Download PDF of this full issue: v16n1.pdf (11.4 MB)

Gramm-Rudman Amendment Hits Widows, Orphans and More Budget Cuts Endanger V.A.

By John Lindquist

Ronald Reagan and the majority of congress have dealt service-connected disabled veterans and the VA systems itself a heavy-handed blow. This article will attempt to lay out what the cuts would mean to veterans and their families if more revenue is not raised. We shall also look at who led this attack on veterans and what they said.

We want to thank the DAV Magazine of December 1985; I will quote a lot from it. If all the traditional veterans organizations fought as hard as the DAV, we veterans would be a major force to be reckoned with.

First, what is the Gramm-Rudman Amendment? "This amendment mandates cuts of roughly $36 billion a year over the next five years, thereby reducing the federal deficit entirely and balancing the budget by fiscal year 1991. If Congress can't come up with the cuts, or if projected estimates are off and more cuts are needed, the President would be required to make sweeping, across-the-board reductions to bring federal spending into line.

"This 'sequestering' provision effectively transfers Congress' authority on budget matters to the White House.

"When the measure was introduced in the Senate, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was asked to do an analysis of Gramm-Rudman. In response the CBO said that "If the overage provisions of the Gramm-Rudman amendment were implemented in FY 86, all 2.2 million (service-connected) veterans and all 300,000 of their survivors would lose at least 3% of their benefits. By 1991 this reduction would most likely exceed 20%.'

Further, '...based on overage employee salaries, the cut could mean a loss of 11,000 personnel in the first year. This is 23% of all doctors, nurses, psychologists and dentists now employed by the VA medical care system.

"During debate in the House, Chairman Montgomery (of the Veterans Committee) decided to settle the numbers battle once and for all. To that end, he directed VA Administrator Harry N. Walters to appear before the House Veterans Affairs Committee and answer questions concerning the impact of Gramm-Rudman on veterans programs and services.

"At White House direction Walters refused to appear before the Committee, and some Congressmen called for a subpoena in order to force Walters' testimony.

"Instead, Walters sent Montgomery a letter broadly outlining the impact Gramm-Rudman would have on the VA and couched in non specific terms. What wasn't known at the time was the Walters had drafted and earlier, much more specific letter to the Chairman—a letter that was killed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on review.

"That initial letter, a copy of which was obtained by the DAV, is a damning indictment of Gramm-Rudman. And it graphically points out why the White House refused to let Walters appear before the Committee. The draft letter predicted that disabled veterans and their survivors could lose $464 million in compensation and pension payments in fiscal year 1987 alone.

"Further, it estimated that a 4% cut in medical appropriations in 1987 under Gramm-Rudman would leave the VA $812 million short of what it needs to provide health care. Such a cut would force the system to reduce the number of inpatient episodes by 170,210 and reduce outpatient visits by 765,944.

"Such cuts, the letter stated, 'would require serious consideration of hospital closures. A 4% reduction in CBO's 1987 estimate ... would equate to closing approximately 12,500 bed hospitals. A 6% reduction in CBO's estimate, or 10% below current services would equate to closing approximately 15 500-bed hospitals.'

"The letter described equally serious cuts in all facets of VA operations, including research, education and training, and veterans assistance."

The house passed a version that exempted veterans, survivor's compensation and pensions from the sequestering provisions of the Gramm-Rudman bill. This House version was sent back to the Senate.

Senator Donald Riegle of Michigan and Senator Alan Cranston offered an amendment that closely followed the House version. It also supplied limited protection to VA health care funding.

"One question still searches for an answer though. How can any member of Congress deny cost-of-living adjustments to disabled veterans, protect those COLAs for Social Security recipients, preserve broad tax loopholes for big business and then stand up and say Gramm-Rudman is 'fair and equitable.' "

The debate over the Riegle Amendment went on in the Senate where, "the battle against a fair deal for service-connected disabled veterans is being led, predictably, by Senator Alan Simpson, Senate Majority Whip and past Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. His mostly silent partner on this issue is Senator Frank Murkowski current Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.

"Senator Simpson: 'There is a myth that floats around this curious arena that service-connected disability compensation is only for those veterans who are injured or disabled as a result of combat.

