Bluestem Prairie

Walz on jobs for vets: "I don’t give a damn who creates the jobs, I just want them created"

The Walz congressional office just sent a press release out about a bipartisan jobs summit conducted by the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. Bluestem will post it below the fold.

But a post at the Federal Eye blog, Partisan bickering marks veterans job summit, illustrates the southern Minnesotan's focus on results for vets, rather than the games political parties play. The Washington Post's Steve Vogel writes:

A Capitol Hill summit Tuesday on veterans employment erupted into an acrimonious and partisan debate over the government’s role in creating jobs for veterans.

The event, billed as a summit to discuss best practices for hiring veterans into the private sector, began on a testy note during opening statements when Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.), criticized chairman Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) for suggesting the government should stay out of the way of businesses that are creating jobs for veterans. . . .

Speaking after Miller and Filner. Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) brought a stop to most of the partisan bickering. “From an ideological perspective, I don’t give a damn who creates the jobs,” said Walz, a retired Army National Guard command sergeant major. “I just want them created.”

Kudoes to Walz for taking the focus away from ideological spats and back to the needs of vets. The article points out that "[n]early a million veterans are out of work, with double-digit unemployment rates among younger veterans."

While Bachmann does Mad Thatcher drag, Walz sustains his work for nation's veterans

A celebrated food writer once observed that cucumber ketchup ought to taste like cucumbers. In much the same way, Bluestem's readers expect Michele Bachmann to be Bachmann, and the lesser known, but harder working, Tim Walz to be Walz.

This week did not disappoint.

The gentlewoman from Minnesota's Sixth flubbed another history lesson, albeit that of another nation, when she said the 1982 Falklands War took place in 1992. And beyond that , CBS News reported in In speech to veterans, Michele Bachmann invokes Margaret Thatcher comparison:

In a Thursday speech touting her ability to lead the country as Commander in Chief, Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann invoked a comparison between herself and a notoriously tough former world leader: Margaret Thatcher.

Bachmann, delivering remarks at the annual American Legion conference in Minnesota, spoke reverentially about both the former UK prime minister and former U.S. president Ronald Reagan (a more popular target of political self-comparison), citing Reagan's efforts to stop the spread of communism and Thatcher's 1982 military campaign in the Falkland Islands as admirable efforts "to reverse the course of their respective countries."

Should Sarah Palin ever look out her back door and observe Argentina invading the Aleutians, the ability of Baroness Bachmann's administration to make us feel good about giving those gauchos the boot would certainly reverse the course of this country, in whatever year that happens.

Meanwhile, her more modest class of 2006 peer, Congressman Tim Walz, who shares an April 6 birthday, spoke earlier at the Legion's convention. His remarks can be viewed here. Little national buzz on his remarks, just thoughtful headlines like that from Minnpost's Doug Grow, Why so many unemployed vets? Rep. Tim Walz and others explain some of the complex reasons why.

Walz was famously warned by former Congressman Tim Penny that politics isn't a place for nuance, but that lesson doesn't seem to have taken.  Go read the Grow piece. Walz's efforts on behalf of veterans earned the nod of the Mankato Free Press in Our View: More jobs needed for veterans:

We applaud the efforts of some legislators, including Congressman Tim Walz, to push legislation providing tax credits for employers who hire unemployed vets. Already, lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle are showing an interest in working in a bipartisan way. So is President Obama, who is promoting more training and education for both vets and vet business owners along with tax credits and other incentives.

Walz was in Milwaukee on Monday for theconvention of the National Guard Association convention. The Superior Sentinel reports in National Guard tries to preserve its funding:

National Guard members and their supporters are making the case not to cut the guard's budget later this year.

The Defense Department recently raised the idea of trimming the National Guard's budget this fall, as commitments shrink in Iraq and Afghanistan.That doesn't seem to go over well with House of Representatives.

National Guard caucus co-chair Tim Walz told the National Guard Association in Milwaukee Monday that the guard is taking on more responsibilities from active duty military. . . .

Earlier in August, Walz met with the Enlisted Association of the National Guard at its gathering in Charleston, West Virginia.

Photo: Congressman Tim Walz, not a baron.

Updated! Will Sen Parry speak up now? State funding for veterans' funeral honor guards cut

See September 2 update below.

Bluestem supposes that it's probably better to direct what money remains for veterans' programs in the state budget toward the needs of living men and women who served our country.

Still, it's hard to avoid melancholy after reading the headline, Funding for honor guards at vet funerals cut, in the Austin Daily Herald. The deets:

Minnesota will no longer pay for honor guards at veterans’ funerals, forcing the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and other groups to seek new sources of funding to help them give military honors to veterans who have died.

Up until now, the state reimbursed service organizations up to $50 for each funeral and allocated $100,000 for the program annually. But the funding was discontinued as part of budget cuts being imposed to help plug a projected $5 billion deficit. . . .

Bill Christenson, who directs the Honor Guard at the Albert Lea American Legion, said his post has been reimbursed $10,000 since 2008. He said the funds paid for uniforms, mileage, rifle shells used during military salutes and musicians who played Taps. He said he was surprised to learn that the grant funding would end.

“We’ll have to find some other way of doing it,” Christensen said.

Federal law requires funeral honors for an eligible veteran if requested by the veteran’s family. At a minimum, the honors include presenting a folded American flag to the next of kin and playing Taps.

Heavens forbid that we as a state might ask another dime from job creators for that service. Local veterans service clubs vow to find a way to fund the honor guards.

Earlier this year,  Senator Mike Parry, who chairs the Senate Veterans and Government Reform committee, refused to answer a question on the floor of the senate about possible cuts to veterans programs. 

Will he say something now?

Update Sept 2: On Wednesday, MPR reported in State to continue providing funds for honor guard at veterans' funerals:

Veterans Affairs Commissioner Larry Shellito on Wednesday announced the state will continue to fund groups that provide funeral honors for veterans.

The Legislature and Gov. Mark Dayton had cut the program's funding for the next two years because of the state's budget crisis. But Shellito said the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs will continue to provide funds to veteran service organizations for funerals.

"All veterans will receive proper military funeral honors. That is a stated goal, and I'll be held to that one," Shellito told MPR's All Things Considered. "This is one thing we are not letting fall through the cracks."

Today, Senator Parry (MPR spells his name worng but it's definitely the same guy) was silent no more. MPR reports in Lawmaker vows to re-fund honor guard for veterans' funerals:

The chair of the state Senate's Veterans Affairs Committee says he intends to put funding for funeral honors into state law next session.

The issue came up after language from a state budget bill last year wasn't renewed. Veterans groups worried they would no longer receive small state grants that fund flag ceremonies, buglers and other funeral rites.

