WHEN DEMOCRATS AND LEADERS OF VETERANS SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS CAME TO THE DEFENSE OF "REPUBLICAN" CHAIR OF THE HOUSE VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, CHRIS SMITH OF NEW JERSEY, WHO THE NEOCON LEADERS OF THE CONGRESS WERE TRYING TO REMOVE BECAUSE OF HIS SUPPORT FOR VETERANS AND TROOPS THAT RAN CONTRARY TO BUSH ADMINISTRATION BUDGET POLICIES, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE DENNIS HASTERT CALLED VETERANS ORGANIZATION LEADERS CRAZY FOR SUPPORTING SMITH. ARMYDAD.
THE NEOCONS ARE NOW EATING THEIR OWN KIND IN THIER QUEST FOR POWER. WHO IS NEXT - SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN OR CHUCK HAGLE WHO HAVE SPOKEN OUT AGAINST HOW BUSH HAS RUN HIS WAR IN IRAQ?
"Veterans should be concerned that a spokesman for the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, speaking on behalf of the Republican-majority party, would call Veterans "crazy" for daring to attempt to engage in the Democratic process - the very process they fought and many died for." - Evans
Top Democrat on Veterans Committee Lane Evans on Republican Removal of Rep. Christopher Smith as Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee
"Of course, we will work with the new Chairman, Rep. Steve Buyer, and will continue to press the majority to be more responsive to the needs of Veterans and their families. However, what Veterans across this country today should focus their attention on is not the ascension of one individual to the chairmanship of this vital committee, but rather the REMOVAL of a champion of their cause simply because he did an exceptional job. That is unconscionable. Chris Smith is a tireless, outspoken advocate for the men and women who have worn the uniform, and he was punished for his passion and attempts to make sure they receive what they have EARNED. A good man was stripped of his chairmanship simply because he CARED. Politics won out over principle.
"What Veterans across this country today should be concerned about is a majority party that has relegated their concerns not to the back burner, but completely out of the kitchen. They should be concerned that a spokesman for the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, speaking on behalf of the majority party, would call veterans "crazy" for daring to attempt to engage in the Democratic process - the very process they fought and many died for. When veterans attempted to contact House GOP leaders and let them know of their support for Rep. Smith and his record, they were ridiculed.
"What veterans across this country today should be concerned about is a majority party that has obstructed every attempt to make right a VA health care budget they and their administration underfund each year by two-thirds, and who have blocked tens of thousands of Vterans from even accessing VA health care.
"What Veterans across this country had better be concerned about is an administration and its congressional leadership who continually press for combat-decorated and thousands of other Veterans to pay more for their health care.
"What Veterans across this country had better be concerned about is a budget that the administration will soon deliver that, by all accounts, will be devastating.
"There is a clarion call now - not later this year, but right now - for Veterans to rise up and demand - not request, but demand - what is rightfully theirs. If they do not, I fear for the future of VA, of Veterans' benefits and services, and for Veterans and their families.
"Starting today, the newly appointed Committee chairman and his leadership have an opportunity to prove me wrong."
Full Version: HOUSE SPEAKER DENNIS HASTERT CALLED
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > U.S. Military Issues Archive
Updated: 07:07 PM EST
House Republicans Oust VA Panel Chairman
By JIM ABRAMS, AP
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republican leaders decided to oust Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Christopher Smith, a lawmaker with strong allies in the Veterans' community who has tested his party's demands for loyalty with his stances on funding.
The GOP leaders, in a secret ballot, (THAT IS HOW NEOCONS PREFER DOING EVERYTHING - IN SECRET - ARMYDAD) chose Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., a 10-year Veteran of the committee, to replace Smith, R-N.J., who has led the panel for the past four years. Smith is expected to lose his committee seat, which he has held for 24 years.
WELL COME ON NOW 24 YEARS IS A BIT LONG TO HOLD A SEAT
ARMYDAD STRONGLY FEELS TERM LIMITS SHOULD BE APPLIED TO CHAIRS OF ALL THE COMMITTEES 
HECK TERM LIMITS SHOULG BE APPLIED TO CONGRESS.
The decision is expected to be ratified when all House Republicans meet on Thursday.
Buyer was the only lawmaker to challenge a sitting chairman as party leaders met to organize for the 109th session of Congress. Removing an incumbent is highly unusual, but Smith has been criticized for not being a team player and threatened with loss of his post for questioning party policies.
TRANSLATION = QUESTIONING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION NEOCON POLICIES. THEY NEED SMITH OUT OF THE WAY IN BUSH'S SECOND TERM. HOW ELSE THE NEOCONS GOING TO PAY FOR BUSH'S MISTAKE IN IRAQ AND PERMANENT TAX CUTS??? ARMYDAD
Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., talking to reporters after the vote, cited what he said was Smith's unwillingness to accept even those budgets backed by the Veterans Affairs Department.
BUDGETS PROPOSED BY TONY PRINCIPI WHO WORKED FOR GEORGE BUSH WHO WAS ALSO CANNED BY THE NEOCONS FOR ASKING FOR BUDGETS HIGHER THAN WHAT THE NEOCONS WANTED TO SPEND ON VETERANS. ARMYDAD.
Blunt said Buyer, a 46-year-old Persian Gulf War Veteran who is a Colonel in the Army Reserve, had presented a more forward-looking vision in pressing his case to party leaders.
AND JUST WHAT EXACTLY DOES "A MORE FORWARD-LOOKING VISION IN PRESENTING HIS CASE TO THE PARTY LEADERS" MEAN? THE ARMY RESERVE COLONEL IS A BUSH BOOT LICKING, KOWTOWING = GOP VETERAN = NEOCON. ARMYDAD WHO WILL ASK FOR BUDGETS THE PRESIDENT AND NEOCONS FIND ACCEPTABLE AS THEY PAY FOR HIS WAR IN IRAQ AND PERMANENT TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY WHO CONTRIBUTED TO BUSH'S RE-ELECTION.
Smith, in an interview, defended his record, saying the gains he has made for Veterans are enduring, and he denied that he has acted in defiance of the party.
"I think I am very much a team player because I think that good public policy is good for the team," he said.
Smith in the past has angered party leaders by saying that stringent GOP-backed budgets undercut Veterans' programs, a sensitive subject when the Bush administration and Congress are trying to show their wartime commitment to troops and veterans.
OTHERWORDS SMITH "ALMOST" HELPED MAKE GEORGE BUSH LOOK BAD DURING THE 2004 ELECTION WHEN IT CAME TO "SUPPORTING VETERANS AND THE TROOPS." WELL THIS ACTION TAKEN BY THE NEOCONS AGAINST SMITH GOES TO SHOW THAT SO MUCH FOR GEORGE BUSH'S "SUPPORT FOR VETERANS AND THE TROOPS." :D
NOTE: ARMYDAD USES THE NAME GEORGE BUSH NOT COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. ONE NEEDS TO GET USE TO SEPERATING "THE MAN" FROM "THE POSITION."
EXAMPLE: DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION THOSE OF US IN THE MILITARY, AND RETIRED WERE VERY GOOD AT SEPERATING RESPECT FOR "THE MAN" FROM RESPECT FOR "THE POSITION" OF THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
IT IS NO DIFFERENT NOW WHEN WE HAVE A HIGHLY "INCOMPETENT" AND "UNETHICAL" MAN AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
I SUGGEST THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO CRITICISE "THE PRESIDENT" TO CRITICISE "THE MAN," AND NOT THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
AS FOR ZANITY - IF A CARTOON FOR EXAMPLE IS PRINTED IN ONE OF OUR NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS (EVEN FOXNEWS OR WASHINGTON TIMES) I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH POSTING IT ON THIS FORUM. FIRST AMENDMENT ALLOWS IT IN OUR NATIONAL MEDIA - WHY NOT ON THIS FORUM? AS LONG AS THERE'S A LINK TO A SOURCE.