"That is not the truth. Nothing is further from the truth. You will hear this from some veterans' organizations using emotional rhetoric to sway some very patriotic Senators to support the welfare of their members. I think we ought to be aware of what we do when we get into this situation and deal with issues like this: let's look at 10% disability. That is 40% of the disability compensation in the records of the VA. Those disabilities consist of things like superficial varicose veins below the knee, mild ulcers with symptoms once or twice a year, flat fleet, hammertoes, frostbite. Some of that could occur while you were stationed at Fort Carson, CO and ripped up your knee at the ski run at Vail, or in the mess tent when you jabbed a potato peeler in the your leg while you were doing KP, or become involved in a automobile accident near an off-post bar after having a few or becoming involved in many, many things that have absolutely nothing to do with combat-related activity.

"I say again, Mr. President, and I shall say it one more time: Show me a combat veteran or veteran from a combat theater with any type of ailment or malady or conditions and I say give him anything it takes—anything the need—and I shall be right there to do that.'

Senator Murkowski embraces the same basic philosophy. In a recent letter her wrote, "You and I both know that circumstances of service-connected disabling incidents vary from the more heroic to the most embarrassing.' One veteran suffered a shattered leg while skiing on leave. One veteran may be service-connected for a disease such as diabetes, hypertension or multiple sclerosis that many nonveterans contract as an unfortunate part of everyday life. All these pairs of veterans are presumed equally service-connected, and all are given equal tax free compensation benefits and medical priority by the VA,'

"There are a couple of ways to respond to both Senators' contempt for the 10% award of service connection. If they begrudge a serviceman or woman that award because of flat feet or a cardiovascular condition, they should be pointing the finger at the military and not the VA.

"Individual military services determine such line-of duty disabilities. The VA's only consideration is in administering the payments made to the individual.

"And what of flat feet? The individual was accepted for military service in spite of that condition. We know, as well, that many people who only marginally qualify for military service are eagerly taken by the services, particularly during war time.

"Is Senator Simpson now saying we should welcome those people into service during war, but forget about them- and their no-doubt aggravated condition—after the war?

"Both Senators cite what they consider to be petty examples of the 10% award. And I believe they begrudge those 10%'ers the $66 a month they receive in disability compensation.

'We maintain those disabilities aren't so petty, and the government pays disability compensation at bargain basement rates. A finger lost, either through a truck accident or by an enemy bullet, is compensated at the 10% rate. Like I said, that's $66 a month.

"Now consider a typical civilian court award for the loss of that same finger at work... One of the lowest such court awards to a civilian was "175,000 for the loss of his little finger on his left hand. Now if that award was prudently invested and drew only 10% interest a year, that's $17,500 or more than $1400 a month.

"Or consider the fellow who loses most of the vision in one eye from an industrial accident. If it happened to him in the service, he would receive $66 a month. But since it happened to him in his civilian job the court awarded him $100,000. Again, figuring it's been invested at 10% per year, that's $833 a month.

"Before anyone shouts that the VA's disability compensation program pays too much to veterans—or pays to the wrong class of veterans—they should compare what the government pays against what the private sector pays—and who gets compensated.

"And when it comes to providing disability compensation to the people with hypertension or arthritis, critics must ask themselves what alternatives exist for veterans. They're not covered by disability insurance policy like those in the private sector. Nor should they be. After all, the federal government has given them a guarantee that it will care for them and compensate them should they become injured or disabled while on active duty."

So once again veterans and their families get kicked in the teeth. "Your country will take care of the wounded soldiers and their widows"—every President since Lincoln has told us this. Now when the largest group of veterans—those from World War II—is reaching the age of 65, where will these service-connected vets and pensioners go? Out in the street like a bunch of old meat.

Some of the blame lies at the feet of the veterans themselves. Where are all these concerned and angry vets? Why weren't they at a VVAW meeting or other events of their organization, be it VVAW or any other veterans' group.

It's up to us to make the difference and get active. If you don't think it can get any worse, just remember the monsoons which always got worse—and Congress is not a cycle of nature.

THEY SAY CUT BACK—WE SAY FIGHT BACK!!

—John Lindquist
VVAW National Office
(with a lot of help from the DAV)