Sen. Mike Perry [sic], R-Waseca, says he'll include language in state law that authorizes an existing fund, the Support Our Troops account, to pay for funeral honors. . . .

In a statement issued Friday morning, Gov. Mark Dayton said he supported the legislation and also wanted a permanent source of funding for funeral honors.

It's great to see this senseless cut laid to rest--without ceremony. [end update]

Photo: Frank Glick's viral photo of a Bald Eagle perched on Sgt. Maurie Ruch's marker in Fort Snelling cemetery. If the GOP has its way with the EPA and MPCA, even the national bird's salute to vets might vanish.

Related posts: Shellito warns of cuts to state vets' programs; Senator Mike Parry silent again

If the mirror fits: Why is Mike Parry so angry, and why won't he provide funding details?

McLeod vets' needs require second county officer; Republican bills cut veterans programs

Lawyers, puns and money: on doing the right thing, and moving on

A handful of ethics-related items appear on Bluestem's radar this morning, like the low-hanging clouds promising rain. Like rain, the narratives fall on the just and unjust in Minnesota.

First, the good news.

In Our view: Walz wise to sever link to Weiner, the Winona Daily News notes:

Rep. Anthony Weiner appears to have ruined himself with the recent shameful sexting incident.

It would seem the Congressman from New York would have little to do with Minnesota's 1st Congressional District, but Weiner contributed a total of $3,000 to Rep. Tim Walz, our area member of Congress.

Though the two donations were made literally years ago, Walz decided to give the money to a local chapter of the Disabled American Veterans - a sensitive and generous move.

Walz had nothing to do with the Weiner scandal. The donations - a standard practice of Congress to contribute to each other's campaigns - were done long before the text message scandal, it would appear. The donations weren't illegal, and they were clearly disclosed. . . .

. . .But what cinched the deal for us was the nonchalant way Walz handled it. Walz didn't donate the money and then posture. He didn't call for Weiner's resignation as some have. He simply made the donation and moved on. While some might take that as an admission of embarrassment, we believe this demonstrates more about Walz's priorities. The scandal, while salacious and provocative, is nonetheless trifling for anyone outside of Weiner's legislative district. Regardless of political ideology, this scandal is disgusting and intolerable.

By not making more of this, Walz is not becoming part of the story. In other words, there are better things to be debating - better things to discuss. Like energy. Like the federal budget.

It says a lot about our congressman. He stepped up, even when he did nothing wrong in the first place.

Read the whole thing--and as is so often the case with Winona's daily, the editorial is on the money, so to speak, about priorities.

And to be fair, Walz isn't the only member of Minnesota's congressional delegation to contribute tainted campaign funds to a charity. Congresswoman Bachmann gave $9,200 in campaign contributions from scamster Frank Vennes to a charity (Minnpost said in April that Pawlenty's path was less clear) and donated her share of $10,000 from "Bobby Thompson," who bilked people who thought they were giving to a naval vets' charity, to veterans' groups.

The other ethics issues in the news?  A high-profile announcement by a consultant that no charges will be filed in the DOJ investigation of the propriety of a businessman spending over $100,000 on Norm Coleman's suits, travel and other gifts. No wrong-doing worth prosecuting, apparently, but a smudge mark on the brand image of a politician who was once seen as a bright rising star, first for the DFL, then the MNGOP.

Note: The Star Tribune reported at 3:56 p.m., June 16, that Hoffman has apologized in a brand new twitter account, having deleted her old one. Judge the apology for yourself here.

Finally, a more petty case--and petty in every sense of the word. As I write this post, State Senator Gretchen Hoffman has yet to come to terms with the decision of the Senate Ethics subcommittee. Her cleary misleading tweet remains online in her twitter stream and she has yet to note the decision in her twitter stream and provide a link to the decision. No word on her apology.

Thus, the complaint still stands.

In light of the contrast between her and Paul Gardner's behavior following complaints about their respective tweets, Minnesotans can be forgiven for thinking she's an awful person.

Bluestem adds a modest proposal about another offense to her list:  a course aimed at addressing Hoffman's basic skills in English composition. On May 11, Hoffman tweeted in reaction to a Minnesota Progressive Project post about The Not Brodkorb, Minnesota's other senate majority leader, Amy Koch:

Shameful!! from the folks who claim to advocate for strong, convicted women.#alinskytactic #mngop http://tinyurl.com/3ugaq32 #mnleg #mnsrc

I can see why pairing Senator Amy Koch with a Hollywood stereotype about strong women is objectionable, and indeed, the author of the MPP post apologized after being asked to do so in a comment left by the president of Minnesota NOW. Good for him--and to her.

Nonetheless, in addition to the committee-ordered apology to Goodwin, Hoffman should apologize to Koch while she's at it.  It's never been remotely suggested that the Not Brodkorb has ever been charged with a crime, much less convicted. Indeed, no one ever implies that there's an ongoing investigation anywhere.

To call Koch "convicted" is  misleading--and an offense to proper usage itself. Given that Hoffman is a co-author of the bill to adopt English as a the state's official language, perhaps she might learn how to use it first.

On the other hand, perhaps Hoffman took the Minnesota Progressive Project to be a non-profit aimed at rescuing robust female offenders. Bluestem leaves that question for others to ponder.

Images: Walz at a veterans' meeting (above); another offensive Hoffman tweet (below).

Tell me where's your heart: remembering Cpl. Andrew Wilfahrt

On this Memorial Day, I'm remembering those who defended my country, and those who died for it.

One story that's moved me this spring strikes at the core of what it means to be an American, to love this country, to honor its values: the death of Cpl. Andrew Wilfahrt and his family's standing up for equality for all people. Andrew Wilfahrt was a gay man; this was the least interesting thing about him. What those who served with him remember is a soldier who was there for his fellow soldiers. He's buried now in the national cemetery at Fort Snelling, along with one of my own uncles who died in the Malmedy Massacre and with hundreds of others who served their country.

Wilfahrt's life and death became an emblem of equality in in recent debates over a bill to amend the Minnesota constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Those opposing the bill--and now the amendment--have risen to rare eloquence, none more than that of a Republican freshman legislator who lost the lower part of his legs in Iraq when an IED exploded.

In this video, John Kriesel points toward protesters chanting during this statement, saying that that America was the one he had fought for. I'd like to believe that this is where Andrew's heart is, in the America that includes everyone, and values everyone, but there are others, equally American, who believe otherwise. This is their right; some may even object to the posting of this video on Memorial Day. That, too, is their right.

