Editor,
I am proud to be a veteran of the U.S. Army and a current student at UNM.ˇTo me, the issue of veterans benefits is not simply an issue; it is something that I live through every day. I know how essential these benefits are to those who have served our country, which is why I have decided that it is imperative that I speak up about Rep. Steve Pearce's approach to veterans benefits.ˇ
Pearce is an Air Force veteran who served our country in Vietnam. Pearce flew C-130 supply planes into combat zones in Vietnam. He was honored with two Air Medals and a Distinguished Flying Cross before retiring in 1976 with the rank of Captain.ˇNo one can deny Pearce's service as a veteran, but in Congress, he has consistently voted against the best interests of veterans.
Just look to veterans groups. The Veterans of Foreign Wars PAC chose to not support Pearce and instead endorsed his Democratic opponent, Tom Udall. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Action Fund and Disabled American Veterans are both venerated nonprofit, non-partisan groups that evaluate legislators. In comparing Pearce and Udall, they ranked Pearce below his Democratic opponent in career scorecards.
DAV gave Pearce zero percent ratings for his first three years in Congress. His low ratings are due to his voting record in Congress.ˇFor example, look at the new GI Bill. There were two votes in the House on the new GI Bill. Steve Pearce voted against the new GI Bill in the only contentious vote on the matter. Pearce was one of 166 legislators to vote against the bill when 256 members voted for it. Pearce did vote "yes" in the second ballot on the new GI Bill when a near unanimous vote was cast 416-12.ˇ
Pearce's initial vote in opposition is worth a closer look.ˇAccording to Pearce, he voted against it because he opposed the provision in the bill that paid for the benefits expansion included in the new GI Bill.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The objectionable provision was a surtax of less than one half of 1 percent that would apply only to individuals earning $500,000 or more, on income above $500,000 or couples earning more than $1 million combined. This would apply to far less than even 1 percent of the entire U.S. population. Pearce and his Republican leadership were more concerned with protecting the vast wealth of those in the highest tax bracket over upgrading veterans benefits.
While Pearce may fully intend to help veterans, it is not his intent on this matter that I take issue with.ˇHis approach is wrong. As reported in the Daily Lobo on Tuesday, when discussing the administration of veterans benefits, Pearce used the metaphor of a long pipeline running from Washington to New Mexico providing health services and benefits to veterans. Pearce says, rightly, that the pipe has "a lot of leaks, and so very little water actually gets out the end of the pipeline to the veteran."
Pearce said the government needs to make sure current veterans benefits are being used efficiently before offering more, that current funding levels should not be increased until waste in the VA system is drastically reduced.
This approach will not work for veterans. Veterans cannot afford for Pearce to freeze funding levels while Washington fixes the VA system. Too many depend now on their VA benefits and health care for this Pearce method of stagnating spending levels.
Anyone who interacts with the VA knows that such an endeavor to reduce waste is necessary but will take time to enact. Veterans who served in wars past and present cannot afford to wait. Those veterans' needs are now. Their families are strained now. They are returning from war now. ˇ
Now is not the time to freeze funding levels for our veterans.
David Valdez
UNM student
