The Senate isn’t finished apologizing to veterans for December’s bipartisan vote to cut retired soldiers’ benefits.
The chamber Tuesday is scheduled to take an initial vote on a $21 billion bill from Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that would reverse the last traces of the December cut, and then go further to expand veterans’ education and health care benefits.
Those cuts — passed as part of the 2013 year-end bipartisan budget deal — would have slashed more than $6 billion in spending by lowering the cost-of-living benefits to medically retired soldiers. But despite the initial support, the cuts sparked a firestorm among veterans groups, and Congress has been scrambling to undo them ever since.
Earlier this month, the Senate voted to restore the cost-of-living benefits to military personnel that have already retired. Sanders’ bill would restore the cuts to those who entered the military this year.
But though many members have proclaimed their dedication to reversing the cuts, the bid to do so may soon stall.
Republicans are wary of Sanders’ plan to expand benefits, and they’re furious over perceived strong-arming from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
And though a sufficient number of Republicans are expected to get on board for Tuesday’s vote to move the measure a small step forward bill, it’s unclear whether that support will continue on future, more substantive votes to pass the measure.
Republicans are insisting on offering amendments of their own to Sanders’ bill, including a plan to replace the measure with smaller alternative from Sen. Richard Burr, the Veterans Affairs panel’s top Republican.
The GOP plan would also strike down Sanders’ bill’s method to pay for the expanded spending, which relies on saving from the drawdown of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans say those savings are “false,” arguing they don’t actually save taxpayers any money. Instead, Republicans want to pay for it by targeting a child tax credit used by undocumented immigrants, part of a previous measure from New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte.
If Republicans don’t get to vote on their amendments and if its spending offset isn’t changed, they’re threatening to block the measure — even if it that position leaves them at odds with most veterans groups.
“It would be very difficult for people to vote against a veterans bill,” said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. “But if they do it with the [war drawdown funding] offset there might be some of us who vote against it, and I might be one of them.”
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said it is a slap that Republicans are being blocked from amending such a massive bill for such a vital group.
“I think I know as much about veterans as Mr. Sanders, with all do respect, yet I’m not allowed a single amendment to Mr. Sanders’ bill. That to me is an outrage and an insult,” he said.
McCain accused Reid of trying to make Republicans look bad by playing partisan politics and likely putting them in a position to ultimately oppose the bill.
“He’s just trying to embarrass us,” McCain said. “It’s just a tactic.”
McCain said besides his opposition to Sanders pay-for, he also did not believe the bill addressed the most critical issues such as reforming the Veterans Affairs Department “which is not providing the services to veterans that they deserve,” he said.
“You talk to any group of veterans, they’ll tell you their No. 1 priority is, not anything in Sen. Sanders bill, but the service and the ability of them to get the benefits that they have already earned without this bill.”
The debate over the Sanders measure comes as Senate Democrats have said they plan to take up a spate of issues viewed as possible election-year buoys for vulnerable incumbents, setting up what some Republicans view as an emerging trend whereby Reid moves favorable Democratic legislation to the floor, Republicans cry out for amendments, Reid fails to meet their demands, and the GOP ultimately blocks the measure. This pattern played out over an extension of unemployment-insurance benefits earlier this year.
“We should be allowed to try and amend bills,” said Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. “That’s the way the Senate should work. It hasn’t been working that way.”
Republican Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska, who sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee, said he is likely to vote to proceed to the bill, but suspects Reid won’t allow Republicans amendments.
“We’ll just see if Senator Reid allows us to offer any amendments,” he said. “That’ll tell us whether he’s serious about this bill or not. I must admit I’m suspicious that is gonna be just another show vote as we head toward November, but we’ll see.”
- 1 The 1 Easy Way Donald Trump Could Have Been Even Richer: Doing Nothing
- 2 Trump Couldn’t Possibly Win—Except That He Probably Will
- 3 The RNC’s Shifting Targets
- 4 How 3D-Printed Guns Violate International Arms Controls (or Maybe Not)
- 5 Poll: Majority of Republican Men Support Universal Background Checks on Gun Sales
What We're Following See More »
Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.
Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”
Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."
In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-expected primary battle behind her, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) is no longer going on the air in upcoming primary states. “Team Clinton hasn’t spent a single cent in … California, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon and West Virginia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “campaign has spent a little more than $1 million in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone backer in the Senate, said the candidate should end his presidential campaign if he’s losing to Hillary Clinton after the primary season concludes in June, breaking sharply with the candidate who is vowing to take his insurgent bid to the party convention in Philadelphia.”