My beloved state now faces a debate and a fight over fundamentals: who we are, what we love, how a society will recognize that love, and what love will matter. This Memorial Day, I'm siding with the Wilfahrt family and Representative John Kriesel, a straight, married, conservative man, in saying Yes to a society which respects love, and on Election Day in November 2012, saying "Hell No!" to those who would deny equality for Andrew and everyone. I'd prefer that no one's fundamental rights and dignity be put up for a vote, but since vote I must, it's "Hell No."

Thank you, John Kriesel. Thank you, Jeff and Lori Wilfahrt. And thank you, Andrew Wilfahrt.

For more information about Andrew Wilfahrt's service, watch this Youtube from the Courage Campaign.

Why in the cherry-picking heck is Mike Parry so angry about Dayton agreeing with Tom Lannon?

Pop some corn and grab your cherry turnovers. Mike Parry's defenders are carrying on about a letter that Parry mentioned, but Governor Dayton's office distributed.

Funny that Mike and his minions aren't talking about the specific language that one veterans service group leader requested in the conference report--and a resolution he wanted Republican leaders to introduct in the legislature. All Parry and Lanning had to do is agree.

Instead, Parry ranted about Dayton's anger, rather than the agreement the vets leader requested.

The Minnesota Progressive Project has posted a transcription of the request by the state commander of the American Legion, along with an image of the letter itself in GOPer Parry Goes For The Cherry Picking.

The money shot:

Parry starts out taking the credit and praise the Commander gave; then ignores the part about General Shellito's testimony and goes for an insult: "that's not leadership!"

Parry and Lanning should man up and agree to the changed language requested in the letter, and introduce the resolution as well. 

Dayton's letter [PDF 5 9 11 Parry Lanning letter here] is clear in asking for agreement on this. Parry, instead, chose to bluster about tone and emotion.

This is a standard bush-league negotiation strategy: switching from substance to distractions about the other party's emotions. But Parry himself has made his own emotional outbursts the focus of coverage. Let's hope that he can control himself and get down to deliberations.

Photo: Smile, Senator Parry. We know you can.

 

If the mirror fits: Why is Mike Parry so angry, and why won't he provide funding details?

State Senator Mike Parry is angry, and making accusations. One thing he's not doing, though, is coming through with plans that hold veterans harmless. Parry continues to talk about tone and other people's actions, but hasn't provided anything except bluster.

PIM reports in Veterans funding kerfuffle continues at the Capitol:

Emotions are running high at the Capitol over funding for veterans.

The GOP State Government and Veterans Committee Chairs - Sen. Mike Parry and Rep. Morrie Lanning - had a closed-door meeting with Gov. Mark Dayton Monday afternoon after tensions escalated over the division’s budget bills late last week. The meeting was short and unfriendly, Parry said afterward. “Today I saw a very angry governor.”

That's nice, Senator Parry. Now that you've gotten that  emotional release off your chest, care to provide some details about your plan to hold veterans' programs harmless? You've been talking about your own anger for three days now.

The PIM article continues:

Dayton spokesman Bob Hume said while the conversation was “pointed,” Parry’s characterization of the governor’s tone was not accurate. He added that the dust-up shows Republican’s inability to “air two proposals.” He said the two chambers need to come to a consensus on the bills before Dayton will get invovled [sic].

Show us the money, Senator Parry, not your feelings about Shellito's testimony or someone's tone of voice. Minnesota is waiting. Man up, Mike.

Photo: Senator Mike Parry. Don't be fooled: this photo proves he knows how to smile.

 

 

 

The corrections: Senator Parry dodges more questions about program cuts

The lede in Friday's Faribault Daily News article, State Department of Corrections facing $75 million in proposed cuts, tells what's at stake in Senator Mike Parry's district:

It costs approximately $35 million alone to operate Minnesota’s largest correctional facility — located in Faribault — each year. But combined legislation threatens to cut $75 million from the Department of Corrections.

The cuts could mean an end to recidivism-reducing programs and inmate education classes, unemployment for hundreds of corrections employees and, ultimately, lead to the closing of a correctional facility.

“This is a very large cut that’s being proposed,” said John Schadl, the DOC communications director. “We would have to do some serious restructuring of the system in order to accommodate and deal with a cut that size.”

A range of proposed cuts currently exists in several different bills, Schadl said. A House Public Safety bill would cut $26 million with $17 million of that cut specifically from the prison system, something Schadl said is the equivalent of operating the Shakopee prison or the Red Wing juvenile prison.

A Senate bill proposes a 10 percent reduction for all government agencies, meaning about a $46 million cut for the DOC.

Not surprisingly,  Faribault's representative Patti Fritz, speaks up:

“If that isn’t one of the real points of government, providing safety and protecting citizens and incarcerating the prisoners we have, then what is?” said Rep. Patti Fritz, (DFL-Faribault). “There are folks who have some bad behaviors, and bad behaviors don’t leave when we lock them up. I am concerned about locking them up and the people guarding them. Cutting back is not the answer.”

And where's Mike Parry?

Sen. Mike Parry (R - Waseca) did not return calls for comment for this story.

Who knows?

Perhaps he was too busy whining to the Star Tribune about coverage of the vets bill coming out of his own committee or vets being used as "pawns." Funny how he had time to complain about Larry Shellito playing politics (as if Shellito isn't a straight-shooter) in Saturday's article, but not actually answer questions about corrections  on Friday or vets on Thursday.

Photo: Mike Parry, suddenly the sphinx of Waseca County.

Shellito warns of cuts to state vets' programs; Senator Mike Parry silent again

Memorial Day is coming up, and families across Minnesota will tidy up the resting places of loved ones, leaving flowers and straightening up the Bronze Star markers on graves of their veterans. The stars are silent reminders of the part of a life--or all of it--that Americans gave to their country.

This morning's Star Tribune reports that may change under the dramatic cuts proposed in Republican bills working their way toward Governor Dayton's desk. In State VA chief: Budget cuts by GOP would hurt veterans, Rachel Stassen Berger writes:

Republican budget cuts could trigger the closure of at least one veterans' home, higher burial fees for veterans' families and elimination of the Bronze Star grave marker program, according to state Veterans Affairs Commissioner Larry Shellito.

Shellito, who led the state National Guard under former Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, said the budget as it stands would result in layoffs and other cuts, even though Republicans had pledged to protect veterans from spending reductions. "I'm very concerned," Shellito said.

The House sponsor, Rep. Morrie Lanning, says Shellito is overreacting. The soldier's response?

Although rhetoric at the Capitol has heated up as the budget process grinds toward a May 23 adjournment, Shellito said his projections are not part of that fight. "I don't play games," said Shellito, a major general in the Guard. "It's really serious."

