[Vision2020] Budget cuts could slash $1B from vets health care

[Paul Rumelhart]

I just realized I forgot to respond to Joe's message and don't have access to his original message from work.

I'm not sipping any Kool-Aid.  I was merely mentioning that the problem with across the board cuts is that they affect everybody.  Which is not an endorsement of them.  They will be coming, though, because the Super Committee failed to come up with $1.2 trillion in cuts by Dec 23rd.  That means that starting Jan 1, 2013, automatic cuts totaling $1.2 trillion will come into effect.  They cover defense spending and non-defense spending equally except that they exempt Social Security, some low-income programs, and medicare cuts are limited to 2%.  My only point is that almost everyone is going to be hit by these cuts because they affect almost every program out there. 

I wasn't trying to be contentious at all.  I guess the only contentious thing I did was respond to a post by Tom Hansen.  I did make a jibe at our contentious Congress, but that includes Congressmen of all political parties.

The simple fact is that we are spending more than we are taking in.  The simplest solution is to stop spending so much.


Paul



________________________________
 From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
To: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>; Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Budget cuts could slash $1B from vets health care
 
Congress, not the president raises the debt celing and writes the budget.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:23:05 -0800
To: Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Budget cuts could slash $1B from vets health care

> No, Paul. You're drinking the conservative cool aid.
> 
> Reagan raised the debt as a creative way to cut government programs. The
> story was he crushed the Soviet Union with an arms race. No one said
> anything because that government spending had to do with the military and
> for reasons that escape me conservatives refuse to think of the military as
> part of the government.
> 
> By the time Clinton took office we were in debt. To lose the debt, welfare
> and other programs were cut. When Bush II took over he raised the debt
> again, this time by waging 2 different wars. Again, no one said anything
> because this was military spending -- and that's safety not government. So
> more government programs now "must" get cut in order to get out of the
> terrible shape we're in. It's the only "rational" thing to do.
> 
> I have a hard time looking at these patterns and thinking these are
> anything other than Republican strategies to cut government by
> circumventing the democratic process -- cutting programs not by voting in
> folks with that kind of mind set but by creating economic crises. The fact
> that Congress can agree on how to cut "big" government might just be an
> indication that there is less government fat than the conservative myths
> suggest.
> 
> And I want to be clear that I don't think you're the anti-Christ! (I know
> this comment wasn't directed at me but I want to be clear.) Actually, I've
> always liked you. I just disagree with much of what you say. I'm a little
> tougher on you when it comes to the global warming debate because that is a
> huge issue of importance to future generations, indeed to the human race.
> 
> Best, Joe
> 
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> > Because the Congressional "super-committee" couldn't agree on budget cuts
> > and we've since defaulted to across-the-board cuts.  That was all part of
> > the deal that was passed when we were trying to shave the smallest amounts
> > off a small piece of the debt during the whole "debt ceiling" fiasco.
> >
> > We did this to ourselves by electing such a contentious Congress.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 01/02/2012 10:09 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
> >
> > Why do we have to cut back on programs? We were fine with the programs. It
> > was the wars that got us in debt, right?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 2, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, that's the problem with across-the-board budget cuts, isn't it?
> > Nobody is going to be pleased.
> >
> > We have to cut budgets, and since nobody in Congress can agree on which
> > way is up, this is our only real solution.
> >
> > We have to cut back on how much we spend, since our spending is out of
> > control.  It's ridiculous.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > On 01/02/2012 09:31 AM, Tom Hansen wrote:
> >
> > Nice, huh?
> >
> >  Courtesy of the January 9, 2012 edition of the Army Times.
> >
> >  ------------------------------
> >
> >  *Budget cuts could slash $1B from vets health care**
> > Lawmakers may reverse on promises not to cut VA*
> >
> > By Rick Maze
> >
> > As veterans groups face the pos sible automatic, across-the-board cuts in
> > federal spending that could begin in 2013, fear of the unknown is strong.
> >
> > The Budget Control Act of 2011 is “imprecise,” says a House staff member
> > who has been trying to advise lawmakers on how the Vet erans Affairs
