Media General News Service
Email to a Friend
Stumble It!
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite is not only the lead House Republican co-sponsor of a new G.I. bill to expand education benefits to cover the costs of even the most expensive state universities for Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.
She’s also an opponent.
Huh?
Well, sort of.
Thursday, the Brooksville, Fla., lawmaker decided to vote against her restructured legislation, upset that Democrats who control the House decided to pay for its increased educational benefits with what they called a “Patriots Premium,” rather than as part of war spending.
The version adopted by her House colleagues in a 256 to 166 vote would be funded through a surtax of half a percentage point on wealthy Americans’ incomes above $500,000, or $1 million for couples.
The surtax is expected to generate an estimated $56 billion over ten years.
Specifying how the new GI benefits would be paid for was something conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats wanted before they would join in the support of the bill.
When it was passed, veterans groups hailed the day as a victory.
But Brown-Waite, in a speech on the House floor before the vote, told colleagues that despite her “obvious support” for this provision, “I’m saddened because I can’t vote for its passage …”
Her reason: Democrats had included “an egregious tax.”
“When the fortunes of this nation’s veterans are at stake, the majority always seems to play games,” Brown-Waite said. “There is no need for this tax and certainly it’s not welcomed at a time when our economy is struggling.”
"While claiming this tax is for America’s veterans, in reality the majority of it is paying for their penchant to send foreign aid money to governments, many of whom do not support the United States of America," she added.
Brown-Waite’s office then sent out a split-personality news release headlined: “Ginny Supports the New GI Bill and Takes Majority to Task for Raising Taxes on Small Business and Entrepreneurs.”
The press release also contained a link to Brown-Waite’s House Web site, where viewers can watch her speech in its entirety.
Later Thursday, Brown-Waite and her Democratic co-sponsor, Rep. Harry Mitchell of Arizona, sent a letter top Senate appropriators expressing pride they were able bring parties together in the House to fix “a broken promise” to our veterans.
But they also said they were disappointed in how the House had decided to pay for it. The new GI Bill should be included as part of war spending, they insisted, not paid for with raised taxes.
“If we mean what we say, that taking care of those who serve is truly a cost of war, then the GI Bill should be included as part of our war spending,” they wrote.
They asked the Senate to not include such a tax as it begins to consider its version of the bill, introduced by Virginia's two senators, Democrat James Webb and Republican John Warner.
On Friday, her spokesman, Charlie Keller, elaborated on her position, saying,: "Ginny believes that the cost of GI education is a cost of the war, and does not necessarily need to be offset (with equivalent reductions in federal spending)."
However, to stay within the fiscal guidelines proposed by the Department of Defense and the House Appropriations Committee, Keller said Brown-Waite believes it would also be entirely appropriate to use some of the money being sent as foreign governments, such as for battling AIDS.
Meanwhile, Brown-Waite can only try to explain all of this to local service men and woman in her district.
One opportunity may come as early as Saturday, when she is scheduled to appear at an Armed Forces Day event at about 10 a.m. the corner of SR 50 and U.S. 19 in Hernando County.
Reporter Billy House can be reached at bhouse@mediageneral.com or at 1 (202) 662-7673.
She’s also an opponent.
Huh?
Well, sort of.
Thursday, the Brooksville, Fla., lawmaker decided to vote against her restructured legislation, upset that Democrats who control the House decided to pay for its increased educational benefits with what they called a “Patriots Premium,” rather than as part of war spending.
The version adopted by her House colleagues in a 256 to 166 vote would be funded through a surtax of half a percentage point on wealthy Americans’ incomes above $500,000, or $1 million for couples.
The surtax is expected to generate an estimated $56 billion over ten years.
Specifying how the new GI benefits would be paid for was something conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats wanted before they would join in the support of the bill.
When it was passed, veterans groups hailed the day as a victory.
But Brown-Waite, in a speech on the House floor before the vote, told colleagues that despite her “obvious support” for this provision, “I’m saddened because I can’t vote for its passage …”
Her reason: Democrats had included “an egregious tax.”
“When the fortunes of this nation’s veterans are at stake, the majority always seems to play games,” Brown-Waite said. “There is no need for this tax and certainly it’s not welcomed at a time when our economy is struggling.”
"While claiming this tax is for America’s veterans, in reality the majority of it is paying for their penchant to send foreign aid money to governments, many of whom do not support the United States of America," she added.
Brown-Waite’s office then sent out a split-personality news release headlined: “Ginny Supports the New GI Bill and Takes Majority to Task for Raising Taxes on Small Business and Entrepreneurs.”
The press release also contained a link to Brown-Waite’s House Web site, where viewers can watch her speech in its entirety.
Later Thursday, Brown-Waite and her Democratic co-sponsor, Rep. Harry Mitchell of Arizona, sent a letter top Senate appropriators expressing pride they were able bring parties together in the House to fix “a broken promise” to our veterans.
But they also said they were disappointed in how the House had decided to pay for it. The new GI Bill should be included as part of war spending, they insisted, not paid for with raised taxes.
“If we mean what we say, that taking care of those who serve is truly a cost of war, then the GI Bill should be included as part of our war spending,” they wrote.
They asked the Senate to not include such a tax as it begins to consider its version of the bill, introduced by Virginia's two senators, Democrat James Webb and Republican John Warner.
On Friday, her spokesman, Charlie Keller, elaborated on her position, saying,: "Ginny believes that the cost of GI education is a cost of the war, and does not necessarily need to be offset (with equivalent reductions in federal spending)."
However, to stay within the fiscal guidelines proposed by the Department of Defense and the House Appropriations Committee, Keller said Brown-Waite believes it would also be entirely appropriate to use some of the money being sent as foreign governments, such as for battling AIDS.
Meanwhile, Brown-Waite can only try to explain all of this to local service men and woman in her district.
One opportunity may come as early as Saturday, when she is scheduled to appear at an Armed Forces Day event at about 10 a.m. the corner of SR 50 and U.S. 19 in Hernando County.
Reporter Billy House can be reached at bhouse@mediageneral.com or at 1 (202) 662-7673.