In a letter to Gov. Mark Dayton on Thursday, Shellito said the budget proposals for his department would result in layoffs for more than 100 employees.

The Military Affairs Department, which is separate from Veterans Affairs, said legislative budgets could leave too little money to properly maintain state-owned National Guard armories and the House budget bill could "jeopardize the ability of the state to retain the Army and Air National Guard units currently assigned."

Judging from I've observed from Shellito during his time leading the Guard, and from what my many friends in the MNG say about their former leader, I believe him. Shellito isn't the sort of guy who'll play games.

More telling is who isn't talking. From the Strib:

Sen. Mike Parry, R-Waseca, Lanning's counterpart in the Senate, was not available for comment, despite repeated requests.

Mike Parry at a loss for words? Too busy taping a lame caucus radio podcast to answer some questions about vets? Tied up accepting a journalistic lap dance from the fawning staff at the Faribault Daily News? Really, Mike, really?

Parry was one of those Republicans who promised to hold veterans' programs harmless. But then, he famously didn't answer Senator Dick Cohen's question on the floor of the senate about budget cuts, either.

In fact, Parry won his special election in January 2010 while campaigning on an across-the-board 15 percent budget cut that would nonetheless hold state veterans' program harmless. The Mankato Free Press reported in January 2010:

Parry was asked, if billions of dollars in inefficiencies are present in the budget, why Pawlenty didn’t target them when he had the chance.

“I wasn’t there,” Parry said. “I don’t know what he was thinking.”

One problem, according to Parry’s philosophy, might have been the governor’s attempt to protect K-12 education funding and other popular parts of the budget. Parry would exempt only two relatively small sections of the state budget — veterans benefits and public safety programs. [emphasis added]

Every other part of the budget must be cut — even property tax credits and other favored line items that directly reduce people’s property taxes, according to Parry.

Chair of the Senate's Government Reform and Veterans Committee, Parry didn't taking questions about the possible cuts back in early February.

Parry was hired by voters and draws a paycheck to answer questions. It's the rest of us who should be speechless.

Update: Tomorrow's "Tax Cut Rally" asks attendees to  remember our troops and "Visit veterans memorials on the state capitol grounds." Bluestem thinks it would be better to call Parry's office (number here) and remind him of his promises to vets.

February's video:

Related post: McLeod vets' needs require second county officer; Republican bills cut veterans programs

 

 

Walz in the WaPo: J.P. Morgan Chase to settle lawsuit over military mortgages

  Earlier this year, Bluestem noted work by Tim Walz and other members of the House Veterans' Affair Committee to enforce and strengthen the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.  Walz challenged a bank executive testifying before the committee and introduced legislation to help military families who have a member deployed.

The bi-partisan pressure is working. On Saturday, the Washington Post reported in J.P. MorganChase to pay $27 million to settle lawsuit over military mortgages:

J.P. Morgan Chase said Friday it will pay $27 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the bank of overcharging members of the military for their mortgages and prompted a federal investigation, a congressional hearing as well as public outrage.

In the suit, Marine Corps Capt. Jonathon Rowles charged that the bank refused to lower the interest rate on his mortgage, as required under a federal law, after he was activated for duty. When Rowles refused to pay the higher rate, the bank called his home up to three times a day and threatened to foreclose, according to the suit, which was filed in July.

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) prohibits lenders from charging active-duty members of the military more than 6 percent interest on their mortgages. It also prevents banks from foreclosing on their homes during service and for nine months afterward.

Under the terms of the settlement, the bank will give $12 million to the estimated 6,000 service members covered by the suit. It will also set up a $15 million fund for additional individual damages, to be disbursed by a third party. The firm said it has already issued $6 million to service members who were overcharged. A judge is slated to issue preliminary approval to the settlement in late May. . . .

And the article closes with note of Walz's legislation:

Chase still faces several challenges on Capitol Hill and from federal regulators. The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the bank, along with Saxon Mortgage. A department spokeswoman said Friday that the case is ongoing.

Meanwhile, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has introduced a bill that would double the criminal and civil penalties for foreclosing on active-duty service members or for other violations of the SCRA. It would also extend service members’ grace period from foreclosure from nine months to 24. Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) introduced a similar proposal in the House last week. Both bills await votes in committee.

“I hope this settlement will help rectify the harm that Chase caused to military families, and I urge other lenders to own up to their mistakes,” Whitehouse said in an e-mail Friday. “But this settlement does not wipe the slate clean, and we should still take action to make sure these mistakes are not repeated.”

Props to those sticking up for the legal rights of military families.

It started with a "heated" letter: Houston County vets service officer addresses national veterans roundtable

The Spring Grove Herald tells a great story about how one county veterans service officer made his voice heard.

In Mr. Gross goes to Washington, Craig Moorhead writes:

It all began with a letter. [Rob] Gross' job, in a nutshell, is to be an advocate for veterans. "I had one case that I was working on that was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back," he recalled.

"The incident was, we were trying to get some information (from the Department of Veterans Affairs) and the hoops we had to jump through, the privacy laws, to get that accomplished...

"I sent what I consider a professionally-worded, yet heated, letter to Congressman Tim Walz' office, asking for some assistance on some of the headaches we deal with on a daily basis."

"One thing I can say about my interaction with Walz and his office is that if we ask for assistance veteran-wise, they've really taken care of it," Gross added.

A couple of weeks later, Gross was asked by Walz' office to fly to Washington, D.C., to address a "veteran's roundtable," where around 15 congressman heard concerns from Gross and approximately 30 other veteran service organizations.

Read about Gross's recommendations to the roundtable in the Spring Grove Herald.

The national roundtable followed a discussion Walz hed in Austin, Minnesota in February.The Austin Herald covered the story in Walz, veterans talk economy:

Local  veterans weren’t shy about their concerns when they spoke with U.S. Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., Thursday afternoon at the Austin VFW.

Many of them agreed they have been put in positions that makes their lives economically challenged.

Perhaps one of the biggest conundrums facing veterans is furthering their careers when they return from service. Walz said Minnesota’s returning veterans have an unemployment rate three times higher than the national average. Several vets spoke about applying for jobs but getting nudged out by applicants who were free of any military ties.

Although the specifics can’t be pinpointed, veterans cited reasons such as disabilities, post traumatic stress and a generally negative attitude toward former military personnel.

Read the rest at the Herald. Kay Fate of the Rochester Post Bulletin reported in Walz hosts roundtable on veterans services:

U.S. Rep. Tim Walz says he hears it all the time: "If you can't get anything else right, do right by our veterans."

Walz heard what would be right for veterans when it comes to employment, education and health care during a roundtable discussion Thursday at VFW Post 1416 in Austin.

