Project 2025’s Assembly Line Veteran Care
To understand Project 2025’s approach to veteran programs, it’s important to highlight a truism about the military. Veteran (and active duty since the 1970s) care amounts to socialism, albeit one characterized by periods of neglect and mismanagement. But this brand of socialism is all dressed up in khakis. And woe betide any public figure who calls it what it is.
Those who have served in the military are supposed to be held as privileged citizens, which is why any politician seeking federal office worth their salt will always mention veterans programs in election campaigns. The reality of these programs is all-too-often dictated by the reformationist Christian belief that government programs are supposed to suck, since misery is fundamental to salvation for those who are worthy.
San Diego Reps Scott Peters and Darrell Issa may not have much in common ideologically, but both tout their willingness and record of serving veterans when running for office.
Caring for those who have served in the military is a foundational obligation for the nation dating back to the second Continental Congress of 1776. The offerings and inclusions have varied over decades with earlier notable expansions after the Civil War and WWII.
While traditional conservatives and neoliberal politicians have whittled away at the social welfare programs enacted in the 20th century, the support system for active-duty and veterans has (and continues to be) expanded.
The transition to an all-volunteer military meant that social welfare benefits traditionally reserved for career officers were expanded to include enlistees with medical and dental care, education, child care, financial counseling, housing assistance, and legal services, with more privileges for those who served in combat and were not dishonorably discharged.
Spending on care for veterans has nearly tripled since 2001, following 20 years of war, repeated deployments for the 3 million veterans who served in the post-9/11 wars, and rampant physical and mental health needs of returning veterans.
The questions that Project 2025 authors on this topic were supposed to focus on included privatization, politicization, and productivity.
(Following their logic to a future conclusion, ultimately this social welfare system would be disbanded/downsized as live bodies become less important in applications of military force.)
Department of Veterans Affairs. Author: Brooks D. Tucker*
As is true with other Project 2025 plans, the first thing to be done is to “de-Bidenize” the department by replacing career civil servants with politically correct appointees. Programs concerning gender, diversity and equity, along with abortion and gender assignment surgery would need to be eliminated.
The calls to increase use of private non-VA providers, clinics, and companies to help assess VA disability claims are about shifting federal dollars and authority to the private sector, where previously made promises could no longer hold sway when the opportunity arises. Questions remain about quality of care and costs at non-VA facilities, and the possibility of instituting co-pays was raised in a RAND study.
The Project 2025 analysis has baked-in a perception of the Veterans Health Services as problematic and outsourcing as a preferred solution. Maybe it’s not so simple, as this article from the Fulcrum explains:
For the quarter ending March 2024, 80.4 percent of veterans expressed trust in the VA, with 91.8 percent specifically trusting VA health services. Why the disconnect? The difference in perceptions may come from the fact that outside polling often includes a large percentage of opinions from the public rather than just veterans who use VHA services, skewing the results, or perhaps past scandals at individual VA facilities remain salient in the public's minds. However, multiple systematic reviews comparing VA and non-VA health care outcomes show that the VHA generally provides equal or better quality care, particularly regarding mortality rates and in safety, equity, and specific surgical and clinical outcomes.
Without a doubt, there are veterans who have negative experiences with their VA-administered care, and those veterans need to be heard and have their concerns addressed. However, privately administered health care in the U.S. is already overburdened, and it doesn’t seem logical to move veterans into that private system, risking the real net positive results most veterans experience through the VHA. A recent audit by the VA Office of Inspector General concurred and highlighted concerns that increased spending on community care could erode the VA's direct care system and limit choice for veterans who prefer VA services. It warned that diverting funds from the VA to private care could reduce the quality of direct VA care.
With a nod and wink, the game plan suggests the VA’s workload issues are related to injuries related to Agent Orange and Burn Pits. If you’ll recall, opposition to these benefit expansions was quietly orchestrated by the far right.
Here’s an excerpt from an op-ed at Task & Purpose:
The Project 2025 manual acknowledges two of the largest VA policy changes that expanded the number of veterans who qualified for service-connected disability claims: The 1991 Agent Orange Act and 2022 PACT Act (Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act). The manual says that the two “ambitious authorities” have overwhelmed the VA’s ability to process new claims and adjudicate appeals, requiring more employees to stay up to date. The manual also says that the inclusion of injuries related to Agent Orange and Burn Pits/Airborne Toxins has caused “historic increases” in spending.
In May, the VA announced that it granted its one millionth benefit claim related to the PACT Act which changed the VA’s assumption of vet claims if they were present in a war zone where toxic chemicals were likely present – like at most U.S. bases during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. When it was signed into law, the Wounded Warrior Project described the PACT Act as a policy that “opens up the door to pre- and post-9/11 combat veterans who served in areas of exposure.”
With the VA’s growing number of service-related health conditions, Project 2025 states that “some are tenuously related or wholly unrelated to military service” – the core issue for granting or denying service-connected disability claims.
Another priority for P2025 will be Taylorizing care. Veteran Health Facilities would be mandated to increase the number of patients per provider seen each day from current levels (estimated as low as 6) to equal the number seen by Department of Defense medical facilities: approximately 19 patients per provider per day.
