By Dan Carpenter
TheStatehouseFile.com

For all the stirring platitudes about never forgetting their sacrifices, the U.S. government historically has found it far easier to send men and women off to war than to care for them when they come marching and limping home.

Dan Carpenter is a columnist for TheStatehouseFile.com and the author of “Indiana Out Loud.”
Dan Carpenter is a columnist for TheStatehouseFile.com and the author of “Indiana Out Loud.”
Compounding the insult upon injury is the tendency of politicians to use troops and veterans as fodder in their own domestic wars for self-aggrandizement.

Aggravating that crime is the bald hypocrisy of accusing the other side of indifference toward veterans while refusing to put money where the mouthing, and the need, are.

Commentary button in JPG – no shadowMaking war is capitalism, Marx will tell you. Making whole those who have to fight them is socialism, where nobody profits but the ordinary Joes and Janes who did the fighting.

It’s been ever thus, even if Fox News would have you believe the current medical scandal at the Department of Veterans Affairs is another Barack Obama invention.

It started before they drove the Bonus Army out of Washington in 1932, violently ending a protest over deferred pay from World War I.

It started before Coxey’s Army marched on D.C. in 1894, demanding bonuses.

It started about when the nation did, in 1783, when Revolutionary War veterans descended on the then-capital of Philadelphia and demanded Congress reverse the denial of separation pay.

I don‘t go back quite that far, but I did a lot of news reporting on the widespread complaints of inadequate medical care and other benefits by Vietnam Era vets; and continuing disgruntlement by veterans and their organizations – both militant and “establishment” – on through to the present.

One day during the 1980s, I was being led with other journalists on a tour of the Roudebush West 10th Street VA Medical Center by a supervising psychiatric nurse. It was a congenial exercise in PR for the most part. Then someone asked why there was a waiting list for some important services.

“That’s what you get,” the man said before briskly moving us on, “when you elect Ronald Reagan president.”

Reagan, the champion of military spending, made veterans’ benefits part of his equally famous social services cuts. But it’s been the wars of the Bushes that have really swamped the VA. And the proudly patriotic conservatives don’t seem to mind as long as the party label’s right. They reelected President George W. Bush and then-Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., back at mid-decade without demanding that they rethink budget cuts for veterans’ services. Buyer, as chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, acquiesced to VA underfunding that his predecessor, Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., had consistently fought. Having former VA chief and U.S. senator Max Cleland, a triple amputee from the Vietnam War, campaign for Buyer’s opponent in 2006 didn’t help enough, if any. But then, Cleland had lost his Senate seat in 2002 to a rightwing assault that likened him to Osama bin Laden. What have you done for us lately, Max?

Underfunding of veterans’ needs continues. As does politics. Republicans who successfully filibustered last winter against socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ bill to relieve the VA of the pressures of scarce resources are now demanding the head of the VA director and using this current issue, grave as it admittedly is, as a club against Obama, public health care in general and Democrats in November. (Meanwhile, their comrades in the House, who cut embassy security funding, are re-investigating Benghazi.)

Veterans’ organizations, to their credit, are firing back, Indy’s own American Legion being an unfortunate exception thus far. A bitter war of words is under way. Without doubt, the next shooting war is on its way as well. More veterans to love.

Dan Carpenter is a freelance writer, contributor to The Indianapolis Business Journal and the author of “Indiana Out Loud.”

By Lesley Weidenbener
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – Hoosier lawmakers said Friday they look forward to new veterans affairs leadership after Secretary Eric Shinseki resigned under pressure over problems involving cover ups and wait times for care at government-run hospitals.

But lawmakers said the resignation doesn’t solve the VA’s problems.

“Congress and the American people must not lose sight of the work the still lies ahead,” U.S. Rep. Todd Young, R-9th District, said in a statement.