That independence has won Smith strong support among Veterans groups. On Monday the heads of eight Veterans groups, including the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, wrote House Speaker Dennis Hastert to say it would be a "tragedy" if Smith were removed from his post.
They noted that Smith had shepherded major legislation through Congress, including modernizing the GI bill, strengthening legal protections and expanding health care services and benefits.
House Republicans Oust VA Panel Chairman
By JIM ABRAMS, AP
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republican leaders decided to oust Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Christopher Smith, a lawmaker with strong allies in the Veterans' community who has tested his party's demands for loyalty with his stances on funding.
The GOP leaders, in a secret ballot, (THAT IS HOW NEOCONS PREFER DOING EVERYTHING - IN SECRET - ARMYDAD) chose Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., a 10-year Veteran of the committee, to replace Smith, R-N.J., who has led the panel for the past four years. Smith is expected to lose his committee seat, which he has held for 24 years.
WELL COME ON NOW 24 YEARS IS A BIT LONG TO HOLD A SEAT
ARMYDAD STRONGLY FEELS TERM LIMITS SHOULD BE APPLIED TO CHAIRS OF ALL THE COMMITTEES HECK TERM LIMITS SHOULG BE APPLIED TO CONGRESS. The decision is expected to be ratified when all House Republicans meet on Thursday.
Buyer was the only lawmaker to challenge a sitting chairman as party leaders met to organize for the 109th session of Congress. Removing an incumbent is highly unusual, but Smith has been criticized for not being a team player and threatened with loss of his post for questioning party policies.
TRANSLATION = QUESTIONING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION NEOCON POLICIES. THEY NEED SMITH OUT OF THE WAY IN BUSH'S SECOND TERM. HOW ELSE THE NEOCONS GOING TO PAY FOR BUSH'S MISTAKE IN IRAQ AND PERMANENT TAX CUTS??? ARMYDAD
Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., talking to reporters after the vote, cited what he said was Smith's unwillingness to accept even those budgets backed by the Veterans Affairs Department.
BUDGETS PROPOSED BY TONY PRINCIPI WHO WORKED FOR GEORGE BUSH WHO WAS ALSO CANNED BY THE NEOCONS FOR ASKING FOR BUDGETS HIGHER THAN WHAT THE NEOCONS WANTED TO SPEND ON VETERANS. ARMYDAD.
Blunt said Buyer, a 46-year-old Persian Gulf War Veteran who is a Colonel in the Army Reserve, had presented a more forward-looking vision in pressing his case to party leaders.
AND JUST WHAT EXACTLY DOES "A MORE FORWARD-LOOKING VISION IN PRESENTING HIS CASE TO THE PARTY LEADERS" MEAN? THE ARMY RESERVE COLONEL IS A BUSH BOOT LICKING, KOWTOWING = GOP VETERAN = NEOCON. ARMYDAD WHO WILL ASK FOR BUDGETS THE PRESIDENT AND NEOCONS FIND ACCEPTABLE AS THEY PAY FOR HIS WAR IN IRAQ AND PERMANENT TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY WHO CONTRIBUTED TO BUSH'S RE-ELECTION.
Smith, in an interview, defended his record, saying the gains he has made for Veterans are enduring, and he denied that he has acted in defiance of the party.
"I think I am very much a team player because I think that good public policy is good for the team," he said.
Smith in the past has angered party leaders by saying that stringent GOP-backed budgets undercut Veterans' programs, a sensitive subject when the Bush administration and Congress are trying to show their wartime commitment to troops and veterans.
OTHERWORDS SMITH "ALMOST" HELPED MAKE GEORGE BUSH LOOK BAD DURING THE 2004 ELECTION WHEN IT CAME TO "SUPPORTING VETERANS AND THE TROOPS." WELL THIS ACTION TAKEN BY THE NEOCONS AGAINST SMITH GOES TO SHOW THAT SO MUCH FOR GEORGE BUSH'S "SUPPORT FOR VETERANS AND THE TROOPS."
:D NOTE: ARMYDAD USES THE NAME GEORGE BUSH NOT COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. ONE NEEDS TO GET USE TO SEPERATING "THE MAN" FROM "THE POSITION."
EXAMPLE: DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION THOSE OF US IN THE MILITARY, AND RETIRED WERE VERY GOOD AT SEPERATING RESPECT FOR "THE MAN" FROM RESPECT FOR "THE POSITION" OF THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
IT IS NO DIFFERENT NOW WHEN WE HAVE A HIGHLY "INCOMPETENT" AND "UNETHICAL" MAN AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
I SUGGEST THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO CRITICISE "THE PRESIDENT" TO CRITICISE "THE MAN," AND NOT THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
AS FOR ZANITY - IF A CARTOON FOR EXAMPLE IS PRINTED IN ONE OF OUR NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS (EVEN FOXNEWS OR WASHINGTON TIMES) I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH POSTING IT ON THIS FORUM. FIRST AMENDMENT ALLOWS IT IN OUR NATIONAL MEDIA - WHY NOT ON THIS FORUM? AS LONG AS THERE'S A LINK TO A SOURCE.
That independence has won Smith strong support among Veterans groups. On Monday the heads of eight Veterans groups, including the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, wrote House Speaker Dennis Hastert to say it would be a "tragedy" if Smith were removed from his post.
They noted that Smith had shepherded major legislation through Congress, including modernizing the GI bill, strengthening legal protections and expanding health care services and benefits.
News Release Buyer Appointed to Chair Veterans Committee
To: Veterans for Progress, Ohio Veterans for Progress
From: "Lisa Bogle" <lbogle@davmail.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:44:42 -0500 (EST)
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
807 Maine Ave., SW · Washington, D.C. 20024 · Phone (202) 554-3501 · Fax (202) 863-0233
News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 6, 2005
DAV Urges New Veterans’ Committee Chairman to Make Veterans a National Priority
The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) today praised outgoing House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Christopher Smith (R-N.J.) for his steadfast advocacy on behalf our nation’s Veterans and pledged to work with the Committee’s new chairman Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) to make Veterans a national priority.
“Representative Smith has been a strong Veterans’ advocate throughout his tenure as Chairman of the Committee,” said DAV Washington Headquarters Executive Director David W. Gorman. “Additionally, he has led the Committee in a fair, balanced, and bipartisan fashion. And it is our sincere hope that Representative Buyer will continue this fine tradition of true leadership and respect for America’s Veterans.”
“Given Representative Smith’s solid record of accomplishments and steadfast commitment to the men and women who have served and sacrificed for our nation, it is a grave disappointment that the House leadership decided to strip him of his chairmanship, which was not due to expire for two more years,” said Gorman.
While Representative Smith chaired the Committee, Congress enacted numerous pieces of legislation that improved and enhanced Veterans’ benefits and services. Under Smith’s leadership, the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee repeatedly recommended significant increases in funding for Veterans health care and other programs. Smith also was largely responsible for successful efforts two years ago that prevented Congress from imposing severe budget cuts for Veterans health care.
THESE PROPOSED VETERANS BENEFIT BUDGET CUTS WERE DURING KNEWT GINGRICH'S INFAMOUS "CONTRACT ON AMERICA." ARMYDAD.
The 1.2 million-member Disabled American Veterans, a non-profit organization founded in 1920 and chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1932, represents this nation’s wartime Disabled Veterans. It is dedicated to a single purpose: building better lives for our nation’s Disabled Veterans and their families. For more information, visit the organization’s Web site www.dav.org.