"We're fighting two wars, we've experienced the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, unrest like we've never seen before in the Middle East," Walz said. "The good news is this nation has never turned away from a challenge.

"When you put on that uniform, there's no Republicans, no Democrats, no Independents; there's Americans." . . .

Photo: Walz and veterans, via the Austin Herald.

Sarah Anderson: Civil War and the Safety Net

Sarah Anderson, who directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, grew up in nearby Litchfield, Minnesota, where her family members are respected business people and farmers. Litchfield is also home to the last remaining authentic Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) hall in Minnesota, one of the few anyway in the country.

In a recent column, Anderson's harkening  back to the 19th century origins of the American safety net is grounded a bit to the that past, in her great-grandfather's post-war experiences in Rhode Island and North Dakota .

Her commentary from the IPS's Other WordsProject, was published by the Sunday Winona Daily News:

With this year marking the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, get ready for grand pontificating on its meaning for whites, African-Americans, the nation, and the world.

Here's what it meant for my family.

My great-grandfather Albert Cordner was a private in the Union Army. In a pocket-size diary, he recorded battlefield experiences that were the stuff of movies.

"Commence the fight at daylight," he wrote on Sept. 17, 1862. "First we drove them and then they drove us. Then we drove them back again. The fight lasted all day."

The next day's entry: "No fighting today. We are burying the dead."

This was the battle of Antietam, the bloodiest day in U.S. history, with 23,000 casualties.

Few movies have bothered to explore what happened to Civil War soldiers after the South surrendered.

Looking at great-grandfather Albert's experience, I'm struck by the efforts of a young nation, ravaged by war, to invent new ways of creating economic opportunities and protections-at least for one segment of its citizens.

As today's deficit hawks push for massive spending cuts, it's revealing to look back at these early experiments with social safety nets.

After three years at the front, Albert mustered out with all of his limbs still attached. He was one of the lucky ones. One out of every three men who served in his unit wound up dead, wounded or missing.

Back in Rhode Island, Albert got a job as a mail carrier on a route from Westerly to Newport. During the war, President Abraham Lincoln had introduced free postal delivery service in a few areas. In peacetime, the government expanded the service, in part as a way to create jobs for former soldiers.

Some years later, Albert set out for new adventures as a homesteader in Dakota Territory. The Homestead Act required that applicants spend five years on a plot of land before they could claim ownership. As a Union Army veteran, Albert could deduct his time served from the residency mandate.

Homesteading was no picnic for this East Coast city slicker.

"Mr. Cordner has been unfortunate in grain raising," the Bismarck Tribune reported in 1890. "His crops have been hurt by hail twice since he located here and one fall he lost his barn and several head of stock and some farm machinery by fire."

In these rough times, Albert got another leg up from the government. According to his pension records, which my nephew and I found at the National Archives, his payments began in 1890. They started at $6 per month and rose to $24 in 1906, which would be $566 in today's dollars. After he died, the pension passed to his widow.

The Civil War pension system was a precursor to Social Security, at one point accounting for 37 percent of federal expenditures.

It's important not to paint too rosy a picture of these benefits programs. Some historians note that the pension system was biased against African Americans. At 160 acres, Homestead plots were so small that it was tough to make a decent living off farming them. Far too many veterans lived out their post-war lives in grinding poverty.

And yet, we should reflect on how these modest benefits from long ago may still be paying off. My great-grandparents had received good public educations in Rhode Island and probably would have been fine without these perks. But the public jobs and land giveaway programs certainly expanded their horizons-and their children's.

Albert's son followed his path into the postal service and became the North Dakota postmaster. The security of that post helped insulate the next generation from the Great Depression. It paid for my mother's advanced education, which she used to teach children, including her own.

So thank you, 19th-century legislators, for making those early steps toward building a nation that cares for its citizens. Let's hope we aren't about to take a massive slide backwards.

Photo: Albert Cordner. Photo and column via Other Words.

Walz to hold veterans roundtable discussion at Austin VFW Thurs., 2/24 at 2 p.m.

Word of another Walz meeting with constituents, via the Austin Daily Herald:

Local veterans who want to put in their two cents on federal veterans programs will have the chance to do just that on Thursday.

Democratic Congressman Tim Walz will be holding a veterans round table discussion at VFW Post 1216 at 2 p.m. Thursday afternoon to hear local perspectives on Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense programs.

Walz has said he wants to protect veterans even during the tough budget cycle in which the country has found itself.

The discussion with Walz will begin at 2 p.m. and is scheduled to last until 3:30 p.m. The VFW is located at 300 4th Ave. NE in Austin.

Photo: Walz meets with veterans at an earlier town hall in Rochester in 2010.

Congressman Tim Walz to JPMorgan Chase on military customer changes: "About time!"

Last Friday, Bluestem posted  Walz on JPMorgan: "weakest testimony I've ever heard in this committee," relating an episode that occurred during House Veterans Affairs Committee hearings about the giant banking concerns' treatment of military customers.

The bad publicity in the national arena that BSP's post reflected must have threatened to get to the firm's bottomline. Or maybe the bank executive just went through the same experience that friends felt after they were dressed down by Walz when he was their First Sergeant.

Today, the banking corporation issued this release: JPMorgan Chase Announces New Programs for Military and Veterans:

Commits to lower SCRA rate and increasing modifications, jobs, training, and home ownership assistance for military and veterans

“The programs we are announcing today are a start, but in no way a finish," said Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase. “This company has a great history of honoring military and veterans, and the mistakes we made on military foreclosures are a painful aberration on that track record. We deeply apologize to our military customers and their families for these mistakes. We cannot undo them, but we can take accountability for them, fix them and learn from them. Today we want to begin a new way forward with the military and veteran community to make serving them a core part of how we operate our business every day. Our servicemen and servicewomen deserve nothing less.”

The details are available online following the statement.

In response, the Walz congressional office emailed the following press release with the subject line: Walz to JPMorgan Chase: "It's About Time!":

Today, Congressman Tim Walz released the below statement following JPMorgan Chase’s announcement that they will enhance programs for military and veteran customers.

This announcement comes after a hearing in the House Veterans Affairs last week where Walz fiercely criticized the financial institution for overcharging service members and accidentally foreclosing on their homes, some of them while deployed.

 

“I am pleased JPMorgan Chase is taking responsibility for their actions and is working to improve their services for both service members and veterans. If they can issue a 65-page, complicated credit card statement, I am confident they can figure out how to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the law designed to protect the brave men and women who serve our nation in uniform. I am glad the VA Committee addressed this wrongdoing last week and I want JPMorgan Chase to know that I am committed to continuing that vigorous oversight for our veterans as these programs are implemented.” 

