VFW’s Role in Election Cycle Raises Questions
The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) seems to be aligning itself with Democrats this election season. These are the same Democrats who’ve nominated candidates viewed as far-left, individuals who often seem to disregard the military community. Now, they’re leveraging a legislative battle aimed at supporting veterans to challenge Republicans just weeks before the midterm elections.
There’s a perception that the far-left faction of the Democratic Party doesn’t support the military, advocates for defunding the police, and is somewhat dismissive of America’s role in the world. It feels like the party is increasingly moving to the left.
What’s surprising is seeing the VFW oppose the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act (TCAVA), a comprehensive, Republican-backed initiative aimed at enhancing the lives of millions of U.S. veterans. The act includes over 60 proposals designed to improve veterans’ healthcare, bolster mental health services, assist military families, and expand compensation for combat-injured veterans.
Yet, one of the oldest veterans’ organizations in the nation, the VFW, is campaigning against it, siding with some Democratic lawmakers against a bill that has GOP support.
The VFW’s main concerns focus on Section 108, which modifies how the Department of Veterans Affairs assesses disability compensation for conditions like sleep apnea and tinnitus. Although existing disability ratings wouldn’t be affected, future claimants might see reductions in compensation. Instead of backing the legislation while advocating for changes to this section, the VFW appears to be using its lobbying power to block the entire package from passing.
The rationale for Section 108 stems from advancements in medical treatment. Today, sleep apnea is often managed with CPAP machines provided free to veterans. Meanwhile, the number of veterans receiving compensation for this condition has significantly increased—from under a million in 2015 to over 1.3 million in 2019. Interestingly, a survey indicated that 58% of veterans feel disability ratings should be updated to reflect medical advancements.
The VFW Action Corps, which consists of a grassroots network of over 300,000 supporters, is rallying efforts to pressure Congress through various means like emails and calls. Their messaging includes phrases like “Honor the Contract” and “Vote NO on TCAVA.”
However, it’s important to note that the VFW isn’t representing the entire veterans’ community. In fact, several prominent veterans’ organizations are advocating for TCAVA. A coalition of 23 groups, including the American Legion and the Wounded Warrior Project, is pushing for the legislation, emphasizing the healthcare and support improvements it would deliver.
Even groups with some hesitations about the bill, like the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), have committed to prioritize veterans’ needs. MOAA has criticized the idea of changing disability ratings but still supports TCAVA for its broader benefits for veterans and their families. This approach seems more balanced compared to the VFW’s outright rejection of the bill.
It raises the question: why would the VFW jeopardize a broader benefits package over a single contentious section? While TCAVA promises significant expansions in benefits, the VFW’s stance means potentially losing all of that because of one part of the legislation.
Polling has shown that veterans largely support the bill. For instance, a survey from Mission Roll Call found that 71% were in favor of TCAVA. Interestingly, a separate poll conducted by the Disability American Veterans (DAV), which opposes the legislation, found similar numbers—71% opposed the bill unless Section 108 was altered. Most respondents were likely influenced by the DAV’s position, so that could skew perceptions.
Fiscal responsibility is another consideration. Democrats are pushing a separate measure, the Major Richard Star Act, anticipated to exceed $78 billion in costs without offsets. In contrast, TCAVA includes financial provisions for its benefit increase, presenting a more sustainable approach.
The VFW and the GOP’s strained relationship hints at deeper issues beyond veteran welfare, touching on contentious topics like abortion and support for gender surgeries funded by taxpayers. Some argue these are unnecessary expenditures.
As the midterm elections approach, the VFW’s actions could be helping Democrats undermine bipartisan efforts. It seems to position the Republicans as extreme concerning controversial issues, which could be politically advantageous for Democrats.
This all brings up a significant question about the VFW’s priorities. Can it protect future disability benefits without hindering broader support initiatives like those in TCAVA?
It’s a delicate situation—when a group prioritizes political maneuvering over veterans’ interests, it might struggle to engage effectively in future negotiations to help those who have served.
