Go to Original
Hinchey Calls Blue Dog Behavior "Absolutely Shameful"
By Daniel W. Reilly
The Politico
Thursday 08 May 2008
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) issued a stern rebuke to a group of fellow House
Democrats on Thursday, saying that the behavior of the fiscally conservative
Blue Dog coalition was "absolutely shameful," after the group
revolted on Wednesday over the cost of veterans' educations benefits
in a war funding measure, delaying consideration of the $183 billion supplemental
spending bill.
"It is absolutely shameful that members of the Blue Dog coalition would
vote to take this country into Iraq on false intelligence and lies, repeatedly
vote to fund the disastrous military occupation of that country, but choose
to turn their backs on the brave members of our armed forces by refusing to
support an expansion of education benefits for them when they come home,"
Hinchey said in a statement.
Hinchey's comments underscore a division within the Democratic caucus
over what to include in the supplemental, which could be the only appropriations
bill passed out of Congress this year.
House Democrats were forced to postpone consideration of the measure after
many Blue Dogs objected to the bill, saying a provision to provide education
benefits for returning soldiers violates "pay-as-you-go" rules,
which require offsetting new spending.
The veterans benefits package was estimated to cost $720 million for the first
two years of the program.
Many Blue Dogs argued the GI benefits package was tantamount to creating a
new entitlement program and thus should be offset, an argument that did not
sit well with Hinchey, who has long opposed the Iraq war.
"This is a slap in the face to our servicemen and women who courageously
risk their lives each day in Iraq and in Afghanistan," Hinchey said.
"The idea that these benefits should be subject to pay-go is ridiculous,"
Hinchey said in an interview. Instead, Hinchey argued that providing returning
soldiers with a college education is an investment that will benefit the country
far more than paying for reconstruction in Iraq.
But Hinchey didn't stop there.
"How can the Blue Dog coalition possibly say that an expansion of education
benefits is too costly when their votes to spend hundreds of billions of dollars
to fight in Iraq violate the same pay-as-you-go rules they claim to so deeply
respect?"
Hinchey said he didn't care if his comments caused any tension in the
caucus.
"I don't care about push-back [from these comments],"
he said. "I am happy to have push-back."
UPDATE: Several Blue Dog members did indeed push back on Hinchey's comments.
"As a group which includes a number of veterans, the Blue Dogs are unwavering
in support of our brave service men and women who have risked their lives in
Iraq and Afghanistan," said Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the group's co-chairman
for communications.
"We want to pass a GI Bill that is fully paid for so that there is absolutely
no chance that these important benefits for our veterans will be cut due to
budgetary constraints in the future. We support this program; we just want to
make sure that it is done in a responsible manner."
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story