<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7655.1">
<TITLE>RE: [Vision2020] Budget cuts could slash $1B from vets health care</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Polls in the USA and Europe at the time clearly showed that Gorbachev (sp?)was given the most credit for the fall of his own country.<BR>
<BR>
Nick<BR>
<BR>
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.<BR>
<BR>
-Greek proverb<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com on behalf of Joe Campbell<BR>
Sent: Tue 1/3/2012 1:46 PM<BR>
To: lfalen<BR>
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020<BR>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Budget cuts could slash $1B from vets health care<BR>
<BR>
Stop Roger. We've been through this. So it was congress not Reagan who led<BR>
the downfall of the Soviet Union?<BR>
<BR>
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:45 AM, lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Congress, not the president raises the debt celing and writes the budget.<BR>
> Roger<BR>
> -----Original message-----<BR>
> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe@gmail.com<BR>
> Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:23:05 -0800<BR>
> To: Paul Rumelhart godshatter@yahoo.com<BR>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Budget cuts could slash $1B from vets health care<BR>
><BR>
> > No, Paul. You're drinking the conservative cool aid.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > Reagan raised the debt as a creative way to cut government programs. The<BR>
> > story was he crushed the Soviet Union with an arms race. No one said<BR>
> > anything because that government spending had to do with the military and<BR>
> > for reasons that escape me conservatives refuse to think of the military<BR>
> as<BR>
> > part of the government.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > By the time Clinton took office we were in debt. To lose the debt,<BR>
> welfare<BR>
> > and other programs were cut. When Bush II took over he raised the debt<BR>
> > again, this time by waging 2 different wars. Again, no one said anything<BR>
> > because this was military spending -- and that's safety not government.<BR>
> So<BR>
> > more government programs now "must" get cut in order to get out of the<BR>
> > terrible shape we're in. It's the only "rational" thing to do.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > I have a hard time looking at these patterns and thinking these are<BR>
> > anything other than Republican strategies to cut government by<BR>
> > circumventing the democratic process -- cutting programs not by voting in<BR>
> > folks with that kind of mind set but by creating economic crises. The<BR>
> fact<BR>
> > that Congress can agree on how to cut "big" government might just be an<BR>
> > indication that there is less government fat than the conservative myths<BR>
> > suggest.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > And I want to be clear that I don't think you're the anti-Christ! (I know<BR>
> > this comment wasn't directed at me but I want to be clear.) Actually,<BR>
> I've<BR>
> > always liked you. I just disagree with much of what you say. I'm a little<BR>
> > tougher on you when it comes to the global warming debate because that<BR>
> is a<BR>
> > huge issue of importance to future generations, indeed to the human race.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > Best, Joe<BR>
> ><BR>
> > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com<BR>
> >wrote:<BR>
> ><BR>
> > > **<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Because the Congressional "super-committee" couldn't agree on budget<BR>
> cuts<BR>
> > > and we've since defaulted to across-the-board cuts. That was all part<BR>
> of<BR>
> > > the deal that was passed when we were trying to shave the smallest<BR>
> amounts<BR>
> > > off a small piece of the debt during the whole "debt ceiling" fiasco.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > We did this to ourselves by electing such a contentious Congress.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Paul<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > On 01/02/2012 10:09 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Why do we have to cut back on programs? We were fine with the<BR>
> programs. It<BR>
> > > was the wars that got us in debt, right?<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > ><BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > On Jan 2, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com><BR>
> wrote:<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Well, that's the problem with across-the-board budget cuts, isn't it?<BR>
> > > Nobody is going to be pleased.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > We have to cut budgets, and since nobody in Congress can agree on which<BR>
> > > way is up, this is our only real solution.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > We have to cut back on how much we spend, since our spending is out of<BR>
> > > control. It's ridiculous.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Paul<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > On 01/02/2012 09:31 AM, Tom Hansen wrote:<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Nice, huh?<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Courtesy of the January 9, 2012 edition of the Army Times.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > ------------------------------<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > *Budget cuts could slash $1B from vets health care**<BR>
> > > Lawmakers may reverse on promises not to cut VA*<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > By Rick Maze<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > As veterans groups face the pos sible automatic, across-the-board cuts<BR>
> in<BR>
> > > federal spending that could begin in 2013, fear of the unknown is<BR>
> strong.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > The Budget Control Act of 2011 is "imprecise," says a House staff<BR>
> member<BR>
> > > who has been trying to advise lawmakers on how the Vet erans Affairs<BR>
> > > Department would fare if $1.2 trillion in automatic budget cuts are<BR>
> ordered<BR>
> > > Jan. 2, 2013.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Veterans disability, survivor, education and training benefits, and<BR>
> > > low-income pensions are exempt from the automatic cuts, a process<BR>
