Veterans Were Suffering Before 9-11

If You Haven't Been Appalled All Along, Blame Yourself
Wounded Times
Kathie Costos
September 11, 2015

Today we remember what happened back in 2001. That one day started two wars and neither one has been paid for by anyone other than the troops, veterans and their families.

If you think any of this is new to veterans or the troops, just keep in mind the world existed before Facebook and your iPhone. It even existed before the internet but for the sake of those unwilling to think, here's some reminders.

President Clinton's VA Budget Washington Post February 2, 1999

The Department of Veterans Affairs will attempt to open new outpatient facilities and administer new medical programs with a proposed budget of $44 billion that has remained largely unchanged since the administration's 1997 balanced-budget plan.

The VA budget includes $18 billion in discretionary funds for medical care, including $250 million to cover a stepped-up program to combat hepatitis C as well as $50 million to aid homeless veterans and $106 million for alternative long-term care programs such as home health care. The budget also includes a proposal to allow payments for emergency care for certain veterans at non-VA hospitals and renews a request to allow the VA to collect Medicare payments for services provided to certain veterans.

This was from April 5, 2001 Staff cuts hurt quality of VA health care, union charges NextGov April 5, 2001

The quality of the Veterans Affairs' health care system is suffering because of shortages in its nursing staff and increased outsourcing, according to the largest federal employees' union. Cuts in the VA's nursing staff over the past five years coupled with the hiring of more contractors during the same period has lowered the quality of care in VA health centers, Bobby L. Harnage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said Tuesday during a House Veterans' Affairs subcommittee hearing.

"The veterans health care system is in a state of shock from the combined traumas of flat-line budgets, staffing cuts, bed closures, restructuring and contracting out," said Harnage.

From 1995 to 2000, the agency reduced its registered nurses by 10 percent, licensed practical nurses by 13 percent and nursing assistants by 30 percent. Since then, registered nurses and licensed practical nurses have taken on much of the work performed by nursing assistants, such as helping patients eat and bathe.

"Medications, basic care and critical medical interventions are delayed, forgotten or mixed up because staff are spread too thin," Harnage said. Harnage also said that the VA increasingly turned to contractors for medical services during the same time it downsized its own staff. The agency increased its use of contracted nurses and other medical professionals by 32 percent from 1995 to 2000, he said. Harnage recommended the agency support an initiative to create an employee education program that would help interested VA employees get their nursing degrees, reduce contracting out and end the practice of mandatory overtime for nurses.

In 2004 the debate going on in Congress shows what the trouble was leading to.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, and I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman for recognizing the great need in the veterans' health care system.

I also want to state my opposition to some of the other measures we are considering today that would cap discretionary spending and reinstate pay-as-you-go measures through fiscal year 2009. These rules would have significant impacts on VA health care and many other domestic discretionary and mandatory programs.

This February, Veterans Affairs Chairman Chris Smith and I recommended that the budget committee add $2.5 billion to the President's request for VA discretionary programs. We agreed, on a bipartisan basis, that this was the bare minimum necessary to continue to operate current services in fiscal year 2005.

Mr. Obey's amendment adds the other half of the recommended funding that the House neglected to provide in passing its budget resolution.

This will ensure that veterans can rely upon the system created to serve their special needs rather than being subjected to increased copayments, new enrollment fees and the waiting lists for care that could reappear and worsen in the absence of adequate funding.

As dangerous as the budget proposed by the Administration for fiscal year 2005 is, the budget planned for future years is even more perilous for our veterans' programs. Ranking Member Spratt and I have produced a report to be released tomorrow that will identify some of the scenarios that could come from the planning guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. EDWARDS

That philosophy was expressed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader, on March 12, 2003: ``Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes.'' A direct quote.

That bizarre philosophy flies in the face of the basic American value of shared sacrifice during time of war. Can anyone imagine Franklin Roosevelt having stood here on December 8 of 1941 saying to the American people it is time to cut taxes, nothing is more important than that after Pearl Harbor? In World War II, fortunately, President Roosevelt did something different. He inspired all Americans to make sacrifices to support the war and our servicemen and -women, and it was the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, as we now face the war on terrorism, the Republican budget reflects the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. DeLay) flawed philosophy that tax cuts should trump sacrifice and services for veterans and military families during time of war. What is the result of this ideologically driven budget? First, the consequence is that this year's deficit is the largest deficit in American history. With massive unpaid-for tax cuts, we are borrowing billions of dollars to pay for the Iraqi war, and that means that young soldiers from my district at Fort Hood fighting in that war today will have to come home and help pay for it after the war is over. Billionaires living safely here at home, getting multimillion-dollar-a-year tax cuts while young soldiers have to fight for the war in Iraq and then pay for it. Where is the fairness in that?

To add insult to injury, the Republican budget pays for its tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans by reducing veterans health care and freezing military housing improvement programs. If the American people find out about this dirty little secret in the Republican budget, they will be outraged, as they should be. And as a representative of nearly 40,000 soldiers who fought in Iraq over the last 18 months, I am certainly outraged.

These are the facts: fact number one, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, has said it would take $2.5 billion of increased VA health care spending just to keep from having to reduce veterans health care services because of health care inflation.

Fact number two: The Republican budget underfunds present services for VA health care by $1.3 billion. That means real cuts to millions of real veterans.

Fact number three: several weeks ago, on the same day the House Republican leadership voted to give Members of Congress a tax cut, they pushed through a Defense authorization bill that will freeze the most important military housing improvement program in American history. Over 24,000 military families will not receive the new housing they deserve. No new housing for thousands of military families, while we get thousands in tax cuts, we Members of Congress. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the American value in that?

But as usual, with everything covered by Facebook stalker reporters, they never seem to mention any of this. When it come to "support the troops" and "value veterans" it all boils down to Congress did a lot of talking but failed to start fixing. Now we have yet another round of politicians blaming the VA for what they failed to do even though Congress has been in authority over them all these years. But it wasn't just was being reported on what the Congress failed to do for veterans. It was also what they failed to do for the troops. This came out in 2008.


Military Doctors and Nurses, 2 wars to fight, less of them to provide care. Shortages could be hurting Army health care, Army Times January 12, 2008

Overall, the Army’s Medical Corps has downsized significantly since the Persian Gulf War in the 1990s, dropping from 5,400 to 4,300 physicians and from 4,600 to 3,400 nurses.

According to the Department of Defense, more than 29,000 service members have been wounded in action in Iraq or Afghanistan in the last six years, compared with fewer than 500 in Operation Desert Storm.

So when you get sick to your stomach finding out what has gone wrong for the troops and veterans, if you haven't been appalled all along, you simply haven't been paying attention.