budget after subtracting the funds from collections, retiree benefits and the proposed deductible. With those dollars subtracted from the request, democrats said there would barely be an increase at all over this year's funding, instead of the $2.7 billion being touted by the administration.

The veterans service organizations that make up the Independent Budget-AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans (DAV), Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)-last month told Congress that for FY 2003 it recommends a medical care appropriation of $24.4 billion, an increase of $3.1 billion over this year's level.
go here for the rest of this
http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=360&issueID=36

Summary of Budget

The President’s 2005 budget includes $67 billion for veterans’ benefits and services, $35 billion for entitlements, and $32 billion for discretionary programs under VA-HUD jurisdiction. This is $1.2 billion above 2004.

For veterans’ medical care, the budget proposes a total of $29 billion. This is just $700 million above 2004. The budget includes $2.4 billion in co-payments from veterans and collections from insurance, $700 million more than VA will collect in 2004.

So looking at the VA’s budget for medical care, most of the increase above last year is to be paid by veterans.
http://mikulski.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=220152

As you know, VA provides a uniform set of medical benefits to eligible
veterans. If sufficient resources are not available to provide care
that is timely and acceptable in quality, VA is required to restrict
medical benefits based on veterans' eligibility priorities.[Footnote 1]
VA also provides other services, such as nursing home care, to certain
veterans. VA's provision of medical care is dependent upon the
availability of appropriations. For fiscal year 2005, Congress
appropriated $31.5 billion for all of VA's medical programs, and VA
provided medical care to about 5 million veterans. During fiscal year
2005, the President requested a $975 million supplemental request for
that fiscal year and a $1.977 billion amendment to the President's
budget request for fiscal year 2006. In congressional testimonies in
the summer of 2005, VA stated that its actuarial model understated
growth in patient workload and services and the resources required to
provide these services.[Footnote 2]
go here for the rest of this
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d06430r.html

American Legion Commander: ‘I Blame Bush And Congress’ For Veterans Cuts
President Bush spoke to the American Legion today, claiming that “support of our veterans has been a high priority in my administration,” and that one of his priorities is “making sure that our veterans have got good, decent, quality healthcare.”


President Bush should save his rhetoric. In an interview with National Public Radio, even American Legion National Commander Paul Morin, a regular political ally of the White House, pointed out that Bush has consistently skimped on veterans funding. “We are not pleased with the budget for the military and for the VA hospitals for our veterans,” Morin said. “I blame the President and Congress for insufficient funding of the VA health care system.”

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
A look at the facts back up Morin’s claims about Bush’s short-changing of veterans:
Bush plans to cut veterans health care after 2008. “The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans’ health care two years from now — even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system. … Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly — by more than 10 percent in many years — White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.”

Bush raises health care costs for veterans. For the fifth year in a row, Bush’s budget has attempted to raise health care costs on 1.3 million veterans, calling for “new enrollment fees and higher drug co-payments for some veterans.”

Bush administration has claimed veterans benefits are “hurtful” to national security. In 2005, the Wall Street Journal noted the growing cost of veterans benefits due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon’s response was to complain that it would “rather use [the funds] to help troops fighting today.” “The amounts have gotten to the point where they are hurtful. They are taking away from the nation’s ability to defend itself,” says David Chu, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for personnel and readiness.
go here for the rest
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/06/morin-bush-va/

The truth is, Bush didn't want an increase enough to matter to the wounded. He warned congress about a veto if they increased funding enough to cover the wounded veterans.

White House warns Congress against hiking VA budget figure
01:00 AM EDT on Monday, July 2, 2007
Moves in Congress to give the Department of Veterans Affairs as much as $3.8 billion more than the Bush administration proposed has drawn an indirect veto threat from the White House.

“If Congress increases VA funding above the president’s request and does not offset this increase with spending reductions in other bills, the president will veto any of the other bills that exceed his request until Congress demonstrates a path to reach the president’s top line of $933 billion,” the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement.

The Veterans Affairs budget currently stands at $36.5 billion, and the administration has proposed raising it to $40.1 billion. In Congress, a conference committee is attempting to reconcile a House bill providing $3.8-billion beyond that with a Senate measure that would increase the administration’s proposal by $3.6 billion.

Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, chairman of the House veterans affairs appropriations subcommittee, said, “This bill is about respect, and honors the promises made to our veterans with historic increases in funding to provide them the health care and benefits they earned when they put on our nation’s uniform.”
go here for the rest of this

http://www.projo.com/news/veteransjournal/
Veterans_column_02_07-02-07_F467EI0.2709637.html

And the problem kept getting worse

Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Kaine will not unveil specific plans until next month, but administration officials said the governor is eyeing the elimination of "several hundred" positions out of a workforce of 100,000 people. Kaine hopes many of the reductions can be achieved through attrition, but some layoffs are likely, Wagner said.

"It is really going to be very selective layoffs of selective people," she said.

Wagner said the administration might also have to reduce staff training, establish or increase some fees and reduce the frequency of regulatory agency inspections. Kaine is also considering paying for some construction projects with borrowed funds rather than cash.
go here for the rest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/17/AR2007091701807.html

I would really like to know who he thinks he is fooling when all of this was reported, recorded and heard by the wounded veterans and their families. Is it because he thinks the rest of the country is not paying attention?

Congress lack of budget hurting defense

Reminder, Congress writes the Bills and does the spending. They haven't passed a budget in years and it has gotten worse because of it. This is the result.

Budget strains to cut carrier fleet in Gulf to 1
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press
52 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. officials say that budget strains will force the Pentagon to cut its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf area from two carriers to one.

Officials say Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has formally approved a plan to keep just one carrier in the region. There have been two aircraft carrier groups there for most of the last two years.

The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower was in the Gulf but was brought home in December for maintenance. It will return later this month, but plans for the USS Harry S. Truman to deploy to the Gulf this week have been canceled.

The officials discussed the cuts on condition of anonymity, because the announcement has not been made.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Wednesday laid out a grim list of spending cuts the Pentagon will have to make in the coming weeks that he said will seriously damage the country's economy and degrade the military's ability to respond to a crisis.

Slamming members of Congress as irresponsible, Panetta said lawmakers are willing to push the country off a fiscal cliff to damage their opposing political parties.

He said that if Congress doesn't pass a budget the Pentagon will have to absorb $46 billion in spending reductions in this fiscal year and will face a $35 billion shortfall in operating expenses.

It is pretty extensive compared to what FOX News put out.

Pentagon to cut aircraft carrier presence in Persian Gulf to 1 due to budget strains
Published February 06, 2013
Associated Press
U.S. officials say that budget strains will force the Pentagon to cut its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf area from two carriers to one.

Officials say Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has formally approved a plan to keep just one carrier in the region. There have been two aircraft carrier groups there for most of the last two years.

The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower was in the Gulf but was brought home in December for maintenance. It will return later this month, but plans for the USS Harry S. Truman to deploy to the Gulf this week have been canceled.

The officials discussed the cuts on condition of anonymity, because the announcement has not been made.

From Stars and Stripes

Congress inaction on budget could affect raises, benefits for military
By CHRIS CARROLL AND JENNIFER HLAD
Stars and Stripes
Published: February 6, 2013

WASHINGTON — The inability of Congress to pass a federal budget could result in smaller-than-expected pay raises for military troops next year, and if automatic spending cuts are triggered by further gridlock, military benefits could be next on the chopping block.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey will recommend to Congress that pay increases be limited to 1 percent in 2014, rather than the 1.7 percent that was previously approved, a defense official said Wednesday. Pentagon officials say the change would save $470 million in 2014 and more than $3 billion total by 2018.

Congress will decide whether to follow the Pentagon’s recommendation and uncouple next year’s military pay from the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index, which is related to cost of living, according to a defense official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Panetta warns of degraded military readiness from spending cuts
By Tom Cohen
CNN
updated 2:14 PM EST, Wed February 6, 2013

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: The White House says President Obama has offered compromise
House Speaker Boehner accuses Democrats of avoiding needed spending cuts
Defense Secretary Panetta says political partisanship threatens U.S. stability
The across-the-board cuts will take effect March 1 unless Congress acts
Washington (CNN) -- Furloughed workers, reduced combat readiness, shrunken naval operations and cuts to Air Force flying hours and weapons maintenance.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta listed those consequences as he provided a stark warning on Wednesday about the effects of impending budget cuts on the military unless Congress acts to avert them.