To: Veterans for Progress, Ohio Veterans for Progress
From: "Lisa Bogle" <lbogle@davmail.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:44:42 -0500 (EST)
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
807 Maine Ave., SW · Washington, D.C. 20024 · Phone (202) 554-3501 · Fax (202) 863-0233
News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 6, 2005
DAV Urges New Veterans’ Committee Chairman to Make Veterans a National Priority
The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) today praised outgoing House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Christopher Smith (R-N.J.) for his steadfast advocacy on behalf our nation’s Veterans and pledged to work with the Committee’s new chairman Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) to make Veterans a national priority.
“Representative Smith has been a strong Veterans’ advocate throughout his tenure as Chairman of the Committee,” said DAV Washington Headquarters Executive Director David W. Gorman. “Additionally, he has led the Committee in a fair, balanced, and bipartisan fashion. And it is our sincere hope that Representative Buyer will continue this fine tradition of true leadership and respect for America’s Veterans.”
“Given Representative Smith’s solid record of accomplishments and steadfast commitment to the men and women who have served and sacrificed for our nation, it is a grave disappointment that the House leadership decided to strip him of his chairmanship, which was not due to expire for two more years,” said Gorman.
While Representative Smith chaired the Committee, Congress enacted numerous pieces of legislation that improved and enhanced Veterans’ benefits and services. Under Smith’s leadership, the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee repeatedly recommended significant increases in funding for Veterans health care and other programs. Smith also was largely responsible for successful efforts two years ago that prevented Congress from imposing severe budget cuts for Veterans health care.
THESE PROPOSED VETERANS BENEFIT BUDGET CUTS WERE DURING KNEWT GINGRICH'S INFAMOUS "CONTRACT ON AMERICA." ARMYDAD.
The 1.2 million-member Disabled American Veterans, a non-profit organization founded in 1920 and chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1932, represents this nation’s wartime Disabled Veterans. It is dedicated to a single purpose: building better lives for our nation’s Disabled Veterans and their families. For more information, visit the organization’s Web site www.dav.org.
Article from the Newark, New Jersey STAR-LEDGER:
GOP Yanks Smith as Head of House Veterans Panel
Thursday, January 06, 2005
BY ROBERT COHEN
STAR-LEDGER WASHINGTON BUREAU
Newark, New Jersey
WASHINGTON -- House Republican leaders last night voted to oust Rep. Christopher Smith as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a move prompted by the New Jersey lawmaker's failure to follow the party line and his insistence on increasing spending for Veterans.
ARMYDAD WILL KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT ON THIS ARTICLE - IT SAYS IT ALL
The decision to replace Smith (R-4th Dist.) with Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.), a Persian Gulf War veteran, was made behind closed doors by the House Republican Steering Committee under the direction of Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
The change, which was quickly denounced by leaders of several Veterans' groups, is expected to be ratified today by the entire Republican caucus as part of a package of committee assignments. Smith also is expected to lose his seat on the Veterans panel, which he has held for 24 years.
"It all came down to the fact I wanted to spend too much on Veterans," Smith said following a 90-minute meeting in which he detailed the 22 laws he authored to help Veterans in his four years as chairman.
"For me, it's about principles, about doing right regardless of the consequences," said Smith. "You help your team by helping the country, and the most worthy individuals on the planet, in my view, are the Veterans because they have made the sacrifice."
"I am not a yes man," he said. "I am a loyal Republican who believes in fighting for good public policy and that is the best way to show loyalty."
Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R- Mo.), talking to reporters after the vote, cited what he called Smith's unwillingness to accept even those budgets backed by the Veterans Affairs Department. Blunt said Buyer, who is a colonel in the Army Reserve, had presented a more forward-looking vision.
Hastert, in a prepared statement, said Buyer is "someone who has real-world veterans experience" and "understands the issues confronting today's Veterans when they return home from fighting the war on terror."
"I'm confident under Steve's leadership, those who faithfully fought to defend our freedoms will continue to have access to quality health care," Hastert said.
Buyer had lobbied the leadership for the post and has opposed Smith and Veterans' groups on a number of issues in the past several years.
A Republican leadership aide, who asked not to be identified, said Veterans spending has been "going up and up well beyond the rest of the budget." He said the GOP leaders wanted someone like Buyer who could "tell the Veterans groups, 'Enough is enough.'"
"Smith has not been much of a team player," said the House aide. Rather than work with the leaders, he said, Smith has publicly opposed them and put members in difficult political situations.
Earlier this week, leaders of eight Veterans groups including the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans and Vietnam Veterans of America wrote to Hastert urging him to retain Smith.
Last night, leaders of Veterans groups said the move does not bode well for improving Veterans' health care at a time when so many Soldiers are coming home wounded from the war in Iraq.
"This is not only a slap at Chris Smith, but a shot over the bow at veterans organizations," said Richard Fuller of the Paralyzed Veterans of America. "The Republican leadership has made a statement that the country is making too much of a commitment to the men and women who have served in uniform."
Smith is the third New Jersey Republican to be slighted by the conservative GOP leadership in recent years.
Rep. Jim Saxton (R-3rd Dist.) was denied the chairmanship of the Committee on Resources two years ago despite his seniority because he was considered too liberal on environmental issues.
Four years ago, now-retired GOP Rep. Marge Roukema was bypassed for the chairmanship of the Committee on Financial Services because she had repeatedly irritated the party's conservative wing.
Smith, now starting his 13th House term, has been a strong advocate for improving Veterans' programs, authoring bills to improve health care, increase college aid, help Homeless Veterans and raise life insurance benefits for surviving spouses. He had two more years left before term limits would have required him to step down as chairman.
Besides bucking the leadership on spending for Veterans, Smith, a strong opponent of abortion, angered his party several years ago when he held up a GOP-backed bill to overhaul bankruptcy law. The dispute involved a provision to prohibit abortion protesters from using bankruptcy to avoid paying court fines for blocking clinics.
Smith also has not always followed the party line on issues involving labor, the environment and health care. Nevertheless, in the past several years, surveys show he has voted his party's position at least 85 percent of the time.
The New Jersey congressman said the GOP leaders at yesterday's meeting had a list of his "egregious votes in front of them" on labor and environmental issues, including his opposition to drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
Dennis Cullinan, legislative director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, called Smith's ouster "a bitter disappointment," while Joe Violante of Disabled American Veterans said it "sends a terrible message to Veterans that they are not a priority with the House leadership.
"I don't believe they are in favor of giving Veterans anything more then the bare minimum," said Violante.
GOP Yanks Smith as Head of House Veterans Panel
Thursday, January 06, 2005
BY ROBERT COHEN
STAR-LEDGER WASHINGTON BUREAU
Newark, New Jersey
WASHINGTON -- House Republican leaders last night voted to oust Rep. Christopher Smith as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a move prompted by the New Jersey lawmaker's failure to follow the party line and his insistence on increasing spending for Veterans.
ARMYDAD WILL KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT ON THIS ARTICLE - IT SAYS IT ALL
The decision to replace Smith (R-4th Dist.) with Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.), a Persian Gulf War veteran, was made behind closed doors by the House Republican Steering Committee under the direction of Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
The change, which was quickly denounced by leaders of several Veterans' groups, is expected to be ratified today by the entire Republican caucus as part of a package of committee assignments. Smith also is expected to lose his seat on the Veterans panel, which he has held for 24 years.
"It all came down to the fact I wanted to spend too much on Veterans," Smith said following a 90-minute meeting in which he detailed the 22 laws he authored to help Veterans in his four years as chairman.