“The problems that have recently come to light in Phoenix and elsewhere only serve to underscore what most of us already suspected was true: The level of care our country provides to our veterans is not commensurate with the sacrifices they’ve made on behalf of their country,” Young said. “The resignation of one man does not change the fact that we must make bold reforms to address these serious problems.”

U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, D-7th District, called Shinseki’s service “honorable” but said a change was necessary.

“We need to clear the air and move toward long-term solutions to the systemic problems within the VA that have resulted in substandard service for the men and women who have served our country in uniform,” Carson said in a statement.

Carson was among several Indiana lawmakers who acted quickly Friday to commend Shinseki’s lifelong service.

But a number of House and Senate members had also been calling for his resignation, a chorus that had been growing since an interim report found the VA’s problems are systemic, rather than isolated at a hospital in Phoenix where they were first discovered.

Indiana Rep. Susan Brooks, R-5th District, called for Shinseki’s resignation last week.

“Fixing the current systemic problems within the Department of Veterans Affairs clearly requires new leadership with in-depth health care system experience,” Brooks said. “The next secretary must comprehensively retool the VA’s health care system to ensure veterans receive the quality treatment they deserve.”

President Barack Obama, who accepted Shinseki’s resignation Friday, said that Sloan Gibson, the agency’s deputy secretary, will take over until a permanent replacement is named.

U.S. Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Indiana, said he’s pleased to have a “fresh pair of eyes on this calamity.”

“This isn’t just about one man — it is about a culture change. We need to hold accountable those who were carrying out or encouraging these practices day to day, and we must ensure that the VA health system provides the responsiveness and quality care our veterans deserve,” Donnelly said.

U.S. Sen. Dan Coats, R-Indiana, said he supports continued investigations into the VA issues.

“The culture of the VA must change, and we need to look at solutions outside of government-run facilities,” Coats said. “My focus remains on ensuring Hoosier veterans receive the care they not only earned, but deserve.”

TheStatehouseFile.com is a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.

Dave Stafford for www.theindianalawyer.com              

A special judge appointed in a paternity case ruled correctly that matters in the case remanded by the Court of Appeals should be heard by the prior judge who heard the evidence, the appellate court held in a second appeal on the matter.

In In re the Paternity of V.A., (Minor Child), R.A. v. B.Y., 39A04-1310-JP-512, father R.A. requested a change of judge under Trial Rule 76(B), which was granted. He appealed a prior trial court ruling to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Jefferson Circuit Special Judge James B. Morris took the case after Judge Ted Todd granted father’s change-of-judge motion. When Morris received the matter on remand, he ruled that Trial Rule 63(A) requires a judge who hears evidence to make all rulings relating to that evidence.

“On appeal, Father contends that Trial Rules 76(B) and 63(A) conflict, and his right to a change of judge under Trial Rule 76(B) trumps Trial Rule 63(A)’s preference for the judge who heard the evidence,” Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote for the panel. “We conclude that the rules do not conflict; rather, they govern different aspects of Father’s case — Father’s change-of-judge request under Trial Rule 76(B) applies prospectively to his modification petition, and Trial Rule 63(A) operates retroactively to ensure that the remanded issues are considered by the judge who heard the evidence, Judge Todd. We affirm.”

A separate appellate panel heard another appeal from the same case, affirming Morris’ denial of father’s motion to correct error and an order reinstating his visitation time with a child he had in 2003. He and the child’s mother never married, and their relationship ended in 2011.

In In Re: The Paternity of V.A., a Minor Child, R.A. Father v. B.Y., Mother, 39A01-1307-JP-304, as prior appeals were pending, father filed a motion to modify support and custody the same day that Morris assumed jurisdiction. Morris denied the motion on the basis that he lacked jurisdiction to rule.

“(W)e cannot hold the court abused its discretion when it denied Father’s motion to correct error,” Judge Melissa May wrote for the panel in this appeal. “We accordingly affirm the denial of Father’s Motion to Correct Error regarding the dismissal of his petition to modify custody and support.”