<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Two Veteran Support Bills Introduced</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.vamortgagecenter.com/blog/2007/02/12/two-veteran-support-bills-introduced/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.vamortgagecenter.com/blog/2007/02/12/two-veteran-support-bills-introduced/</link>
	<description>Updated information on Veteran Benefits, featured Military Bloggers, the You Served Podcast and various other news and information relevant to Veterans.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:04:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: RTO Trainer</title>
		<link>http://www.vamortgagecenter.com/blog/2007/02/12/two-veteran-support-bills-introduced/#comment-921</link>
		<dc:creator>RTO Trainer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 05:16:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.vamortgagecenter.com/blog/2007/02/12/two-veteran-support-bills-introduced/#comment-921</guid>
		<description>I encouraged my Congressional delegation to vote against S. 117 - the Lane Evans Veterans Healthcare &#38; Benefits Improvement Act.

It may seem strange that a serving Veteran and National Guardsman might oppose this bill. I do. While I do believe that every returning Soldier needs and deserves access to mental health counseling and that it should be provided compulsorily, I'm mindful that the VA has never been fully funded and this activity would naturally fall to them. In this light, S. 117 amounts to an unfunded mandate which would deprive other, just as deserving, Veterans of treatment, and further increase already unconscionably long delays.

I asked them not to fall into the "patriot trap," that just because it's for Veterans its a good thing. This bill trades on the desire to support the troops, but is particularly poorly thought through in it's execution. Full funding of the VA, would be the correct course to take and a better use of the Congress' time. Then if we think we can add more, so be it.

In addition, S. 117 contains requirements for a raft of reports on the use of Veterans' benefits. This further exacerbates the funding problem and steals time from administrators already working beyond capacity. Supporters of the bill never mention this added and unnecessary burden.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I encouraged my Congressional delegation to vote against S. 117 - the Lane Evans Veterans Healthcare &amp; Benefits Improvement Act.</p>
<p>It may seem strange that a serving Veteran and National Guardsman might oppose this bill. I do. While I do believe that every returning Soldier needs and deserves access to mental health counseling and that it should be provided compulsorily, I&#8217;m mindful that the VA has never been fully funded and this activity would naturally fall to them. In this light, S. 117 amounts to an unfunded mandate which would deprive other, just as deserving, Veterans of treatment, and further increase already unconscionably long delays.</p>
<p>I asked them not to fall into the &#8220;patriot trap,&#8221; that just because it&#8217;s for Veterans its a good thing. This bill trades on the desire to support the troops, but is particularly poorly thought through in it&#8217;s execution. Full funding of the VA, would be the correct course to take and a better use of the Congress&#8217; time. Then if we think we can add more, so be it.</p>
<p>In addition, S. 117 contains requirements for a raft of reports on the use of Veterans&#8217; benefits. This further exacerbates the funding problem and steals time from administrators already working beyond capacity. Supporters of the bill never mention this added and unnecessary burden.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