"For me, it's about principles, about doing right regardless of the consequences," said Smith. "You help your team by helping the country, and the most worthy individuals on the planet, in my view, are the Veterans because they have made the sacrifice."
"I am not a yes man," he said. "I am a loyal Republican who believes in fighting for good public policy and that is the best way to show loyalty."
Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R- Mo.), talking to reporters after the vote, cited what he called Smith's unwillingness to accept even those budgets backed by the Veterans Affairs Department. Blunt said Buyer, who is a colonel in the Army Reserve, had presented a more forward-looking vision.
Hastert, in a prepared statement, said Buyer is "someone who has real-world veterans experience" and "understands the issues confronting today's Veterans when they return home from fighting the war on terror."
"I'm confident under Steve's leadership, those who faithfully fought to defend our freedoms will continue to have access to quality health care," Hastert said.
Buyer had lobbied the leadership for the post and has opposed Smith and Veterans' groups on a number of issues in the past several years.
A Republican leadership aide, who asked not to be identified, said Veterans spending has been "going up and up well beyond the rest of the budget." He said the GOP leaders wanted someone like Buyer who could "tell the Veterans groups, 'Enough is enough.'"
"Smith has not been much of a team player," said the House aide. Rather than work with the leaders, he said, Smith has publicly opposed them and put members in difficult political situations.
Earlier this week, leaders of eight Veterans groups including the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans and Vietnam Veterans of America wrote to Hastert urging him to retain Smith.
Last night, leaders of Veterans groups said the move does not bode well for improving Veterans' health care at a time when so many Soldiers are coming home wounded from the war in Iraq.
"This is not only a slap at Chris Smith, but a shot over the bow at veterans organizations," said Richard Fuller of the Paralyzed Veterans of America. "The Republican leadership has made a statement that the country is making too much of a commitment to the men and women who have served in uniform."
Smith is the third New Jersey Republican to be slighted by the conservative GOP leadership in recent years.
Rep. Jim Saxton (R-3rd Dist.) was denied the chairmanship of the Committee on Resources two years ago despite his seniority because he was considered too liberal on environmental issues.
Four years ago, now-retired GOP Rep. Marge Roukema was bypassed for the chairmanship of the Committee on Financial Services because she had repeatedly irritated the party's conservative wing.
Smith, now starting his 13th House term, has been a strong advocate for improving Veterans' programs, authoring bills to improve health care, increase college aid, help Homeless Veterans and raise life insurance benefits for surviving spouses. He had two more years left before term limits would have required him to step down as chairman.
Besides bucking the leadership on spending for Veterans, Smith, a strong opponent of abortion, angered his party several years ago when he held up a GOP-backed bill to overhaul bankruptcy law. The dispute involved a provision to prohibit abortion protesters from using bankruptcy to avoid paying court fines for blocking clinics.
Smith also has not always followed the party line on issues involving labor, the environment and health care. Nevertheless, in the past several years, surveys show he has voted his party's position at least 85 percent of the time.
The New Jersey congressman said the GOP leaders at yesterday's meeting had a list of his "egregious votes in front of them" on labor and environmental issues, including his opposition to drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
Dennis Cullinan, legislative director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, called Smith's ouster "a bitter disappointment," while Joe Violante of Disabled American Veterans said it "sends a terrible message to Veterans that they are not a priority with the House leadership.
"I don't believe they are in favor of giving Veterans anything more then the bare minimum," said Violante.
Fallout Continues: Democratic Leader Pelosi and Dean of House Con gressman John Dingell Respond to Dismissal of Chris Smith from Veterans Committee
Chairmanship for Supporting Veterans
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 18:02:28 -0500
Veterans' and Military Retirees' News
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Thursday, January 06, 2005
In this update:
- Pelosi Statement
- Dingell Statement
Leader Pelosi Responds to a Reporter During Her Weekly Press Conference Held Today:
(Note: Joe Hefley is a Republican facing likely removal from the Ethics Committee Chairmanship for adhering to Ethics Rules instead of wishes of Republican leadership)
Q Madam Leader, can you comment on the likely removal of Ethics Chairman Hefley, and whether or not you will decide to replace any of the Democrats on the Ethics Committee?
Ms. Pelosi. I find the Hefley removal very disturbing. What it says is that if you honor the ethics processes, you are out. They used the excuse of term limits, where they just made an exception for Chairman Dreier on the Rules Committee. So, it's not consistent. And, quite frankly, I find it very disturbing, and I think everyone should.
Certainly I see it also in the context of removing not only from his chairmanship, but from the Veterans Committee, Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey. There is a purge going on around here, and I think you should see it for what it is -- that if you try to work with the Veterans groups or work in a bipartisan way on Veterans or ethics issues, and you do not follow the Republican party line, then you are out. I am very saddened. Chris Smith has been a champion for Veterans and understands their issues. He is fiscally responsible, so he sees it in the context of our responsibilities here, and now he is not even on the committee. That these two removals are cause of great concern to the Congress should be to all of you as well.
Democratic Congressman John Dingell is the Dean of the U.S. House of Representative and a Veteran of World War II:
Washington, DC- Congressman John D. Dingell (D-MI) today denounced the House Republican Leadership for stripping Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) of his Chairmanship of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and their likely removal of Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO) as Chairman of the Ethics Committee for the "CRIME OF DOING THEIR JOBS." Earlier today, Rep. Smith was removed by his Republican colleagues as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, while Rep. Hefley said earlier this week that he "expects to be booted" as Chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the Ethics Committee).
Dingell, the most senior Member of the House of Representatives and a World War II veteran, had the following to say about the GOP actions:
"Only the House GOP would have the audacity to claim to be pro-Veteran, and then strip Rep. Smith of his Chairmanship for being too supportive of Veterans. Only the House GOP would have the impudence to claim to be the party of morals, and move to strip Rep. Hefley of his Ethics Committee Chairmanship for being too ethical. It's disturbingly reminiscent of President Nixon's 'midnight massacre' firing of his Watergate investigator for investigating Watergate. It's positively Orwellian.
"Today's actions, along with Tuesday's rollback of the ethics process, show that the Republicans intend to continue their junta-like control of this once proud institution. They stifle dissent; change rules to suit their needs; muzzle the minority; and now, like praying mantises, are devouring their own. I hope the American people understand what is happening to their Congress."
Chairmanship for Supporting Veterans
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 18:02:28 -0500
Veterans' and Military Retirees' News
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Thursday, January 06, 2005
In this update:
- Pelosi Statement
- Dingell Statement
Leader Pelosi Responds to a Reporter During Her Weekly Press Conference Held Today:
(Note: Joe Hefley is a Republican facing likely removal from the Ethics Committee Chairmanship for adhering to Ethics Rules instead of wishes of Republican leadership)
Q Madam Leader, can you comment on the likely removal of Ethics Chairman Hefley, and whether or not you will decide to replace any of the Democrats on the Ethics Committee?
Ms. Pelosi. I find the Hefley removal very disturbing. What it says is that if you honor the ethics processes, you are out. They used the excuse of term limits, where they just made an exception for Chairman Dreier on the Rules Committee. So, it's not consistent. And, quite frankly, I find it very disturbing, and I think everyone should.
Certainly I see it also in the context of removing not only from his chairmanship, but from the Veterans Committee, Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey. There is a purge going on around here, and I think you should see it for what it is -- that if you try to work with the Veterans groups or work in a bipartisan way on Veterans or ethics issues, and you do not follow the Republican party line, then you are out. I am very saddened. Chris Smith has been a champion for Veterans and understands their issues. He is fiscally responsible, so he sees it in the context of our responsibilities here, and now he is not even on the committee. That these two removals are cause of great concern to the Congress should be to all of you as well.