The chapter recommends speeding up the Department of Veterans’ Affairs review process for disability ratings and re-considering limits on what claims will make future recipients eligible for disability benefits. People who are currently receiving benefits could see a reduction but not a complete cut in payments.
P2025 promoters have made it a point to emphasize that many of the claims circulating about cuts in veteran’s care are not in their manual aimed at the executive branch. Instead, these negative actions are included in the Heritage Foundation’s Budget Blueprint which is meant to influence the congressional branch. They are simply different facets of the same stone to be hurled at veterans.
Here’s veteran and Democratic Congressman Chris Deluzio from an op ed at Military.com:
The ultimate endgame of these plans -- to dismantle the VA's clinical care mission -- should send shivers down the spines of America's veterans and those who want them to have the best care out there.
***
(*) Brooks D Tucker avoided Senate confirmation as Acting Chief of Staff, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); served as Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs at the VA; and is a former Marine Corps Lt. Col. He was on president-elect Trump’s transition team.
***
Tomorrow:
Project 2025’s Department of Commerce: Ending The ‘Myth’ of Climate Change
***
Previously:
(Intro) Digging Deep into Project 2025 - (a multi-part Series)
Going Deep into Project 2025 - Partisan Priorities for Civil Servants
Project 2025: Christian Soldiers Marching Off to Land Wars
Homeland Security’s Authoritarian Role in Project 2025
What Can You Do For Trump Today? Project 2025’s Diplomats, Spies and Spokespersons
No Soup For You: Project 2025’s Foreign Aid Program
Project 2025’s National Nightmare for “The General Welfare”
Project 2025: Junk Food and Parents Rights
Make America Dirty Again: Project 2025 on Energy and the Environment
Project 2025: Some (Christian) People Are More Equal Than Others
Public Land for Sale, Cheap: Project 2025
Revenge Drives Project 2025 Justice Department
Don’t Let Trump Fool Ya: Project 2025 Lives
Department of Labor Gets Religion with Project 2025
Going Nowhere Faster - Project 2025’s Department of Transportation
***
Wednesday News to Peruse
***
Elon Musk’s Twitter Space With Donald Trump Was a Dumpster Fire via Mother Jones
Amid the technical difficulties, the fake YouTube livestream purporting to carry the conversation (but instead showing an AI-generated Musk pontificating about Trump’s qualifications and the national debt) easily nabbed an audience of at least 200,000. Shayan Sardarizadeh, a BBC journalist, was one of the first to note the imposter feed; sometime after he tweeted about the video, it and the channel promoting it were taken down by YouTube.
When Musk and Trump finally began their conversation, about 1.3 million people appeared to be turning in—far short of the 8 million concurrent users Musk boasted had successfully listened to a test conversation earlier on Monday. The two men’s exchange trod fairly familiar ground. Musk told Trump his actions after the assassination attempt were “inspiring.” Trump, in a lengthy reminiscence, said that being shot at was “not pleasant” and that the ear, where he was shot, is, as doctors told him, “a very bloody place.”
The men agreed that illegal immigration is bad and that “really bad people” within the government are, as Trump put it “more dangerous than Russia and China.” They also agreed that World War III could be imminent—not a reassuring sentiment coming from two people who could be involved in starting it. And Trump reiterated his plan to “close the Department of Education” during his second term, a proposal also supported by Project 2025.
***
The coming war with Mexico by Radley Balko at The Watch
Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper writes in his book that after the meeting discussed above, Trump continued to push the idea of bombing suspected cartels and drug sites in Mexico, but with a wily twist: Make it look as if another country had done it.
It’s a scheme from the Bugs Bunny school of foreign policy. Maybe if we put little berets and mustaches on the bombs, Mexico will think they came from France.
All of this fits is a familiar pattern. Trump tends to embrace new ideas when he hears them from people he respects for shallow, wholly artificial reasons — a guy with a strong jawline, the guy who gave him a good deal on a yacht, a guy who runs a quasi-successful pillow company. (It’s usually a guy.) In this case it was a guy in a sharp-looking uniform. Trump then internalizes the bad idea, starts pushing it publicly, and soon enough, the idea works its way into the mainstream of the Republican Party.
***
More Women Are Being Denied Care Because of Abortion Bans by Joyce Vance at Civil Discourse. (Eds note: Some good news amidst all the bad)
The problem has obvious political dimensions. There was speculation that one reason the Supreme Court might have dismissed Moyle was to avoid another disaster on abortion, this one in an election year. Their dismissal of the case left a lower court decision that permitted women to continue obtaining emergency abortions in place. Beyond abortion, even access to birth control is under attack. Some Republicans, as well as the authors of Project 2025, argue for enforcement of the Comstock Act and other measures that could jeopardize the use of contraception, a right Americans have now taken for granted for decades.
As many as 11 states may have abortion-related measures on the ballot this year:
Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, New York, and South Dakota will have measures on the ballot providing at least some guarantee of abortion rights. The period of time during which pregnant people can obtain the procedure varies. In Arkansas, advocates are appealing a decision by the Secretary of State that would prevent a measure to protect abortion rights from appearing on the ballot.
In Montana and Nebraska, measures that would protect abortion have been submitted for approval.
