Dear Sgt. Shaft:
A strange thing happened when the administration put together its budget for the new fiscal year. It forgot about veterans.

Although administration officials are tooting their horns over federal budget surpluses in the tens of billions of dollars per year, they seem to have forgotten that the VA budget has been stuck for two years at 1997 spending levels, and the so-called "new" budget for fiscal 2000 is really the 1997 budget, dusted off for the third year.

Of course, this frozen budget is the product of cut-backs, austerity measures, and a five-year VA funding freeze that was put together in the mid-1990s. Then it looked as if we'd be well into the 21st century before the federal government would be able to pay its bills without going further into debt.

I don't need to tell you or your readers that America's veterans have always been willing to shoulder their share of any national sacrifice. We've done it before, and we'll do it again. But we also expect to share in any national good fortune.

Surely, now that the specter of increasing federal debts has vanished and the numbers-crunchers are projecting bigger surpluses in the years ahead, some of that money could be earmarked for deferred business at the VA.

Additional funding could restore disability compensation lost last year for veterans with smoking-related diseases. It could further strengthen the sorely needed provision of long-term care in many parts of the country, help the expansion of VA clinics, and modernize aging facilities and equipment.

A subject close to the hearts of many Legionnaires that could make good use of a tiny fraction of the federal surplus is the GI Bill of Health. For many years, we at the American Legion have believed that the VA needs to expand its patient base and revenue sources if it is going to survive into the 21st century. That can be done without saddling the taxpayer with additional debt.

A modest portion of the projected surplus would help underwrite three necessary developments in the GI Bill of Health:

• Testing Medical subvention in VA facilities. "Subvention" is the word for Medicare transferring funds to the VA when the VA treats people for whom Medicare would otherwise pay.

• Testing the introduction of spouses and other dependents in VA health care facilities. These people would have to pay their own way, and they wouldn't be allowed to displace veterans.

• Testing a VA-sponsored health care insurance system that would bring into the system the younger veterans who don't have service-connected disabilities.

For decades the VA has been devoted to the health care needs of America's veteran. Some jobs it has done better than others. Some place it is better than others. It would be an irony beyond description if VA, after weathering the tough times, is hurt by a good economy and an era of federal surpluses.

Butch Miller
National Commander
The American Legion

Dear Commander:
Seems like President Clinton and his spiffy Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Togo West, deem veterans' health care a mere nuisance to be shabbily and neglectfully dealt with. As His Majesty West spends exorbitant resources on travel for himself and royal entourage, he defends his Fiscal Year 2000 budget which can only be adequately defined as "Togo's Travesty." The Independent Budget, developed annually by four national veterans service organizations (AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars), reinforces your concerns, Butch. In a recent news release, The Independent Budget reported that the President's Fiscal Year 2000 VA budget shortfall is so significant that it "imperils the health and benefits of millions of American veterans."

Voicing concerns in a personal letter to Secretary West, Disabled American Veterans Executive Director David W. Gorman wrote, "As you are no doubt aware, there have been numerous credible indications that the Administration's budget request is horribly inadequate to meet the health care needs of America's veterans. The February 8, 1999, memorandum to you from Under Secretary for Health Dr. Kenneth W. Kizer makes reference to the 'very real prospect' of 'mandatory employee furloughs, severe curtailment of services or elimination of programs, and possible unnecessary facility closures.'" Gorman went on to state, "Mister Secretary, this nation's 25 million veterans look to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and specifically to you, to be their advocate within the Administration. Yet during the recent congressional hearing on the fiscal year 2000 budget, you appeared ill-prepared, even disengaged, leaving the impression that you were disinterested in the VA's obligation to meet the needs of America's veterans. The many thousand of dedicated public servants within the VA, who ultimately are responsible for fulfilling America's commitment to those men and women for their service and sacrifice, also look to you for leadership and direction. Yet morale throughout the VA has sunk to abysmal depths as managers and employees alike encounter endless frustrations of trying to do their jobs with seriously inadequate resources. And, Mister Secretary, leadership cannot be measured in words alone but must, of necessity, be measured by actions and deeds."

As you, Commander Miller, have previously criticized the White House for failing to allocate some of the surplus revenue to meet the needs of veterans, I'm sure that you and your thousand Legionnaires meeting here this week will be asking President Clinton and members of Congress, "Where's the beef?," restating that "veterans have always been willing to shoulder their share of any national sacrifice. We should also share in any national good fortune."