Democratic Congressman John Dingell is the Dean of the U.S. House of Representative and a Veteran of World War II:
Washington, DC- Congressman John D. Dingell (D-MI) today denounced the House Republican Leadership for stripping Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) of his Chairmanship of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and their likely removal of Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO) as Chairman of the Ethics Committee for the "CRIME OF DOING THEIR JOBS." Earlier today, Rep. Smith was removed by his Republican colleagues as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, while Rep. Hefley said earlier this week that he "expects to be booted" as Chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the Ethics Committee).
Dingell, the most senior Member of the House of Representatives and a World War II veteran, had the following to say about the GOP actions:
"Only the House GOP would have the audacity to claim to be pro-Veteran, and then strip Rep. Smith of his Chairmanship for being too supportive of Veterans. Only the House GOP would have the impudence to claim to be the party of morals, and move to strip Rep. Hefley of his Ethics Committee Chairmanship for being too ethical. It's disturbingly reminiscent of President Nixon's 'midnight massacre' firing of his Watergate investigator for investigating Watergate. It's positively Orwellian.
"Today's actions, along with Tuesday's rollback of the ethics process, show that the Republicans intend to continue their junta-like control of this once proud institution. They stifle dissent; change rules to suit their needs; muzzle the minority; and now, like praying mantises, are devouring their own. I hope the American people understand what is happening to their Congress."
QUOTE(ARMYDAD @ Jan 15 2005, 12:43 PM)
The decision to replace Smith (R-4th Dist.) with Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.), a Persian Gulf War veteran, was made behind closed doors by the House Republican Steering Committee under the direction of Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R- Mo.), talking to reporters after the vote, cited what he called Smith's unwillingness to accept even those budgets backed by the Veterans Affairs Department. Blunt said Buyer, who is a colonel in the Army Reserve, had presented a more forward-looking vision.
Hastert, in a prepared statement, said Buyer is "someone who has real-world veterans experience" and "understands the issues confronting today's Veterans when they return home from fighting the war on terror."
"I'm confident under Steve's leadership, those who faithfully fought to defend our freedoms will continue to have access to quality health care," Hastert said.
Buyer had lobbied the leadership for the post and has opposed Smith and Veterans' groups on a number of issues in the past several years.
"I don't believe they are in favor of giving Veterans anything more then the bare minimum," said Violante.
Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R- Mo.), talking to reporters after the vote, cited what he called Smith's unwillingness to accept even those budgets backed by the Veterans Affairs Department. Blunt said Buyer, who is a colonel in the Army Reserve, had presented a more forward-looking vision.
Hastert, in a prepared statement, said Buyer is "someone who has real-world veterans experience" and "understands the issues confronting today's Veterans when they return home from fighting the war on terror."
"I'm confident under Steve's leadership, those who faithfully fought to defend our freedoms will continue to have access to quality health care," Hastert said.
Buyer had lobbied the leadership for the post and has opposed Smith and Veterans' groups on a number of issues in the past several years.
"I don't believe they are in favor of giving Veterans anything more then the bare minimum," said Violante.
If Buyer is a colonel in the Army Reserve, he could be called to active duty at any time (and his position in Congress should not preclude his re-activation) considering the current state of war and the fact many others are being called for active duty when they have no legal or contractual obligations left to the military and/or have retired from the military. As such, it would be inappropriate for him to be placed in him in such a chairmanship postion at this time.
EVEN MILITARY RETIREES WHO VOTED FOR BUSH ARE BEGINNING TO SEE THE LIGHT (OR SHOULD I SAY THE DARK SAD TRUTH) ARMYDAD AS THESE NEXT TWO POSTS WILL SHOW.
"Veteran Issues by Colonel Dan" <VeteranIssues@yahoogroups.com>
From: "ColonelDan" <ColonelDan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:37:50 -0600
Subject: [VeteranIssues] Vets fight to save Rep. Chris Smith from Hastert's ax
also see article below Don's message
----- Original Message -----
From: "DON HOLLAND"
To: <VeteranIssues-owner@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [VeteranIssues] Skip Buyer, I'll stick with Smith
Hey Col Dan,
You probably recall that Congressman Steve Buyer (R.MO) was replaced as
Chairman of the House Sub Committee on Military Personnel about four years ago because of his ineptness in being unable to stop Tri Care For Life (Medical Benefits for Military Retirees).
I watched him on CSPAN when it passed, he made a threatening statement to the effect if Mlitary Retirees abused Tri Care For Life and the cost became too high, they would take it away from us.
BUYER IS NOT OUR FRIEND!!!!
ULTIMA,
Don
*******
Below Sent to me by Bill Steimel
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheH...0505/smith.html
Vets fight to save Rep. Chris Smith from Hastert's ax
By Bob Cusack and By Klaus Marre
Worried that House Republican leaders are poised to oust Rep. Chris Smith
(R-N.J.) as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, a wide array of
veterans groups is warning that such a move would send the wrong signal to U.S. troops abroad.
Sources on and off Capitol Hill said Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) is the leading candidate to take Smith's gavel. If GOP leaders appoint Buyer, a loyal supporter of House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), it would signal clearly to the Republican caucus that rebels will be punished.
erika lusk
Rep. Chris Smith has spoken out for funding of veterans programs.
Smith has been outspoken on veterans funding. He has two more years
remaining on the Republicans' self-imposed term limits for committee chairs, but veterans groups fear he will not finish his term.
Sources said Smith's chairmanship is to be challenged as the Republican
Steering Committee today weighs which lawmakers will chair committees in the
109th Congress.
Dennis Cullinan, national legislative service director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW), said it would be an "absolute disaster" that "such an effective chairman would be removed for political reasons."
He said it would send the wrong message to U.S. troops, adding, "We're at war."
Buyer ranks fourth in seniority on Veterans Affairs, behind Reps. Smith, Michael Bilirakis (R-Fla.) and Terry Everett (R-Ala.).
Over the past several years, loyalty to House GOP leaders has been viewed as
more important than seniority in securing committee gavels. But removing
Smith before his term is up would accentuate Hastert's demand for loyalty.
In the 108th Congress, Smith was not known for consistently bucking House
leaders. He voted with them on budget issues and the Medicare drug bill but
voted against them on drug reimportation legislation.
Hastert delegates much of his power to committee chairmen, so decisions on
panel chairmanships are a top priority for him.
Veterans groups have showered Smith and Bilirakis with praise but are wary of Buyer. They fear that under his leadership veterans funding could be cut
substantially in 2005, noting that the White House wants to scale back federal spending sharply this year.
While Smith has been outspoken against proposed cuts to veterans programs,
sources with these organizations speculate that Buyer would do whatever
leadership wants.
One source said Buyer "would toe the party line" and "is ideologically loyal" to leadership.
STEVE BUYER IS A NEOCON - YESMAN - ARMYDAD
Leading veterans groups are standing firmly behind Smith. In a Jan. 3 letter to Hastert, 10 organizations, including the VFW, the American Legion and Vietnam Veterans of America, urged the GOP leader to make sure Smith remains at the helm.
HASTERT ARROGANTLY IGNORED THEM CALLING THEM "CRAZY" FOR THINKING THAT THEM STANDING BY SMITH WAS GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING. IN FACT, THE VETERAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS (AND DEMOCRATS) COMING TO SMITH'S DEFENSE ONLY MADE SMITH'S SITUATION WORSE. IT MADE SMITH MORE OF A THREAT TO THE NEOCONS BUDGETARY PLANS THAT PLACE "TAX CUTS" OVER "VETERANS AND TROOPS." ARMYDAD
Veterans yesterday hand-delivered letters of the support for Smith on Capitol Hill.
