Democrats Take Away Veteran's Benefits

Times-Gazette (Letter to the Editor) ^ | September 28, 2007 | Rep. Mike Turner

[CharlesWayneCT]

Democrats give away veterans' benefits

Rep. Mike Turner

As a member of the House Veterans' Affairs (VA) Committee, the work of helping to ensure that those who have worn a military uniform receive the benefits and respect to which they were promised, is often rewarding.

A recent Veterans' Affairs Committee meeting took an unusual twist, which many people are surprised to learn about when I tell them.

This story is about a two-part process that led to unbelievable decisions. First, the Veterans' Committee took away benefits from some very deserving American veterans. Second, the committee gave benefits to veterans of another country who don't live in the United States, and never have lived in this country or been American citizens. I opposed both actions.

I am against the Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2007 (H.R. 760). This legislation will provide benefits to Filipino World War II veterans.

These veterans were members of the Philippines military. They fought in the Pacific Theater, presumably on behalf of their native country.

They are citizens of the Philippines and not U.S. citizens. While these Filipino troops may have fought bravely, side-by-side, with American soldiers, they should be looking to the Philippines for veterans' benefits.

The United States has obligations to American veterans. We should not be held responsible for the benefits of the Philippines or any additional countries.

The Filipino veterans' provisions in HR 760 are similar to a plan passed by the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.

If signed into law, it would provide full veterans' status to World War II era Filipino soldiers and even their survivors.

This would include pay for service related disabilities, survivor pay for service-connected deaths, as well as pensions and death benefits.

Those who are living in the Philippines, and are not U.S. citizens, would receive $6,000 to $8,400. Low-income widows would receive $3,600.

I have witnessed some contentious hearings in my years in public service. VA Committee Chairman Bob Filner, D-Calif., was determined to pass the Filipino Veterans Equity Act. When the exchanges between the chairman and ranking member (and former chairman) Steve Buyer, R-Ind., became too heated, Filner ordered a recess to plot strategy with the Democratic majority.

The measure passed on a straight party-line vote and Filner refused to recognize any additional Republican amendments.

Providing veterans' benefits to Filipino service members is only half of the issue.

Perhaps more egregious is how the Democrats offset the cost of the new benefits. Because of House PAYGO rules, any new entitlement spending (such as the Filipino Veterans Equity Act) must be funded by either a corresponding cut in existing spending or matching revenue gains.

In this case, the Democrats on the Veterans Committee voted to save nearly $1 billion by eliminating a $2,200 special monthly payment to veterans who are less than 100 percent disabled, but 60 percent or greater disabled.

Paying Filipino service members who served alongside American troops in the Philippines during World War II sets a dangerous precedent. There were certainly brave Koreans and Vietnamese who served alongside Americans during the Korean and Vietnamese conflicts.

There are some Afghanis and Iraqis who are serving nobly with their American counterparts today. The Filipino Veterans Equity Act makes it logical for the United States to pay foreign fighters from these conflicts future benefits as well.

It is outrageous that U.S. veterans who have a high level of disability have lost up to $2,200 per month in benefits.

Rather than using U.S. tax dollars to pay American veterans who have sacrificed, Chairman Filner and the Democrats on the Veterans' Affairs Committee decided that paying non-U.S. citizens was a more important national priority.

This does not serve our nation.

Rep. Mike Turner, R-Centerville, represents Ohio's Third Congressional District.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I'm not sure whether to be outraged or not, because I can't find enough facts.

A response letter, found HERE, says Turner is wrong, the soldiers were american, and the funding cut is just putting the law back the way it was written before an activist court re-wrote it.

Anybody have more information?

[Brilliant]

I don’t know, but if they are American, then why is it called the “Filipino Veterans Equity Act?”

[org.whodat]

Have no ideal, but you can bet money that twenty years from now there will be people calling for veteran benefits for blackwater employees.

[USArmySpouse]

I believe there was a post about this a while back. I’ve searched, but I can’t remember the title of the article and I can’t find the link. Anyway, my impression was that the soldiers were American. If that’s the case, I support them getting their benefits.

As to paying for it, they should cut half of the Congressional staff instead of other veterans’ benefits.

[Brilliant]

From the letter linked, it looks like they were Filipino, but were inducted into the US Army during the war in the Phillipines.

[PurpleMan]

The U.S. didn’t recognize (and grant) the independence of The Phillipines until 1946.

Were they still a U.S. territory since Spain had sold it to the US via the Treaty of Paris?

If it was still a territory, would they not be entitled to the “benefits”?

[MarkT]

I hope there was a Muslim exception in the part dealing with taking away benefits from U.S. veterans. /s

[Stashiu]

Bastards. The Dems cozy up to another minority group while stripping benefits from Veterans. The Dems just don’t like us old white guys.

[SkyPilot]

Because of House PAYGO rules, any new entitlement spending (such as the Filipino Veterans Equity Act) must be funded by either a corresponding cut in existing spending or matching revenue gains. In this case, the Democrats on the Veterans Committee voted to save nearly $1 billion by eliminating a $2,200 special monthly payment to veterans who are less than 100 percent disabled, but 60 percent or greater disabled.

It is unbelievable!

I could not fathom this to be true until I Googled this bill and found out (to my horror) that it is!

The Democrats have just stolen money intended for our military veterans in order to appease a Filipino special interest group.

Let me explain this to you all:

If a US military soldier was recently injured by an IED in Iraq, and had part of his face blown off, he will graded by the Veterans Administration in increments of 10% as to how disabled he is.

100% disability is rarely given - except for extreme cases (i.e. loss of both limbs, complete loss of vision, etc). Those who qualify for 100% are rightly given a payment.

So this Iraqi veteran injured will be give a disability rating, and if he came in over 60%, he gets a monthly payment - as he rightly deserves. It is not as much as the 100% disability.

So what the Democrats have done is to steal that money for veterans in the category between 60%-90% disability in order to pay for the benefits to the Filipino special interest group.

I am not kidding.

Is there no outrage over this?

[Brilliant]

I don’t think they were US citizens.

[PurpleMan]

Understood. Just wasn’t sure and asking what rights and benifits are accorded natives of U.S. territories

[RJS1950]

You are correct, the Phillipinos who fought at that time were American citizens, just as Puerto Ricans, Guamanians and U.S. Virgin Islanders are today.

[art_rocks]

When those soldiers fought for us back in WW2, they were part of an American territory. After WW2, Congress let the Phillipnes become their own country and as part of the deal, those vets would no longer qualify for vet benefits from the US.

Those guys got a raw deal and Congress owes it to them to fix it. The way the Dems are going to fix is wrong.

[art_rocks]

Imagine after the Iraq war is over, that the US lets Puerto Rico become its own country. Would this relieve the US of providing veterans benefits to those citizens of Puerto Rico who were injured in the Iraq war from receiving benefits.

Congress took the easy way out in 1946 and it has taken them over 60 years to do the right thing.

The way they are paying for this correction is wrong.

This would be like Congress approving the increase in Scip (that health care program for poor children) by decresaing funds to Medicare for children.