Press Coverage

AM New York: Veterans group grades lawmakers

AM New York, the most widely distributed daily in New York City, ran a cover story today discussing the Congressional Ratings released by IAVA Action Fund last week.

Veterans group grades lawmakers

By Michael Clancy
New York City Editor
October 31, 2006

When it comes to looking out for veterans, federal lawmakers in New York scored slightly better than those in other states, but have plenty of room for improvement, an advocacy group said Monday.

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a political action committee, issued a report card of legislators' votes on veterans issues, handing the New York delegation a C+.

"No one has really called them on this stuff," said Paul Reickhoff, an Iraq war veteran who founded the group and serves as its executive director. "They all say 'I'm patriotic' or 'I support the troops' but no one has really looked into their votes."

New York's Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton fared well, scoring a A- and a B+ respectively, but just average grades went to local congressmen such as Rep. Peter King (R-Long Island), Rep. Vito Fossella (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn), who were given C+ grades, and Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn) who was given a C.

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-Westchester) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D.-Long Island) were the only local politicians to get an A.

The report card looked at votes on body armor, death benefits, and expanding the military health care plan to include members of the National Guard and the Reserves. The group assigned lawmakers a grade for each time their votes matched what the group felt was in the best interest of veterans.

A spokesperson for Owens said the congressman hasn't seen the report and could not comment. Fossella's representatives said they would send a statement but failed to do so after repeated requests.

For example, the veterans group looked at the Senate vote to increase military death benefits from $12,000 to $100,000 -- 25 senators voted against it.

"People couldn't even cover the cost of funeral expenses at $12,000," Reickhoff said.

Reickoff said the grades are important because veterans affairs are not a big public concern. Less than 1% of the population is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan; in World War II, more than 10% of the population served.

Other veterans groups agreed that benefits for veterans have steadily decreased since World War II, when millions of returning servicemen benefited from a robust GI bill.

"We have the administration and members in Congress who are actually advocating for cuts in veterans' health care, so that veterans have to pay more for health care," said David Autry, a spokesman for Disabled Veterans of America. "It's a right they earned, but they are trying to shift the cost benefits on to the backs' of veterans."

The entire report can be viewed at http://www.iavaaction.org/.

Click here to read the full story on the AM New York website.

Follow-up letter to the editor:

Real support for our troops November 1, 2006  
Kudos to the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America for their report on legislators' votes on veterans issues. According to an Army report earlier this year, more than one in three soldiers who have served in Iraq later sought help for mental health problems.
 
 As with the Vietnam War, many of the troops will self medicate from the trauma of war when they return home. It is easy for people to buy a bumper sticker and demand that we 'support the troops,' but if we are going to walk the talk, we had better offer treatment -- not a jail cell -- when we help our brothers and sisters heal from war.
 
U.S. prisons are already filled with nonviolent drug offenders, many serving long sentences for small amounts of drugs.
 
 Service members being incarcerated and separated from their families because of their addiction will be yet more 'collateral damage' of this war.
 
 --Tony Newman, Manhattan    
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.