 

In last week’s hearing, JPMorgan Chase claimed difficulty reading and understanding deployment orders as part of the reason soldiers had been wronged by their institution. Rep. Walz pulled up a JPMorgan Chase credit card agreement over 60 pages long on his iPad and stated that was the weakest excuse he had ever heard in his four years on the VA Committee.

 

Walz served in the National Guard for 24 years, retiring as a Command Sergeant Major. He is the highest ranking enlisted soldier to ever serve in Congress.

Will new chair of House Vets Committee leave homeless veterans in the cold?

Over at Minnesota Progressive Project, Eric Pusey cites a press release from Representative Betty McCollum in Republicans want to slash funding for homeless vets. Go over and take a look; it's sobering reading.

And McCollum is no alarmist. Earlier this month, Congressional Quarterly Weekly's Eugene Mulero reported in Cutting the Uncuttable: Congress Eyes the VA (via Nexis) that new chair of the House Vets Committee thinks vets can "sacrifice again":

For years, when lawmakers spoke about the need to cut government spending, they always hastened to add that they weren't targeting funding for the nation's veterans.

Indeed, it's been a banner decade for the Department of Veterans Affairs, which has seen its budget jump from $61.8 billion in fiscal 2004 to $109.6 billion in fiscal 2010, according to the Congressional Research Service.

But those days appear to be over. Lawmakers have made it clear that despite two wars, the VA won't be getting the kinds of increases it's gotten used to -- and the department will be lucky to hold its budget near current levels. Indeed, some key lawmakers in the GOP-controlled House say the VA could actually see painful cuts in the coming years.

Slashing benefits for veterans would seem to be an extremely politically risky thing to do, but in an age of tea party fervor and growing concern about the national debt, even those programs may no longer be spared from the chopping block.

The man in the middle of all this is Florida Republican Jeff Miller, the new chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, who now has to walk a tightrope to prove himself a committed friend to the nation's vets while still keeping the House majority's commitment to deficit reduction. In a sign of where his priorities may lie, he says he believes veterans are willing to "sacrifice again."

The needs of homeless vets are especially at risk in light of Miller's priorities:

So far, Miller appears willing to confront the dueling functions of his new job. He already dismissed the Obama administration's goal to house every homeless veteran within five years. That initiative is dear to Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, who worked closely on it with Miller's predecessor, Bob Filner of California, now the committee's ranking Democrat. At a conference in December, Shinseki noted that an estimated 107,000 veterans remain homeless.

When he was the top Republican on the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health during the 110th Congress, Miller opposed Democratic attempts to authorize a variety of new programs for homeless veterans, complaining that the proposals would hurt organizations already providing care and create a potentially unnecessary therapeutic readjustment program.

And the article goes on to outline what Miller's fate might be if he bucks his priorities and turns aside his party's budget ax in favor of the veterans he is supposed to serve.

 Mulero writes:

Most observers expect Miller to follow through on whatever House GOP leaders plan for the VA budget. For one thing, many remember what happened to New Jersey Republican Christopher H. Smith when he chaired the Veterans panel last decade.

When Jim Nicholson, President George W. Bush's secretary for Veterans Affairs, presented the administration's budget proposal at a 2005 committee hearing, Smith, in his role as a veterans' advocate, pressed him to admit that the proposal was at least $1 billion less than what the department sought. But instead of being praised for trying to protect veterans, Smith was roundly criticized by his GOP colleagues for embarrassing his party's president, and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois stripped him of his chairmanship. After serving 24 years on the committee, Smith then left the panel altogether.

Indiana Republican Steve Buyer, who stayed on message, succeeded him.

In the article, Tim Walz responds to the proposed cuts:

"Attempting to balance the budget on the backs of veterans who have risked life and limb in service of our country is unacceptable."

I agree--and I don't think veterans should have to "sacrifice again." My friend serving now are sacrficing quite enough this very minute, thank you.

Tomorrow is Veterans Day on the Hill in St. Paul--I hope the veterans meeting with Governor Dayton tell him to hold the line on veterans spending on the state level. Let's not sacrifice our vets again, Governor Dayton.

Source: Mulero, Eugene.  "Cutting the Uncuttable: Congress Eyes the VA," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, February 5, 2011, Nexis All News database, Accessed Feb. 14, 2011.

Photo: Congressman Walz speaking at a deployment ceremony in Southern Minnesota several years ago

The mirror of earmarks: or, Republicans tell Kevin Diaz they hate themselves

Reading Brace yourself for another budget pinch: Proposed five-year federal spending freeze might cost Minnesota $5.5 billion, by Star Tribune Washington correspondent Kevin Diaz, I paused over this passage:

. . .Bachmann was forced to withdraw her plan to cap veterans' health spending after coming under fire from groups like the Veterans of Foreign Wars. One of Bachmann's leading antagonists: U.S. Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., a National Guard veteran who has accused her of trying to "balance the budget on the backs of veterans who have risked life and limb in service of our country."

Republicans hit back by noting that over his career Walz has racked up $132 million in earmarks -- projects that would benefit his southern Minnesota district. . .

The last sentence is particularly fascinating, for regardless of where I look online, I cannot find Republicans hitting "back by noting that over his career Walz has racked up $132 million in earmarks -- projects that would benefit his southern Minnesota district."

Lord knows I've tried. I've looked at the NRCC's website. I've looked at the Republican Party of Minnesota's website. I've searched Twitter. I've remembered that Google Is My Friend and used the search engine to comb through various categories: Everything, Web, News, Blogs, Video. I've accessed Nexis and searched All News, using any number of combinations of search terms ,and could not find any media reporting that Republicans responded with this charge to Walz's defense of veterans programs.

I have no idea who those Republicans are, and where they talked about those $132 millions in earmarks in the more than two weeks since the dust-up began about Bachmann's proposed cuts to veterans' health care funding. The Strib article seems to be the first place this retort appeared.

Perhaps Kevin Diaz can source his material a bit more--I hear the standards demanded of the typical unpaid blogger at Huffington post are pretty good.

One thing I did find in my search, however, was a list of $132 million of earmarks requested by Congressman Walz. It's not spouting from the mouths of Republicans irate over the retired Guardsman's defense of spending for the growing health care needs of America's expanding population of veterans. Nor was the figure whispered exclusively into the tender ears of Kevin Diaz.

