House Veteran's Affairs Committee chairman Steve Buyer (R-IN)announced that, for the first time in at least 55 years, “veterans service organizations will no longer have the opportunity to present testimony before a joint hearing of the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees.” Buyer replaced Chris Smith who irritated colleagues (including DeLay and Hastert, who ousted him) by his opposition to stingy VA budgets. Disabled American Veterans respond (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=56522).

The decision itself seems contrary, and the timing couldn't be worse. Any ideas what's behind this?

One of the problems could be that when testimony is given, it tends to highlight in a public forum the shoddy manner in which this administration has treated with the veterans and active military.

By eliminating the testimony, veterans groups must now work harder to publicize topics such as substandard housing, inadequate medical care, the need for food stamps to offset military salary, lack of adequate funding for counselling services to assist the returning military in adjusting to "normal" life again, job assistance for those guardsmen who lost their employment due to being called to serve in Iraq, those attempts by elected legislators to cut pay increases rather than scale back pork projects for their states, and so forth.

Granted, some subjects are so appalling to the public that they are easily publicized, like the practice of charging soldiers for their meals who were wounded in Iraq and being treated in Germany. That one got worked on pretty speedily.

But that is my take on the matter. It is simply easier to shaft a target group if they are not able to represent themselves in the public forum provided for opposing groups to give testimony.

Absolutely disgraceful, and quite likely to come back to bite them. There are a lot of issues you can get away with sweeping under a rug thanks to the ignorance of the population (thanks CNN/FOX), but even the most rabid suckler of the press release teat isn't going to take any explanation of screwing veterans well.

Without resorting to hyperbole myself, I can surely see a something in the vein of the 'taxation without respresentation' mythos coming up here, although in this specific instance it's more inhuman than simply unAmerican.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=144
http://www.factcheck.org/imagefiles/image002.gif

Graph denotes not more money set aside for veterans, but more veterans entering into the system. Per your link.
One reason: the number of veterans getting benefits is increasing rapidly as middle-income veterans turn for health care to the expanding network of VA clinics and its generous prescription drug benefit.

Besides, this thread was never about cuts to benefits. This link was about removing the veterans ability to present their side and air their concerns and grievences.

Besides.. who needs debate when "A Bushbot_03" can just link a semi pointless chart that is pretty much meaningless.
"But... But... Clinton!"

I think it's an unbelievably stupid and shameful move, especially considering what's been asked of our men and women in uniform over the last few years, and under what pretext. I can't imagine what sort of vile, cynical mindset it takes to want to take away the right of veterans to simply represent themselves and their concerns when we're asking them to potentially make the ultimate sacrifice every time they put on the uniform. I *hope* this pushes some more peoples' 'disgust meter' with this group of self-serving bastards over the edge...

Regards,
Nydia

We veterans are just a depleted commodity to the current administration.

We vets are depleted to all administrations in the past 20 years.


Fandros