Printer Friendly Page
SEN. LARRY CRAIG ON MANDATORY VA FUNDING:
WE DON'T WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY -- Craig
disses veterans by comparing VA spending to
Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
Sen. Larry Craig
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), Ranking Minority
Member on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, is at it again.
Craig continues to argue AGAINST mandatory
funding for VA healthcare.
His arguments are ridiculous and show contempt
for veterans and their service.
Craig tries to compare VA spending to Medicaid
(a welfare program), Medicare (an insurance program) and Social Security
(another insurance program.) There is no comparison!
And, Craig basically says he doesn't want to
spend the money on veterans. Craig speaks of controlling the
federal budget. He speaks of a "cap" on spending.
Well, Senator Craig, there is no "cap" on war
spending!
And, there is no "cap" on the number of wounded
who come back from our wars!
For excellent arguments FOR mandatory VA
funding...go here...
http://vawatchdog.org/07/nf07/
nfJUL07/nf072307-1.htm
And, for more on mandatory VA funding, use the
VA Watchdog search engine...click here...
http://www.yourvabenefits.org/sessearch.
php?q=mandatory+funding&op=and
Craig press release here...
http://www.vawatchdog.org/07/
scva07/scva072507-1.htm
Press release below:
-------------------------
REPUBLICAN PRESS
RELEASE
July 25, 2007
CRAIG ISSUES WARNING ABOUT MANDATORY FUNDING
FOR VA
Media contact: Jeff Schrade (202)224-9093
(Washington, DC) At a U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs hearing
held Wednesday on funding for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,
U.S. Senator Larry Craig warned that mandatory funding will not solve
the long-term funding needs of that agency.
"We already have three very large programs that are considered to be
funded by ‘mandatory spending.' Namely: Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid," Craig said. "Very few younger Americans believe that Social
Security will give them much, if anything, when they retire. Being a
‘mandatory' program is no cure-all. We need across the board reform."
Mandatory
funding is a long-sought goal of many of the nation's veterans'
organizations. But Craig noted that unless Congress changes course,
federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will crowd
out every other federal program - including defense and homeland
security.
He pointed to remarks by the director of the non-partisan Government
Accountability Office (GAO), who recently warned lawmakers that unless
changes are made in federal spending, the federal government will be
able to do little more than "pay interest on the mounting debt and some
entitlement benefits." Craig also noted that Federal Reserve Chairman
Ben Bernanke recently warned Congress that the time to fix the nation's
fiscal problems started "ten years ago."
The Idaho Republican has been working on a solution for more than 20
years. He is a long-time sponsor of the Balanced Budget Amendment and
reintroduced that legislation in January - the first day Congress met
this year.
At that time Craig said that the solution to true fiscal responsibility
is three-fold: "We must not simply reduce the deficit, but eliminate it.
We must not amend the tax code, but replace it. And we must not talk
about limiting spending, but legally cap it."
During Wednesday's hearing Craig told his colleagues, "Congress not only
isn't addressing the current problems, but we're here considering
legislation to add to the problem."
While a budget hawk on many federal programs, Craig has advocated for
more federal spending on veterans' programs. In March of this year he
endorsed a record $86.4 billion budget for VA next year - which is
almost 8 percent over this year's budget and would be 77 percent larger
than it was when President Clinton left office in 2001.
"Veterans are absolutely a priority to me. That's a choice I have
consciously made," Craig said. "But a mandatory agency budget would, in
my judgment, be terrible national fiscal policy."
While cautioning his colleagues about establishing mandatory funding for
VA, the Idaho Republican noted that now that the Democrats are in power,
they have not actively been pursing mandatory funding either.
"I cannot help but recall that over the past several years [when
Republicans were in power] there have been Senate bills introduced in
each Congress to address mandatory funding. And there have even been a
number of attempts to add some form of mandatory funding to the Defense
Authorization Act," said Craig.
"At that time there were full page ads urging ‘Congress' to act on
mandatory funding. Yet, with the new majority taking over control of
Congress this year, oddly there were no amendments from the majority to
the Defense Authorization Act to provide mandatory funding. I have not
seen a bill introduced and now full page ads are bought to urge ‘The
President' -- not Congress -- to act on mandatory funding."
"I also can't help but notice that we are holding this hearing almost
exactly one month after the Committee marked-up its health care
legislative package for the first session. I've often wondered, in
debating the amendments on the floor over the past few years, how much
politics was behind them. I think I've learned a little about the answer
to that question this year," Craig said.
-------------------------
Larry Scott --