Nope: it's the list of earmarks Walz requested from 2008-2010, nicely archived by Legistorm. Curious details there, beginning with this chart:

Fiscal Year(s) 2008-2010	Number	Cost
Solo Earmarks	11	$4,532,500
With Other Members	46	$74,093,525
All Congressional	57	$78,626,025
All Sponsored Earmarks	60*	$132,907,025*

Acting alone, Walz requested $4.5 million for 11 earmarks--and most of the solo asks do go for projects in Southern Minnesota: road construction, cancer research, flood mitigation, National Guard facilities.

The bulk of Walz's earmarks were requested with other members of Congress--and those projects typically include co-sponsors with an "R" beside their names. Legistorm makes it easy to look at just the earmarks Walz requested for others.

And who are his earmarking companions from the other side of the aisle for those $128 million in requests?

One major player is the man Bachmann once said should be a presidential contender in 2012: Iowa Representative Steve King. In  2010, King joined Walz in requesting $10 million for the Lewis & Clark Rural Water System; in 2009, the amount was $27 million, and in 2008, $25.6 million.Together, those earmarks account for $62.6 million of the $132 million of Walz earmarks.

Other Republicans in the Senate--Thune, Grassley, and Coleman--also requested the money, as did regional Democrats in both the House and Senate. It's a large public works project designed to bring potable drinking water to areas of Iowa, Minnesota and South Dakota where the naturally available water is poor quality.

The project is so important for the area that a newly-elected Republican state representative has sponsored a bill petitioning Congress and the President to fund it (but apparently not so important that Walz's biggest earmark can't be used against him when GOP operatives talk to Kevin Diaz).

Another water-related region project that touched on the other side of the district also enjoyed bipartisan sponsorship. Walz was joined by the likes of Coleman and Grassley, along with six Republican representatives, in requesting a total of $26.3 million for a Upper Mississippi River Restoration project for Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota and Wisconsin for 2008 and 2009. That takes the total up to $88.9 million.

The rest of the projects are smaller but more local to the district and state; there are even one from 2008 that Bachmann requested along with Walz. As noted earlier, only $4.5 million was requested by Walz alone.

Some earmarks in the Legistorm database that are national in scope aren't included in individual members by the transparency organization.  Take the $25 million to "Center for Civic Education for two programs - We the People and Cooperative Education Exchange - that are authorized in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as part of the Civic Education program." Norm Coleman and other Republicans signed on to that.

Yet another education item from 2009, also authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: $24.8 million for the Reading is Fundamental program. Joining Walz in that one? The winner of this past weekend's Presidential straw at CPAC: Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

In short, after looking over Walz's list--and his conservative counterparts who sponsored earmarks with him--I can only conclude that Diaz's Republican sources aren't telling him everything; I can only hope Diaz doesn't share the self-loathing of those who stuff themselves into the closet of such half-truths.

Earlier this year, the Columbia Journalism Review chastized another reporter at the paper for its coverage, first noted locally by City Pages in "Star Tribune Bachmann coverage slammed by watchdog." Like the other reporter, Diaz seems to have repeated a factual claim by his Republican sources--whomever they are--without bothering to check how closely those claims adhere to the truth.

When the claim is examined, the bulk of the earmark requests Diaz mentions are neither Walz's alone, nor do they benefit only Minnesota's First. Indeed, over half of the dollar amount was requested by members of the very party pointing its finger. Perhaps it's time for the news editors at the Strib to rethink objective journalism.

Related posts: Walz vows to fight Bachmann plan to balance budget at expense of veterans' care.

In the era of don't tell, don't ask for earmarks, Schomacker bill tells delegation to fund Lewis & Clark Rural Water project.

Walz on JPMorgan: "weakest testimony I've ever heard in this committee"

The American Legion's Legislative Action Center serves up a hard hitting story in JPMorgan Chase grilled by Congress. Congressman Tim Walz, a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, put in a memorable turn:

It was an eventful morning on Feb. 9 for a senior executive of JPMorgan Chase, the giant financial institution accused of violating lending rules that - in several cases - caused military families to lose their homes. Stephanie Mudick, Chase's vice president in charge of consumer practices, sat alone as members of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee grilled her about the company's handling of mortgage loan provisions in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA).

The committee's ranking minority member, Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., challenged Mudick and fellow JPMorgan Chase employees in absentia to take personal - not corporate - responsibility for violations that reportedly caused emotional and financial distress for a number of servicemembers and their families. . . .

. . . In her oral testimony before the HVAC, Mudick said JPMorgan Chase assumed "full responsibility" for the SCRA violations, characterizing the alleged 4,500 cases of mishandled interest rates and 18 wrongful foreclosures as products of human error. She said lack of internal training left many Chase employees with little, if any, knowledge of SCRA regulations and the intricacies of military documentation, saying that "military orders are sometimes hard to comprehend."

In response, Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., produced his iPad, upon which he exhibited a simple one-page set of military orders. In contrast, he held up a Chase credit card agreement spanning dozens of pages. He called Mudick's statement "the weakest testimony I've ever heard in this committee." [emphasis added]

For more background on this story, check out this story from the Marines' website, which links to indepth discussions of the issue: Marines may be entitled to JP Morgan Chase settlements.

Photo: Tim Walz in Worthington.

All of them: MN Senate Republicans refuse to hold the line on funding state veterans' programs

Back on February 4, Bluestem noted in the post McLeod vets' needs require second county officer; Republican bills cut veterans programs:

On the county level, the county veterans service officer is the latter's best first hope, a staff person to guide them through the state and federal programs a more-or-less grateful nation provides to those who give their time to serving the country.

So what is the Republican majority in the Minnesota legislature doing about this increased need?

Why, cutting money for county veterans services offices.

On January 27, the Star Tribune reported in $1 billion in cuts passes first test:

. . .DFLers said cutting that money would hurt veterans, soldiers and college students most. Targets could include a state soldiers assistance program, which provides emergency financial aid to veterans, along with money for county veterans service officers. . . .[emphasis added]

Today, Senate DFLers asked to send the conference committee report for HF130 sent back so that a slight changecould be made to the language, a change that would ensure that veterans' programs would not be put on the chopping block.

Not a single Republican voted to protect veterans' programs. The DFL Senate Caucus has posted video from the floor debate:

Perhaps I should contact my state senator's legislative aide about his vote. That'll do it. Yeah, given Senator Newman's "Bus Dumping" Prowess, I'm sure he'll get my message.

Meanwhile, what will we say to Minnesota's veterans? To State Senator John Harrington's son, a member of the Red Bulls? 

What promise can the GOP caucus give to vets that they couldn't put in writing?

Update: Governor Dayton vetoed the bill. His reasons are stated here.

