- Mississippi abortion law can’t be enforced
- Teacher who survived Sandy Hook has book deal
- Jury awards Jesse Ventura $1.8M in case vs. ‘American Sniper’ author Chris Kyle
- Government OKs Arab-owned company to operate U.S. cargo port
- Defense lawyer: McDonnell’s wife had ‘crush’ on CEO
- Chinese hackers stole ‘huge quantities’ of sensitive data on Israel’s Iron Dome
- House unveils bill to speed deportations of illegal immigrant children
- Californians protest middle school for hiring white man to teach cultural studies
- Killer’s sentencing overturned because mother couldn’t find seat in courtroom
- Hillary: ‘Dead broke’ comment was ‘inartful,’ but insists it was ‘accurate’
Stingy Congress finds funds for veterans’ health care
Question of the Day
Congress has grown increasingly stingy with its spending, but the Senate didn’t hesitate this week to bust the budget by tacking on an extra $35 billion to pay for enhanced health treatment for veterans.
It’s the latest sign that veterans, along with Social Security beneficiaries, are two of the last remaining sacred cows for Capitol Hill.
“The veterans organizations have a large political influence, partly because there’s so may of them — there are tens of millions of veterans,” said Chris Edwards, editor of DownsizingGovernment.org at the Cato Institute. “People who are retired are often a very powerful political group because they have the time for political activism.”
The vote for veterans stands in contrast with the difficulty Democrats had in rounding up the votes for an extension of federal unemployment benefits earlier this year. That bill barely cleared a GOP filibuster, and only after Democrats found budget gimmicks to pay for the extension.
The new veterans bill, meanwhile, passed with just three dissenting votes.
While the unemployment extension was about half the cost of the veterans bill, it would’ve only helped about 3 million people.
The Congressional Budget Office said 8.4 million vets already get health care from the VA, and another 8 million are eligible but aren’t enrolled. The budget agency said it was impossible to predict how many of those 8 million would sign up, but combined with existing vets, the bill means “a significant number of veterans could receive new and expanded health care benefits.”
It will cost $35 billion for a three-year pilot program, the CBO said. But if the program were extended over the full decade, the cost could be much higher. The agency said the estimates are “highly uncertain.”
The CBO said it expects more veterans to use the VA if they can see outside doctors.
Sen. Bernard Sanders, Vermont independent, said it’s the country’s responsibility to take care of veterans who risked their lives, regardless of cost.
“If you think it’s too expensive to take care of our veterans, then don’t send them to war,” he said on the Senate floor last month.
An overwhelming majority of senators on both sides of the aisle voted for a bill that would let veterans seek care outside the VA if they faced long waits and lived more than 40 miles from a Veterans Affairs facility. Only three GOP senators voted against the measure.
Veterans and active-duty military have largely been a protected group in recent budget cuts. During the government shutdown, Congress made sure that active-duty service members would continue to be paid while other government employees waited it out without the guarantee of backpay. And when vets did face cuts to the cost-of-living adjustment in the December budget deal, lawmakers quickly acted to undo the cuts for all veterans and anyone already in the service after pressure from veterans service organizations.
Maya MacGuineas, CEO of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said it’s understandable that lawmakers want to help veterans, both because of the political benefit for the lawmaker and because of the sacrifices veterans have made for the country. She said, however, that if Congress was serious about fixing problems at the VA, it would find a way to financially offset the changes.
“This is a country that’s facing huge fiscal challenges and everything that isn’t paid for is very vulnerable. If something is a priority, you need to figure out how to cover the costs,” she said. “It’s not easy, but it’s certainly not rocket science.”
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Jacqueline Klimas covers Capitol Hill for The Washington Times. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Robert McDonald confirmed as VA secretary
- Lawmakers to vote on $17 billion VA compromise bill
- Pelosi: Obama's leadership on Israel is 'strong'
- Netanyahu: We must defend our own people
- Administration official: Israel can do more to avoid civilian deaths
Latest Blog Entries
- Miss. GOP chair: Huckabee distracting from GOP's reasonable pro-life stance
- Commerce Secretary 'optimistic' about U.S.'s economic standing worldwide
- Less than half of registered voters would re-elect their congressman, poll finds
- Half of registered voters in Va. would re-elect Sen. Mark Warner
- 2013 was second most polarizing year of Obama's presidency
TWT Video Picks
- Boehner rules out impeachment: 'Scam started by Democrats'
- Obama: 'Not a new Cold War,' but new Russia sanctions announced
- Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- GOP Senate candidate: Obama needs to visit Central America
- Smugglers, rainstorm combine to poke holes in border fence
- Murdered teen texted boyfriend: 'OMG ... I think I'm being kidnapped'
- D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public
- Kerry's credibility questioned as fighting in Gaza rages
- Jury awards Jesse Ventura $1.8M in defamation case
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world