One read: "In our view, it would be a tragedy of Chris Smith left the chairmanship. . The unnecessary loss of his leadership, knowledge, skill, honesty, passion, and work ethic would be a deeply disturbing development not just to us, but to millions of Veterans across the country whose lives he had touched."
The organizations said they do not always agree with Smith but know he will
"always give us a fair hearing and an honest assessment." They called Smith
"the foremost congressional expert and advocate on Veterans' issues" and
praised the lawmaker for putting "principle over politics."
Richard Fuller, legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, another
group that signed the letter to Hastert, said that if Smith lost the chairmanship it would be for political reasons and to "make an example" of him.
It would be "placing politics above principle," Fuller said, adding that it "shouldn't be about the party line. . It should be about what is best for veterans."
While there had been rumors of a change in the committee's leadership, the letters supporting Smith indicate the lawmaker's imminent danger. Fuller said it is rare for the veterans groups to join forces on one issue.
WELL NEOCONS GET USE TO IT BECAUSE THIS IS A SIGN OF THINGS TO COME THERE'S A NEW VETERANS ORGANIZATION ON THE BLOCK - VETERANS FOR PROGRESS - AND WE ALL HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON. YOU CAN BE ANYTHING BUT A NEOCON TO JOIN.
He criticized the behind-closed-doors process of choosing chairmen, adding that the organizations' letters were intended to make sure veterans were "part of the discussion."
The veterans groups made it clear that by taking the gavel from Smith the
GOP leadership would risk alienating not only the country's powerful veterans organizations but also 26 million veterans and their families.
DITTO
Hastert spokesman John Feehery did not comment for this article, saying it was a Steering Committee issue. Hastert has the most votes on the committee but can be outvoted by the rest of its members. Lawmakers said Hastert has his fingerprints on most, if not all, major decisions that the committee makes.
Smith and Buyer's offices did not return calls seeking comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
"Keep on, Keepin' on", Support Veterans & Thanks...
Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan"
See my web site at:
http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/
Forward to a veteran or Sign up a Veteran to this list at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VeteranIssues/join
"Veteran Issues by Colonel Dan" <VeteranIssues@yahoogroups.com>
From: "ColonelDan" <ColonelDan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:37:50 -0600
Subject: [VeteranIssues] Vets fight to save Rep. Chris Smith from Hastert's ax
also see article below Don's message
----- Original Message -----
From: "DON HOLLAND"
To: <VeteranIssues-owner@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [VeteranIssues] Skip Buyer, I'll stick with Smith
Hey Col Dan,
You probably recall that Congressman Steve Buyer (R.MO) was replaced as
Chairman of the House Sub Committee on Military Personnel about four years ago because of his ineptness in being unable to stop Tri Care For Life (Medical Benefits for Military Retirees).
I watched him on CSPAN when it passed, he made a threatening statement to the effect if Mlitary Retirees abused Tri Care For Life and the cost became too high, they would take it away from us.
BUYER IS NOT OUR FRIEND!!!!
ULTIMA,
Don
*******
Below Sent to me by Bill Steimel
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheH...0505/smith.html
Vets fight to save Rep. Chris Smith from Hastert's ax
By Bob Cusack and By Klaus Marre
Worried that House Republican leaders are poised to oust Rep. Chris Smith
(R-N.J.) as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, a wide array of
veterans groups is warning that such a move would send the wrong signal to U.S. troops abroad.
Sources on and off Capitol Hill said Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) is the leading candidate to take Smith's gavel. If GOP leaders appoint Buyer, a loyal supporter of House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), it would signal clearly to the Republican caucus that rebels will be punished.
erika lusk
Rep. Chris Smith has spoken out for funding of veterans programs.
Smith has been outspoken on veterans funding. He has two more years
remaining on the Republicans' self-imposed term limits for committee chairs, but veterans groups fear he will not finish his term.
Sources said Smith's chairmanship is to be challenged as the Republican
Steering Committee today weighs which lawmakers will chair committees in the
109th Congress.
Dennis Cullinan, national legislative service director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW), said it would be an "absolute disaster" that "such an effective chairman would be removed for political reasons."
He said it would send the wrong message to U.S. troops, adding, "We're at war."
Buyer ranks fourth in seniority on Veterans Affairs, behind Reps. Smith, Michael Bilirakis (R-Fla.) and Terry Everett (R-Ala.).
Over the past several years, loyalty to House GOP leaders has been viewed as
more important than seniority in securing committee gavels. But removing
Smith before his term is up would accentuate Hastert's demand for loyalty.
In the 108th Congress, Smith was not known for consistently bucking House
leaders. He voted with them on budget issues and the Medicare drug bill but
voted against them on drug reimportation legislation.
Hastert delegates much of his power to committee chairmen, so decisions on
panel chairmanships are a top priority for him.
Veterans groups have showered Smith and Bilirakis with praise but are wary of Buyer. They fear that under his leadership veterans funding could be cut
substantially in 2005, noting that the White House wants to scale back federal spending sharply this year.
While Smith has been outspoken against proposed cuts to veterans programs,
sources with these organizations speculate that Buyer would do whatever
leadership wants.
One source said Buyer "would toe the party line" and "is ideologically loyal" to leadership.
STEVE BUYER IS A NEOCON - YESMAN - ARMYDAD
Leading veterans groups are standing firmly behind Smith. In a Jan. 3 letter to Hastert, 10 organizations, including the VFW, the American Legion and Vietnam Veterans of America, urged the GOP leader to make sure Smith remains at the helm.
HASTERT ARROGANTLY IGNORED THEM CALLING THEM "CRAZY" FOR THINKING THAT THEM STANDING BY SMITH WAS GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING. IN FACT, THE VETERAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS (AND DEMOCRATS) COMING TO SMITH'S DEFENSE ONLY MADE SMITH'S SITUATION WORSE. IT MADE SMITH MORE OF A THREAT TO THE NEOCONS BUDGETARY PLANS THAT PLACE "TAX CUTS" OVER "VETERANS AND TROOPS." ARMYDAD
Veterans yesterday hand-delivered letters of the support for Smith on Capitol Hill.
One read: "In our view, it would be a tragedy of Chris Smith left the chairmanship. . The unnecessary loss of his leadership, knowledge, skill, honesty, passion, and work ethic would be a deeply disturbing development not just to us, but to millions of Veterans across the country whose lives he had touched."
The organizations said they do not always agree with Smith but know he will
"always give us a fair hearing and an honest assessment." They called Smith
"the foremost congressional expert and advocate on Veterans' issues" and
praised the lawmaker for putting "principle over politics."
Richard Fuller, legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, another
group that signed the letter to Hastert, said that if Smith lost the chairmanship it would be for political reasons and to "make an example" of him.
It would be "placing politics above principle," Fuller said, adding that it "shouldn't be about the party line. . It should be about what is best for veterans."
While there had been rumors of a change in the committee's leadership, the letters supporting Smith indicate the lawmaker's imminent danger. Fuller said it is rare for the veterans groups to join forces on one issue.
WELL NEOCONS GET USE TO IT BECAUSE THIS IS A SIGN OF THINGS TO COME THERE'S A NEW VETERANS ORGANIZATION ON THE BLOCK - VETERANS FOR PROGRESS - AND WE ALL HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON. YOU CAN BE ANYTHING BUT A NEOCON TO JOIN.
He criticized the behind-closed-doors process of choosing chairmen, adding that the organizations' letters were intended to make sure veterans were "part of the discussion."
The veterans groups made it clear that by taking the gavel from Smith the
GOP leadership would risk alienating not only the country's powerful veterans organizations but also 26 million veterans and their families.