McLeod vets' needs require second county officer; Republican bills cut veterans programs

Covering a recent meeting of the county commissioners, the McLeod County Chronicle reports in Lauer: Veterans Services could use another full-time officer:

For a long time, Lauer said, the number of veterans had been static or even declining.

"But we have to realize we've been at war for 10 years now in Afghanistan and Iraq," said Lauer.

There is a large number of veterans returning to the States from those wars, increasing the volume of traffic at the local veterans services office (VSO).

Along with the influx of newer war veterans, the economy has had an effect on older veterans.

"We have more vets seeking health-care benefits as businesses adjust their health-care plans," said Lauer. Veterans who had never sought benefits before because their employers provided them are now coming in to the VSO.

And many of those veterans have lost jobs through cuts, creating other needs. . . .

This appraisal meshes with what I know to be true. Just today, another young friend leaves on a deployment; two others will be heading to Afghanistan shortly. Older acquaintances, including vets, have lost jobs or faced cutback benefits.

On the county level, the county veterans service officer is the latter's best first hope, a staff person to guide them through the state and federal programs a more-or-less grateful nation provides to those who give their time to serving the country.

So what is the Republican majority in the Minnesota legislature doing about this increased need?

Why, cutting money for county veterans services offices.

On January 27, the Star Tribune reported in $1 billion in cuts passes first test:

. . .DFLers said cutting that money would hurt veterans, soldiers and college students most. Targets could include a state soldiers assistance program, which provides emergency financial aid to veterans, along with money for county veterans service officers. . . .[emphasis added]

Representative Larry Hosch, representing a distrcit just north of here, eplained the deets in a statement:

Perhaps more egregious, Hosch said the bill directs the Office of Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) to cut $200 million from the state’s bottom line before the end of the fiscal year. However according to the MMB, less than $200 million non-committed funds exist and a majority of those are for veterans’ services such as $2.7 million from the State Soldiers Assistance Program, $800,000 in grants to County Veterans Service Officers, and $5 million from tuition reimbursements for National Guard members.

“These cuts to our veterans are reckless and misguided,” said Hosch. “I am not sure some of our newer Representatives even realize what they are voting to do. We should have veterans before the legislature testifying and adding their input before we consider making these damaging cuts.”

The Republican controlled senate passed a similar bill yesterday. The Pioneer Press reports:

The legislation directs state agencies to turn back $125 million that they received but haven't already spent. Cohen, the former Finance Committee chair, said the agencies only have $110 million left that they are not legally obligated to spend.

If Republicans cut all that money, he said, tax returns would be delayed, repairs at veterans homes would be put off, military funeral honor guards would not be reimbursed and counseling services would be reduced for National Guard soldiers returning from overseas. In addition, he said, half the state parks would have no showers, firewood or equipment rental and only limited security, and the state crime lab would stop assisting local investigators.

While Republicans campaigned on cutting spending as the one true way to eliminate the looming revenue shortfalls, I don't recall any of them promising to cut county veterans' service offices.

In fact, State Senate Mike Parry won his special election just over a year ago while campaigning on an across-the-board 15 percent budget cut that would nonetheless hold state veterans' program harmless. The Mankato Free Press reported in January 2010:

Parry was asked, if billions of dollars in inefficiencies are present in the budget, why Pawlenty didn’t target them when he had the chance.

“I wasn’t there,” Parry said. “I don’t know what he was thinking.”

One problem, according to Parry’s philosophy, might have been the governor’s attempt to protect K-12 education funding and other popular parts of the budget. Parry would exempt only two relatively small sections of the state budget — veterans benefits and public safety programs. [emphasis added]

Every other part of the budget must be cut — even property tax credits and other favored line items that directly reduce people’s property taxes, according to Parry.

Now that he chairs the Senate's State Govenment and Veterans Committee, Parry isn't taking questions about the cuts. I'm with veteran MPR reporter Tom Scheck on that one: Wow.

Photo: Veterans better not ask Senator Parry about cuts to veterans' programs at a time of rising need, cause he ain't telling.

Walz vows to fight Bachmann plan to balance budget at expense of veterans' care

The  Air Force News and other outlets in Gannet Media's Military Times Network are reporting that Bachmann plan would cut veterans benefits:

Tea party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has unveiled a plan for cutting $400 billion in federal spending that includes freezing Veterans Affairs Department health care spending and cutting veterans’ disability benefits.

Her proposed VA budget cuts would account for $4.5 billion of the savings included in the plan, posted on her official House of Representatives website.

Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, said cutting veterans’ health care spending is an ill-advised move at a time when the number of veterans continues to grow as troops return from Iraq and Afghanistan. Sullivan said he finds it difficult to see how VA could freeze health care costs without hurting veterans.

“It is really astonishing to see this,” he said.

I'm astonished as well. Two friends in the Marines are going to be deployed to Afghanistan within the next few months; one friend's son in the Army Rangers will also be sent into harm's way this year. To freeze a health care budget at a time of rising need created by the young veterans of ongoing wars and an aging population of vets who served earlier seems foolhardy. The Air Force Times article reports:

Her list of cuts doesn’t explain the impact of freezing veterans’ health care funding, but the Congressional Budget Office said in a report issued in October that health care costs have been quickly increasing. VA’s health care budget was $44 billion in 2009, $48 billion in 2010 and is at $52 billion this year. The report forecasts a health care budget of $69 billion or higher by 2020 if trends continue, the report estimates.

I can't think of anyone in any party who campaigned on backpedaling from promises made to our service members; in fact, in the First, Randy Demmer's campaign manager complained last year when Walz held a town hall with veterans, since supposedly there was no disagreement about veterans' issues and funding.

Now Bachmann tells America that's not the case.

It's also no surprise that First District Congressman Tim Walz should answer back. Friends who served under Walz when he was their First Sergeant said you never wanted to hear him upbraid you when you did something ill-advised. I think Michele Bachmann just did.

From the congressional office:

Today, Congressman Walz released the following statement in response to Representative Bachmann’s plan to cut benefits for those who have bravely served our country in uniform.

“We have to have an aggressive, long-term plan to tackle our nation’s debt, but attempting to balance the budget on the backs of veterans who have risked life and limb in service of our country is unacceptable. I believe we can and should work together to find reasonable and common-sense cuts that will reduce our debt, but as a generation of warriors returns from two wars, our most solemn responsibility is to make sure they have the care and benefits they have earned.”

Walz is the highest ranking enlisted soldier to ever serve in Congress. He served in the National Guard for 24 years, retiring as a Command Sergeant Major. Before retiring, Walz served overseas in Italy with his battalion in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Related post:

Demmer campaign to Walz office: quit listening to vets and find out how disagreeable Randy is

Photo: Walz at a 2010 town hall for veterans.