David Obey tests GOP commitment to veterans’ benefits

When it comes to the military, Republicans in general, and Bush in particular, feel invincible. They, like everyone else, can read the polls that show a huge discrepancy between Democrats and Republicans on the issue among voters.

But a handful of Dems, most notably Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), believe they have found a chink in the armor. Supporting the military means supporting the troops — and this administration has cut benefits for active and retired veterans.

As a great article in today’s Washington Post explained, an increasing number of Bush’s critics are saying the president “has rewarded American troops’ heroism by skimping on their housing benefits, their tax cuts, their health care and education for their children.”

Specifically, the Post was referring to a report released yesterday by Rep. Obey and the Democratic staff on the House Appropriations Committee. (The full report is available online in .pdf format.)

The report explains a number of shortfalls from the administration on meeting the needs of military personnel. For example, the Bush White House cut almost $200 million from a program that aids schools for children of soldiers who fought in Iraq.

Moreover, remember when millions of working-poor families got left out of the new child tax credit? Well, it meant nearly 200,000 low-income military personnel got nothing, too. The same budget that included $350 billion in tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the wealthy also included a $1.5 billion reduction for military housing and a cut of $14.6 billion over 10 years in benefits paid through the Veterans Administration.

As Obey told the Post, “They’re saying they unequivocally support the military, but then they make quite clear that the check is not in the mail. They’re taking actions that fly in the face of the support they profess for the military.”

In response, Trent Duffy, a spokesman for Bush’s Office of Management and Budget, said, “The commander in chief has restored respect, pride, pay, training and the quality of life for our active-duty military and veterans. His special bond with our troops only grows stronger by shallow attempts to weaken it.”

This is an interesting reply, to be sure. First of all, I don’t think our armed forces had lost their respect and pride, so I sincerely doubt Bush’s ability to restore them. Second, I’ve seen no evidence of Bush, a man who pulled family strings to get out of serving in Vietnam and then failed to show up to national guard duty, having a “special bond” with anyone other than his wealthiest campaign contributors. And lastly, Duffy’s response fails to address the substance of this point entirely.

Dems, in other words, are questioning why the administration is cutting aid to military personnel. The administration’s response is that the administration has a “special bond” with the troops. Hmm.

Forget politics for a minute. The men and women who put their lives on the line to protect our country deserve every ounce of gratitude we can muster. As John Kerry recently said, “The real test of patriotism is how you treat veterans and keep promises to people who wore the uniform.”

I know why the administration needs to make these cuts — it’s because of their obsession with tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. In fact, Obey knows it, too, which is why he gave Republicans a choice recently between veterans’ benefits and tax cuts for the wealthy. I’ll give you one guess which one they chose.

As E.J. Dionne explained today, Obey went to the House subcommittee on military construction last week with a simple proposal. Bush proposed cutting $1.5 billion from the budget for military family housing and Obey proposed an amendment to reduce the cut to just a half-billion. How would Obey pay for the restored $1 billion? By reducing — not eliminating, just reducing — the size of Bush’s tax cut for the 200,000 Americans who make more than $1 million a year. Under Obey’s approach, Dionne explained, these taxpayers would receive a cut of $83,546 this year — more than most Americans make annually — instead of the $88,326 they are currently scheduled to receive.

This meant members of Congress on the subcommittee had a simple and direct choice. More tax cuts for millionaires or more money for military housing. Every Democrat on the subcommittee voted for military housing and every Republican voted for tax cuts for millionaires.

Obey wasn’t done. After striking out on military housing, he went over to the House subcommittee on homeland security with a similar proposal. Let’s increase spending on port and border security, which has been severely under-funded even after 9/11, he said, by $1 billion. Obey suggested pay for the increase with the same small reduction in the tax cut for millionaires.

How did the vote turn out? Well, it’s hard to say exactly. Rep. Harold Rogers, a Kentucky Republican who chairs the subcommittee, quickly closed the hearing to the public on “national security grounds” despite the fact that no classified information was being discussed. Regardless, the change Obey proposed hasn’t happened, so I think it’s safe to say the Republicans weren’t going for this one, either.

I hope Democrats see the potential for this as campaign issue. If you posed a question to voters asking if they’d prefer a smaller tax cut for millionaires or more money for military housing and increased domestic security, I have a hunch we’d win that one about 10 times out of 10.