« Atheist Sunday School | Main | Pelousy Teams Up with Failed General for American Defeat »
November 27, 2007
Dems Divert Vet Benefits to Foreigners
The new Democrat-controlled Congress's jarringly low approval rating isn't hard to understand, in light of abominations like the Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2007 (H.R. 760). As revealed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), this outrage promises to
provide full veterans' status to World War II era Filipino soldiers and even their survivors.
This would include pay for service related disabilities, survivor pay for service-connected deaths, as well as pensions and death benefits.
Those who are living in the Philippines, and are not U.S. citizens, would receive $6,000 to $8,400. Low-income widows would receive $3,600.
[…] VA Committee Chairman Bob Filner, D-Calif., was determined to pass the Filipino Veterans Equity Act. When the exchanges between the chairman and ranking member (and former chairman) Steve Buyer, R-Ind., became too heated, Filner ordered a recess to plot strategy with the Democratic majority.
The measure passed on a straight party-line vote and Filner refused to recognize any additional Republican amendments.
Kudos to Filipino vets for fighting the imperial Japanese, but they were fighting for their own country, not ours. What's next: making the entire planet eligible for Social Security benefits?
You might wonder how the Dems plan to pay for their extravagant largesse. Here's how:
Democrats on the Veterans Committee voted to save nearly $1 billion by eliminating a $2,200 special monthly payment to veterans who are less than 100 percent disabled, but 60 percent or greater disabled.
That is, they have decided to take money from American vets to give to vets of another country. It looks like Democrats do support the troops — just not our troops.
On a tip from Bill.
Posted by Van Helsing at November 27, 2007 9:58 AM
Comments
This is not a comment on the merit of the legislation but a bit of background. The Philippines were a Commonwealth of the United States (similar to the current status of Puerto Rico) during World War II. The Philippine Army was under American command, so Filipinos may be considered to have been fighting for "our" country.
Posted by: Steve at November 27, 2007 11:01 AM
As per world history, I understand that during World War II, the Philippines was a US territory and that the Filipino soldiers were called to report for duty to serve the US Armed Forces. Thus, their oath of allegiance is for the USA. They fought the battle as American soldiers defending US sovereignty. The then Philippines was under attack by the Japanese because it is a US territory and the targets then were the US military bases. The Philippines was then consequently dragged into the picture, the US being the enemy of Japan. So, how come the Filipino soldiers are now being denied of their rights as veterans of WW II, the same as their American counterparts? Justice for them is long overdue..........
Posted by: Samuel Tan at November 27, 2007 11:29 AM
The Philipines is now an independent country. If they were still a territory of the US then I would agree they should get money.
Independence means independent of the United States. If they wanted US money then we should demand they become a US possession again. Or they should renounce their Philipine citizenship and apply for US citizenship.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2007 11:51 AM
Strikes me as a bit like reparations for slavery; if the U.S. was going to do this for the Filipino soldiers, sailors and airmen, it should have been done within a few years after the end of hostilities; now, it seems to be mere "money-grubbing."
Gotta hand it to those Democrats, though -- they sure know how to "care" for the very people who have defended their freedom even to exist, by taking funds away from them and handing them out, in what appears to be an unsolicited gesture, to anybody else who might need them. "We support the troops," right up to the point that any financial assistance is required. The current war-funding/budget battle comes immediately to mind.
To paraphrase Frederick the Great, the modern Dhimmicrat motto seems to be: "Defeat! Defeat! Always Defeat!"
Posted by: jc14 at November 27, 2007 1:27 PM
America is not responsable for ALL Filipino veterans (God bless them), only the one who served in the US military, such as the 26th Cavalry. The Fillipino Scouts and the Fillipino Army was ORGANISED by the US with the co-operation of the PI government, but it was under the control of the Pillipine government. Douglas McArthur was released from US duty in the thirties and made Field Marshal of the Fhillipine Army, he was recomission to the US Army when hostilities seemed inevitable, but still retained his Pillipine appointment. This in no way means that the PI Army was inducted into the US Army. The Phillipine Guerillas was LOCALY organised and only SUPPORTED by the US, it was a Phillipine organization. The US solders, sailors and airmen in the Guerillas retained their US millitary status.
The Phillipine Islands became an independant country on July 4th, 1945 as per a decades-old treaty and should be treated as such.
Posted by: KHarn at November 27, 2007 3:04 PM
I have received the following from a Vietnam era vet:
A couple points:
First, the Philippine vets fought with US units and put their lives on
the line not just for their own country, but to protect US forces as
well. The US promised them that they would be taken care of and
receive veteran's benefits, and we've dragged our feet on this for
over half a century now. Some of my relatives, now deceased, fought
with them in combat and were rightly incensed for decades that we'd
refused to honor our promise to them. It's long past time to take
care of the few who still survive, as well as paying some of what was
owed to the rest to their survivors. To do otherwise would be
dishonorable.
Secondly, other than taking place during the same session, there is
nothing that connects the discontinuance of the special monthly
payments with the benefits for Philippine vets. No one even suggested
that they cut one to pay the other. IOW, there's no cause-and-effect
relationship here, and nothing to show that it was necessary to make
cuts anywhere to pay this other debt.
This may be a case where more documentation is needed. Did Filner or any other leading Democrat explicitly connect the two actions?
chsw
Posted by: chsw at November 28, 2007 10:51 AM
