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.
Comments