> known as<BR>
> > > sequestra tion. But it is unclear whether veterans health care funds<BR>
> are<BR>
> > > protected.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > A 2 percent cut in veterans health care funding appears possi ble under<BR>
> > > some readings of the law - and its references back to the 1985 Balanced<BR>
> > > Budget and Emer gency Deficit Control Act, more commonly known as the<BR>
> > > Gramm-Rudman Act.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > "We have not heard any specifics, only vague references that earlier<BR>
> > > pledges not to cut VA health care or benefits may not be honored by<BR>
> > > Congress," said David Autry of Disabled American Veter ans. "That is<BR>
> > > worrisome." With a health care budget of about $51 billion to serve 6.2<BR>
> > > million patients, a sequester could result in a $1 billion cut at a<BR>
> time<BR>
> > > when the population of Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans seeking<BR>
> > > treatment for the physical and mental wounds of war is on the rise.<BR>
> > > Some patients, particularly veterans who do not have serviceconnected<BR>
> > > disabilities, could be turned away, say representatives of veterans<BR>
> groups<BR>
> > > who have studied the potential impact.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Fear of devastating cuts from sequestration is partly why leaders of<BR>
> the<BR>
> > > House and Senate Veterans' Affairs committees were willing in October<BR>
> to<BR>
> > > propose cuts in veterans benefits.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > A joint letter signed by Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Richard Burr,<BR>
> > > R-N.C., and Reps. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., and Bob Filner, D-Calif., the<BR>
> > > leaders of the committees, acknowledged that a "plausible legal<BR>
> > > interpretation" of the budget law puts veterans medical funds at risk<BR>
> for<BR>
> > > cuts.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > "We would rather make the difficult decisions now so that we may never<BR>
> > > reach that possibility down the road," the four lawmakers said in a<BR>
> letter<BR>
> > > to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction that tried but<BR>
> failed to<BR>
> > > come up with an overall $1.2 trillion deficit reduction package that<BR>
> would<BR>
> > > have avoided sequestration.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > The four were so concerned about harm to the VA health care budget that<BR>
> > > they were willing to take some controversial actions, including capping<BR>
> > > annual increases in GI Bill benefits at a level below increases in<BR>
> tuition.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Miller, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee chairman, said any<BR>
> automatic<BR>
> > > cuts "would have a negative impact on VA's health care system and its<BR>
> > > ability to properly care for our veterans." He expressed frustration<BR>
> that<BR>
> > > the White House and VA have not clarified the situation. "I have raised<BR>
> > > this concern numerous times in the past few months, but I am still<BR>
> waiting<BR>
> > > to hear," he said. "It is now incumbent on the administration to<BR>
> clarify<BR>
> > > this issue immediately for veterans once and for all." Ryan Gallucci of<BR>
> > > Veterans of Foreign Wars said there is still time to fight to protect<BR>
> > > veterans programs. "Since no one seems to know for sure, we have a<BR>
> year to<BR>
> > > make our case to preserve our earned veterans benefits," said Gallucci,<BR>
> > > VFW's deputy national legislative director.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > "It's important for our members to call and write Congress to explain<BR>
> why<BR>
> > > these programs are important and why our veterans need them to remain<BR>
> > > intact." In a Nov. 22 statement to its members, the VFW warns that<BR>
> > > sequestration could lead to increases in co-payments for medical<BR>
> visits and<BR>
> > > prescription drugs for veterans, and an increase in the enrollment fee<BR>
> for<BR>
> > > veterans who sign up for VA treatment but do not have service-connected<BR>
> > > health issues.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Signed by Robert Wallace, executive director of VFW's Washington<BR>
> office,<BR>
> > > the statement encourages members to contact lawmakers to press for a<BR>
> full<BR>
> > > VA exemption to sequestration.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > "Over the next year, many in Congress as well as thousands of<BR>
> registered<BR>
> > > lobbyists will be working hard to protect their special interests and<BR>
> > > programs," the VFW statement says.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > "We must all work hard to protect the Department of Veterans Affairs<BR>
> > > health, benefits and cemetery administrations, as well as all military<BR>
> > > quality of life programs for the troops, their families and military<BR>
> > > retirees."<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > ------------------------------<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Seeya later, Moscow.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Tom Hansen<BR>
> > > Spokane, Washington<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > "If not us, who?<BR>
> > > If not now, when?"<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > - Unknown<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > =======================================================<BR>
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>
> > > <A HREF="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>
> > > <A HREF="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A> <Vision2020@moscow.com><BR>
> > > =======================================================<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > =======================================================<BR>
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>
> > > <A HREF="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>
> > > <A HREF="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A> <Vision2020@moscow.com><BR>
> > > =======================================================<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > ><BR>
> > ><BR>
> ><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>