DITTO
Hastert spokesman John Feehery did not comment for this article, saying it was a Steering Committee issue. Hastert has the most votes on the committee but can be outvoted by the rest of its members. Lawmakers said Hastert has his fingerprints on most, if not all, major decisions that the committee makes.
Smith and Buyer's offices did not return calls seeking comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
"Keep on, Keepin' on", Support Veterans & Thanks...
Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan"
See my web site at:
http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/
Forward to a veteran or Sign up a Veteran to this list at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VeteranIssues/join
QUOTE
If Buyer is a colonel in the Army Reserve, he could be called to active duty at any time (and his position in Congress should not preclude his re-activation) considering the current state of war and the fact many others are being called for active duty when they have no legal or contractual obligations left to the military and/or have retired from the military. As such, it would be inappropriate for him to be placed in him in such a chairmanship postion at this time.
So angry I could spit,
IT'S ALREADY A DONE DEAL - BROTHER.
Chris Smith has already been made an example of.
Steve Buyer is NOW the Republican Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee.
ARMYDAD is just posting the background on how this came to be AND how the NEOCONS who control Congress do Bush's dirty work in Congress.
NOW THINGS HAVE GOTTEN SO BAD THAT THEY ARE EATING THEIR OWN. WHO'S NEXT ON THE NEOCON CHOPPING BLOCK? THOSE REPUBLICANS WHO CRITICIZE BUSH'S POLICIES? THEY RULE THE HOUSE VIA FEAR AND INTIMIDATION LET'S HOPE THEIR INFESTATION DOESN'T REACH THE SENATE OR THEY WILL GO AFTER SUCH PATRIOTS AS SENATOR CHUCK HAGLE AND JOHN MCCAIN FOR SPEAKING OUT AGAINST BUSH ADMIN FOUL UPS IN IRAQ - MARK MY WORDS.
REGARDING CONGRESSMAN BUYER BEING A COLONEL IN THE RESERVES. IF "THE COLONEL'S" UNIT GETS CALLED UP EITHER HE WILL GO OR HE WILL GET AN EXCLUSION FOR SERVING IN CONGRESS. DON'T KNOW THAT MUCH ABOUT WHAT HE DOES IN THE RESERVES.
Now onto my next post.
THIS WAS SENT TO ME IN THE MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (MOAA) LEGISLATIVE UPDATE FOR FRIDAY, 01/14/05
THOUGH FOCUSED ON MILITARY RETIREES THE ARTICLE HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR ALL VETERANS AND TROOPS.
http://www.moaa.org/default.asp
Making the Cuts, Keeping the Benefits
By CINDY WILLIAMS
Published: January 11, 2005
Cambridge, Mass. — IN an effort to reduce the growth of the military budget, the Bush administration is poised to cut back a wide array of Pentagon programs, from jet fighters to a missile defense system. Pentagon leaders say the cuts will save more than $55 billion over six years.
Whether these reductions herald the end of the rapid rise in military spending that began in 1999, however, is open to question. While fewer weapons systems than planned will be purchased during the next six years, in financial terms, putting an end to the buildup will require cutting far more than what is now on the chopping block. One reason is that much of the recent rise in spending has been fueled not by new tanks or missiles, but by new costs associated with military personnel - especially retirees. These costs amount to a permanent increase in the military budget. Unlike spending on equipment, they cannot be canceled or deferred.
Since the start of the buildup, the rising costs of military pay, retiree benefits, health care and family housing have greatly outstripped inflation and added more than $40 billion to annual Pentagon budgets, even though the number of active-duty troops has essentially stayed the same. Moreover, the annual costs continue to grow rapidly. The program reductions that are reported to be under consideration would not be enough to offset the growth in spending for military pay and benefits anticipated during the next several years. Even holding the increases in the military budget to the level of inflation would require tens of billions of dollars in annual reductions.
To the extent that added pay and benefits ensure the nation does right by the men and women who fight for it, these increases would seem worthwhile. Unfortunately, a large share of new spending is devoted not to helping Soldiers serving today, but to improving the benefits for Military Retirees - that is, the small minority of Veterans who stay in the military for 20 years or more and are eligible for immediate benefits upon their retirements.
In recent years, Congress has expanded retiree benefits substantially, making them the fastest-growing category of entitlements for military personnel. In 1999, Congress reversed a 1986 law that would have trimmed pensions for retirees who joined the military after 1986. That change costs the Defense Department some $1 billion annually. A health care entitlement granted by Congress in 2000 pays virtually all medical expenses for older retirees and their spouses - including the cost of prescription drugs - that are not covered by Medicare. That entitlement costs the Defense Department nearly $4 billion now and its costs will rise over the coming years.
Another benefit, granted by Congress last year and scheduled to be phased in over a decade, will permit retirees who depart the military with moderate to severe disabilities to collect retirement pensions in addition to their disability payments. Its cost, about $500 million this year, will rise to some $2.5 billion a year in six years. In addition, a change authorized in October 2004 will enrich the pensions of spouses who outlive retired service members, at a cost of about $200 million this year and nearly $1 billion in 2011. As expensive as these new benefits are, advocates are pressing Congress for more.
These deferred entitlements do nothing to help men and women now in uniform. These members of the military face long and frequent family separations, deployment to distant lands, fighting in a dangerous counter-insurgency and more. Cash bonuses, improved family services, modern and well-maintained equipment and increases in troop strength (which would mean less frequent call-ups and deployments) are far more likely to serve their needs.
In fact, most active-duty military will never get anything - because they will leave the service before they are eligible to retire with benefits. Fewer than one in 12 of today's living Veterans qualify for retiree benefits, and fewer than one in five of today's active-duty service members are expected to stay for the 20 years it takes to receive them.
Moreover, deferred benefits will not help the Army or the National Guard overcome the recruitment and retention problems they face as a result of the war in Iraq. The prospect of receiving such benefits in the distant future is virtually worthless in helping the military to persuade an 18-year-old to join the military or encourage a 23-year-old to re-enlist.
The rapid growth of retiree benefits has already greatly complicated the budget picture for military leaders. Even if Congress decides against further expansion of such benefits, the ones it has already granted will make it hard to slow budget growth without further reducing the size of the military. Giving in to pressure for another round of entitlements, in the face of the challenges facing the troops serving in Iraq and elsewhere, would be irresponsible.
Cindy Williams, a principal research scientist in the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the editor of "Filling the Ranks: Transforming the U.S. Military Personnel System."
Filling the Ranks is about how to best MARKET the American War Machine to get "other people's children" to do our fighting for us. It is based on a "corporate model" that has nothing to do with Patriotism, Freedom, or Love of Country, but alot that would be attractive to Mercs. (Mercenaries). IT IS THE TOTAL PRIVITIZATION OF THE AMERICAN MILITARY AND A SURE THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM MORE THAN INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM WOULD EVER BE - ARMYDAD.
OF NOTE CINDY WILLIAMS IS ALSO EDITOR OF "HOLDING THE LINE," WHICH ONE COULD CALL THE ARCHITECT OF DONALD RUMSFELD'S VISION OF THE FUTURE ARMED FORCES WHICH HAS NO ROOM FOR MILITARY FAMILIES OR MILITARY RETIREES. IT IS THE EPIDOMY OF "THE CORPORATE PENTAGON" WITH ALL THE RUMSFELD ATTITUDES TOWARD THE TROOPS THAT COME WITH IT.
Holding the Line presents objective and detailed assessments of the U.S. defense budget and America's military strategy. Its contributors conclude that the United States must reshape its military to face the real challenges of the coming decades. They call for smaller U.S. forces with more modern weapons, sensors, avionics, and communications systems. They offer recommendations that would enable the U.S. military to transform its forces and make them more effective, while holding the line on defense budget increases."--BOOK JACKET.