The result, he said, would be "the most serious readiness crisis" faced by the armed services in over a decade.

Panetta's address at Georgetown University, which he called "hopefully one of my last speeches as secretary of defense," included the first details of how the Pentagon would deal with the automatic spending cuts -- or sequestration in congressional jargon -- set to trigger March 1 across federal agencies.

For the Pentagon, sequestration would mean $500 billion in cuts over 10 years. For 2013 alone, some $46 billion in reduced spending would result in "a serious disruption in defense programs and a sharp decline in our military readiness," Panetta said.

Why Do Members of Congress Hide Deadly Results?

It is very troubling for members of Congress, especially those who served, repeating the falsehood of "22 veterans a day committing suicide." How can we expect anything to change when they fail to understand the fact that veteran suicides are double the civilian population and over 70% of them are over the age of 50? How can we expect them to actually do something about taking care of younger veterans when their rate is triple their peer rate after billions have been spent in "prevention" and "raising awareness" so they can heal?

U.S. Rep. Steve Stivers, R-Upper Arlington wrote in the Chillicothe Gazette,

"I have served in the Army National Guard for nearly 30 years, and as a member of Congress, I have had the privilege of meeting so many of the brave men and women who have put their lives on the line to keep us all safe. As a nation, we owe our veterans a great debt of gratitude and I believe the most important way we can express our thanks is by ensuring they get the care they need when they come home.

Many of service members are suffering from things we cannot see, like post-traumatic stress disorder and the after effects of traumatic brain injury. This contributes to an unusually high and heartbreaking number of suicides. In fact, it is estimated that 22 current and former service members commit suicide each day.

While, Congress has taken tangible steps to improve treatments for PTSD, I believe more must be done to curb this epidemic and to find the right combination of therapies and treatments that work for each and every individual veteran. One type of therapy that has proven extremely effective for many veterans is service dog training. That’s why I am currently working on bipartisan legislation that would make this special form of therapy more available to veterans through our Veterans Administration facilities."

Stivers is pushing for PTSD Service dogs, which is a great thing however, they are not the answer for all veterans. As a matter of fact, they are only part of the answer for some of the veterans aided by them. He was in the National Guard for 30 years and should know all of that. So why doesn't he?

It isn't that the facts are being hidden. They are in plain view for anyone wanting to know what is really going on. As of the 10th of August, Wounded Times will be 8 years old. With over 24,600 posts focused on veterans, I can assure you that all the reports are there for anyone wanting to learn the truth.

After reading about suicides along with claims of what is being done to help veterans heal, it is obvious that no one in Congress has really paid much attention.

They have invested billions on PTSD within the military as well as in the veteran community but the results prove nothing has changed for the better.

As a matter of fact it is actually worse now for current military given the fact there are less serving while suicides went up. Sequestration cut the size of the military after the war in Iraq ended along with those deployed into Afghanistan. Less serving actually translates into less to count in the military and the rise in the number of suicides proves what they are doing does not work.

This is the result after all these years.

The Army National Guard and Air National Guard also counted more suicides in the first quarter of 2015 than the same time period the previous year. The Army National Guard saw 20 suicides in the first three months of this year and just 16 the previous year, an increase of 25 percent. Suicides among members of the Air National Guard increased from six to seven.

Current military committing suicide after all these years of Congress holding hearings and repeating the same stuff that pricelessly failed while no one was held accountable made sense to these folks and we should wonder why they were not appalled enough to change what they were doing.

Veterans committing suicide after all these years of "awareness" followed by ambivalence until some family decided to talk to members of the press about their sons and daughters being failed by those in charge. Members of Congress decided to call in their constituents to tell their heartbreaking stories so they could pretend to be paying attention yet avoid any responsibility to the next family having to appear before Congress to repeat the same emotional price paid for what Congress failed to do.

We see them facing off with SWAT Teams, police officers, being shot on our streets and being buried because they could not find one single reason to hope for a better day. Yet, oh no, lets not talk about all that already failed when they can pretend to be doing something about what we live with every single day.

Why should members of Congress actually learn what they are supposed to be in control over? Because until they do, we will continue to see the deadly results.