> > Department would fare if $1.2 trillion in automatic budget cuts are ordered
> > Jan. 2, 2013.
> >
> > Veterans disability, survivor, education and training benefits, and
> > low-income pensions are exempt from the automatic cuts, a process known as
> > sequestra tion. But it is unclear whether veterans health care funds are
> > protected.
> >
> > A 2 percent cut in veterans health care funding appears possi ble under
> > some readings of the law — and its references back to the 1985 Balanced
> > Budget and Emer gency Deficit Control Act, more commonly known as the
> > Gramm-Rudman Act.
> >
> > “We have not heard any specifics, only vague references that earlier
> > pledges not to cut VA health care or benefits may not be honored by
> > Congress,” said David Autry of Disabled American Veter ans. “That is
> > worrisome.” With a health care budget of about $51 billion to serve 6.2
> > mil­lion patients, a sequester could result in a $1 billion cut at a time
> > when the population of Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans seeking
> > treatment for the physical and mental wounds of war is on the rise.
> > Some patients, particularly veterans who do not have serviceconnected
> > disabilities, could be turned away, say representatives of veterans groups
> > who have studied the potential impact.
> >
> > Fear of devastating cuts from sequestration is partly why leaders of the
> > House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs committees were willing in October to
> > propose cuts in veterans benefits.
> >
> > A joint letter signed by Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Richard Burr,
> > R-N.C., and Reps. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., and Bob Filner, D-Calif., the
> > leaders of the committees, acknowledged that a “plausible legal
> > interpretation” of the budget law puts veterans medical funds at risk for
> > cuts.
> >
> > “We would rather make the difficult decisions now so that we may never
> > reach that possibility down the road,” the four lawmakers said in a letter
> > to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction that tried but failed to
> > come up with an overall $1.2 trillion deficit reduction package that would
> > have avoided sequestration.
> >
> > The four were so concerned about harm to the VA health care budget that
> > they were willing to take some controversial actions, including capping
> > annual increases in GI Bill benefits at a level below increases in tuition.
> >
> > Miller, the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee chairman, said any automatic
> > cuts “would have a negative impact on VA’s health care system and its
> > ability to properly care for our veterans.” He expressed frustration that
> > the White House and VA have not clarified the situation. “I have raised
> > this concern numerous times in the past few months, but I am still waiting
> > to hear,” he said. “It is now incumbent on the administration to clarify
> > this issue immediately for veterans once and for all.” Ryan Gallucci of
> > Veterans of Foreign Wars said there is still time to fight to protect
> > veterans programs. “Since no one seems to know for sure, we have a year to
> > make our case to preserve our earned veterans benefits,” said Gallucci,
> > VFW’s deputy national legislative director.
> >
> > “It’s important for our members to call and write Congress to explain why
> > these programs are important and why our veterans need them to remain
> > intact.” In a Nov. 22 statement to its members, the VFW warns that
> > sequestration could lead to increases in co-payments for medical visits and
> > prescription drugs for veterans, and an increase in the enrollment fee for
> > veterans who sign up for VA treatment but do not have service-connected
> > health issues.
> >
> > Signed by Robert Wallace, executive director of VFW’s Washington office,
> > the statement encourages members to contact lawmakers to press for a full
> > VA exemption to sequestration.
> >
> > “Over the next year, many in Congress as well as thousands of registered
> > lobbyists will be working hard to protect their special interests and
> > programs,” the VFW statement says.
> >
> > “We must all work hard to protect the Department of Veterans Affairs
> > health, benefits and cemetery administrations, as well as all military
> > quality of life programs for the troops, their families and military
> > retirees.”
> >
> >  ------------------------------
> >
> > Seeya later, Moscow.
> >
> >  Tom Hansen
> > Spokane, Washington
> >
> >  "If not us, who?
> > If not now, when?"
> >
> >  - Unknown
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >                http://www.fsr.net
> >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > =======================================================
> >
> >
> >   =======================================================
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >                http://www.fsr.net
> >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > =======================================================
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120103/52c9027a/attachment-0001.html>