WHILE HOLDING THE LINE ON DEFENSE BUDGER INCREASE IS WHAT CINDY WILLIAMS IS TALKING ABOUT IN HER ARTICLE ABOVE. DO IT ON THE BACKS OF THE MILITARY RETIREES AND VETERANS WHO HAVE GONE BEFORE. YOU PLAY ONE GENERATION OF VETERANS OFF AGAINST ANOTHER.
HOW MUCH YOU WANT TO BET THAT CINDY WILLIANS IS A NEOCON GENIUS WHO NEVER WORE A UNIFORM?
THE SCARY PART IS THAT "THE SO-CALLED LIBERAL MEDIA" IS STARTING TO LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE AND PRINT THEIR RIGHT-WING MATERIAL. YOU WOULD EXPECT THIS TO APPEAR IN THE WASHINGTON TIMES OR FOX NEWS BUT IN THE NEW YORK TIMES. WE ARE IN DEEP KIM CHEE. ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A MILITARY RETIREE.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/opinion/...html?oref=login
THOUGH FOCUSED ON MILITARY RETIREES THE ARTICLE HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR ALL VETERANS AND TROOPS.
http://www.moaa.org/default.asp
Making the Cuts, Keeping the Benefits
By CINDY WILLIAMS
Published: January 11, 2005
Cambridge, Mass. — IN an effort to reduce the growth of the military budget, the Bush administration is poised to cut back a wide array of Pentagon programs, from jet fighters to a missile defense system. Pentagon leaders say the cuts will save more than $55 billion over six years.
Whether these reductions herald the end of the rapid rise in military spending that began in 1999, however, is open to question. While fewer weapons systems than planned will be purchased during the next six years, in financial terms, putting an end to the buildup will require cutting far more than what is now on the chopping block. One reason is that much of the recent rise in spending has been fueled not by new tanks or missiles, but by new costs associated with military personnel - especially retirees. These costs amount to a permanent increase in the military budget. Unlike spending on equipment, they cannot be canceled or deferred.
Since the start of the buildup, the rising costs of military pay, retiree benefits, health care and family housing have greatly outstripped inflation and added more than $40 billion to annual Pentagon budgets, even though the number of active-duty troops has essentially stayed the same. Moreover, the annual costs continue to grow rapidly. The program reductions that are reported to be under consideration would not be enough to offset the growth in spending for military pay and benefits anticipated during the next several years. Even holding the increases in the military budget to the level of inflation would require tens of billions of dollars in annual reductions.
To the extent that added pay and benefits ensure the nation does right by the men and women who fight for it, these increases would seem worthwhile. Unfortunately, a large share of new spending is devoted not to helping Soldiers serving today, but to improving the benefits for Military Retirees - that is, the small minority of Veterans who stay in the military for 20 years or more and are eligible for immediate benefits upon their retirements.
In recent years, Congress has expanded retiree benefits substantially, making them the fastest-growing category of entitlements for military personnel. In 1999, Congress reversed a 1986 law that would have trimmed pensions for retirees who joined the military after 1986. That change costs the Defense Department some $1 billion annually. A health care entitlement granted by Congress in 2000 pays virtually all medical expenses for older retirees and their spouses - including the cost of prescription drugs - that are not covered by Medicare. That entitlement costs the Defense Department nearly $4 billion now and its costs will rise over the coming years.
Another benefit, granted by Congress last year and scheduled to be phased in over a decade, will permit retirees who depart the military with moderate to severe disabilities to collect retirement pensions in addition to their disability payments. Its cost, about $500 million this year, will rise to some $2.5 billion a year in six years. In addition, a change authorized in October 2004 will enrich the pensions of spouses who outlive retired service members, at a cost of about $200 million this year and nearly $1 billion in 2011. As expensive as these new benefits are, advocates are pressing Congress for more.
These deferred entitlements do nothing to help men and women now in uniform. These members of the military face long and frequent family separations, deployment to distant lands, fighting in a dangerous counter-insurgency and more. Cash bonuses, improved family services, modern and well-maintained equipment and increases in troop strength (which would mean less frequent call-ups and deployments) are far more likely to serve their needs.
In fact, most active-duty military will never get anything - because they will leave the service before they are eligible to retire with benefits. Fewer than one in 12 of today's living Veterans qualify for retiree benefits, and fewer than one in five of today's active-duty service members are expected to stay for the 20 years it takes to receive them.
Moreover, deferred benefits will not help the Army or the National Guard overcome the recruitment and retention problems they face as a result of the war in Iraq. The prospect of receiving such benefits in the distant future is virtually worthless in helping the military to persuade an 18-year-old to join the military or encourage a 23-year-old to re-enlist.
The rapid growth of retiree benefits has already greatly complicated the budget picture for military leaders. Even if Congress decides against further expansion of such benefits, the ones it has already granted will make it hard to slow budget growth without further reducing the size of the military. Giving in to pressure for another round of entitlements, in the face of the challenges facing the troops serving in Iraq and elsewhere, would be irresponsible.
Cindy Williams, a principal research scientist in the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the editor of "Filling the Ranks: Transforming the U.S. Military Personnel System."
Filling the Ranks is about how to best MARKET the American War Machine to get "other people's children" to do our fighting for us. It is based on a "corporate model" that has nothing to do with Patriotism, Freedom, or Love of Country, but alot that would be attractive to Mercs. (Mercenaries). IT IS THE TOTAL PRIVITIZATION OF THE AMERICAN MILITARY AND A SURE THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM MORE THAN INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM WOULD EVER BE - ARMYDAD.
OF NOTE CINDY WILLIAMS IS ALSO EDITOR OF "HOLDING THE LINE," WHICH ONE COULD CALL THE ARCHITECT OF DONALD RUMSFELD'S VISION OF THE FUTURE ARMED FORCES WHICH HAS NO ROOM FOR MILITARY FAMILIES OR MILITARY RETIREES. IT IS THE EPIDOMY OF "THE CORPORATE PENTAGON" WITH ALL THE RUMSFELD ATTITUDES TOWARD THE TROOPS THAT COME WITH IT.
Holding the Line presents objective and detailed assessments of the U.S. defense budget and America's military strategy. Its contributors conclude that the United States must reshape its military to face the real challenges of the coming decades. They call for smaller U.S. forces with more modern weapons, sensors, avionics, and communications systems. They offer recommendations that would enable the U.S. military to transform its forces and make them more effective, while holding the line on defense budget increases."--BOOK JACKET.
WHILE HOLDING THE LINE ON DEFENSE BUDGER INCREASE IS WHAT CINDY WILLIAMS IS TALKING ABOUT IN HER ARTICLE ABOVE. DO IT ON THE BACKS OF THE MILITARY RETIREES AND VETERANS WHO HAVE GONE BEFORE. YOU PLAY ONE GENERATION OF VETERANS OFF AGAINST ANOTHER.
HOW MUCH YOU WANT TO BET THAT CINDY WILLIANS IS A NEOCON GENIUS WHO NEVER WORE A UNIFORM?
THE SCARY PART IS THAT "THE SO-CALLED LIBERAL MEDIA" IS STARTING TO LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE AND PRINT THEIR RIGHT-WING MATERIAL. YOU WOULD EXPECT THIS TO APPEAR IN THE WASHINGTON TIMES OR FOX NEWS BUT IN THE NEW YORK TIMES. WE ARE IN DEEP KIM CHEE. ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A MILITARY RETIREE.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/opinion/...html?oref=login
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.