LEGISLATIVE & PERSONAL AFFAIRS

Compiled from multiple sources including MOAA by COL Jim Eubanks, USA (Ret)

February 6, 2010

  Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action. 

Legislation has been proposed to establish a Task Force to tackle the Nation’s deficit.  The legislation is Senate Bill S. 2853. It was introduced in the Senate by Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) and was referred to the Senate Budget Committee. As of the date I’m writing this, it has 27 other cosponsor senators (it had 34, but 7 withdrew their sponsorship).  It is assured of getting consideration in the Budget Committee because Senator Conrad is the Chairman of that Committee and Senator Gregg is its Minority Ranking Member. Further, five of the other cosponsors are members of the Budget Committee.

If this bill is enacted, it will empower a task force to look at all Federal expenditures and receipts and propose legislation to reduce the Federal deficit. It is modeled on the BRAC system where its recommendations must be voted up or down without amendment. Everything would be on the table including pay scales, retirement systems, Medicare, earmarks, increased taxation, etc.  While we all would like to see the national debt reduced, this act has the potential to play havoc with benefit systems for serving military as well as veterans. There are those who have no idea of the sacrifices involved in military service and who think the U.S. spends too much on national defense and would like to see those funds diverted to their own pet projects, especially the war protester types.

The proposed Task Force would have 18 members, 2 appointed by the President, one of which would be the Secretary of the Treasury and the other is expected by the bill sponsors to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.  Other members would be 8 appointed by the Senate (4 from each party) and 8 appointed by the House of Representatives (also 4 from each party). The Task Force is supposed to develop  “Findings and Recommendations” and submit legislation to implement its recommendations not later than November 15, 2010.  The legislation would have to be approved by 14 of the 18 members and have to be considered in the House and the Senate on a fast track basis, could not be amended, and must be voted up or down as is. Of course, the final form in which S. 2853 might eventually be passed (if it gets passed) could be quite different from its current form.

On January 26, 2010 the sponsors of the bill attempted to attach its provisions as an amendment to the Joint Resolution being voted on in the Senate to raise the Federal debt ceiling.  Because it was a proposed amendment which might generate a lengthy debate that  could derail the debt ceiling increase, it was only considered under the cloture rule which would have required 60 votes for adoption of the amendment. It did not obtain the necessary 60 votes so the amendment was not adopted. Senators Sessions and Shelby voted “No” on the amendment. However, the amendment did,  attract 53 “Yes” votes from 37 Democrats and 16 Republicans. Sen. Conrad expressed regret that it didn’t pass, but noted that it did receive sufficient “Yes” votes to pass if it had not been for the 60 vote requirement. Bill S. 2853 is still active in the Senate Budget Committee and if brought to the floor as a separate bill, rather than an amendment to another bill, it’s possible it could pass with a simple majority. Some observers believe that its failure as an amendment to the Debt Ceiling Resolution has killed its chances as a separate bill.  Others believe it can rise from the ashes and may still be passed as a stand alone bill.

Since the amendment didn’t pass, President Obama is considering appointing a Commission by Executive Order to address reducing  the deficit. The difference between that action and Bill S. 2853 is that a Commission established by the Executive Branch cannot force its recommendations on the Legislative Branch. Its report may wind up like many other reports - gathering dust on the self. The Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress and if it chooses to bind itself as proposed in the Senate bill, it can.   

 

Most think Congress won’t vote to give up that much power to a commission. But Congress has done similar things in the past, such as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings initiative in the 1980s that would force across-the-board cuts if certain budget targets weren’t met. Such rules forced significantly disproportional COLA delays for the military community in the mid-1990s.

Many believe Congress will have to face up to action on geometrically rising deficits one way or another, and the coming baby boomer population will force some tax and benefit adjustments to accommodate the wave of baby boomers who will start becoming eligible for Medicare and Social Security in this decade. But there are lots of extreme ideas out there on how to address such issues, and the fewer people there are on a commission and the more congress’ powers to adjust any recommendations is limited, the higher the likelihood of grossly inappropriate outcomes. In summary, this piece of possible legislation could be extremely dangerous and must be monitored carefully to prevent  its potential for harm.    

Legislative Goals for Veterans

House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Filner (D-CA) and Ranking Member Steve Buyer (R-IN) welcomed veterans groups on January 27th for a wide-ranging discussion on 2010 legislative priorities for veterans. MOAA Deputy Director Bob Norton, USA-Ret. testified for MOAA. More than a dozen legislators participated in the session. Some of the MOAA goals discussed were:

VA caregiver compensation and benefits legislation; 

Readjustment of wounded warriors – ‘seamless transition’, with priority attention for veterans with

PTSD/TBI, women veterans and those at risk of becoming homeless. A separate joint DoD-VA agency

should be created to oversee multiple initiatives; 

Overhaul of the VA claims system. The VA should move to a paperless, integrated system as quickly as

possible to address a backlog expected to approach a million claims; 

Survivors’ benefits upgrades, including increased dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC),

allowing DIC retention for survivors who remarry after age 55, and creating a housing allowance for

survivors who use survivor educational benefits;

GI Bill Upgrades,  including coverage for full-time National Guard servicemembers on state active duty

orders, allowing NOAA and USPHS officers to transfer benefits to family members, and streamline the

rate mechanism for the cost of attending a public college.

Medicare/TRICARE Payment Fix Still Needed

There was a report that H.J. Res. 45, the bill which raised the National Debt Ceiling (passed by the Senate and a week later by the House) would fix the 21% cut in Medicare and TRICARE payments to doctors (now scheduled for March 1, 2010). That report proved premature.

While H.J. Res. 45 would let Congress reverse that huge cut without requiring specific cost offsets, separate legislation is still needed to make the fix. And only weeks remain before the cuts kick in.

So it's more important than ever to (again) urge your legislators to act immediately to stop the 21% cut, and keep thousands more doctors from dropping military and Medicare patients.

State Board of Veterans’ Affairs

We are working hard to obtain legislation to grant Alabama MOAA seats on the Alabama State Board of Veterans’ Affairs.  Senator Wendell Mitchell has introduced Senate Bill S. 356 in the Alabama Senate to amend the law to provide such seats. Our current MOAA Alabama population would give us 2 seats if we are successful.  All MOAA members in the State should contact their State Senators and ask them to cosponsor S356 and do all they can to see that it is approved in the Senate Veterans and Military Affairs Committee and favorably reported out to the Senate floor and passed in the Senate.

We are working now to get a companion bill introduced in the Alabama House of Representatives and when we have a bill number in the House, we will ask that you contact your local Representative to take similar action in the House.  In the House, the bill will be referred to the House Boards and Commissions Committee for consideration.  More on this later.