Remember when politics was easy and you could rely on the School House Rock explanation of how a bill becomes a law?  Well, political gamesmanship from the 110th Congress and the Bush Administration continue to make the simple more complicated.

Not a phenomenon of the 21st Century, this sort of gamesmanship is not only a key component of our system; it was in play in the ratification of our own Constitution. The current games deal with the twelve appropriation bills that need to be signed into law to fund our government.  One receiving attention is House Rule (H.R.) 6599: Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2009.

Like most appropriations bills, H.R. 6599 has pages and pages of language with key spending initiatives (think "Bridge to Nowhere").  Currently, one key policy within H.R. 6599 is an initiative to expand care to veterans that are currently not eligible for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care because their income is above the geographically-adjusted threshold, also know in VA jargon as a "priority 8 veteran."

Congress, possibly motivated by desire to show its support for veterans during a reelection year, explicitly mandates the expansion of veteran health care by increasing priority 8 veteran eligibility by 10 percent with a price tag of approximately $550 million. This will open health care to approximately 150,000 veterans, some with annual incomes above $75,000.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are well aware that this initiative is not supported by the Administration. In a July 30, 2008 Statement of Administration Policy, the White House said:

"The Administration continues to believe that the VA medical care system should focus on its core population -- veterans with service-connected disabilities, lower-incomes, special needs, and those returning from combat. As a result, the Administration strongly opposes expanding the eligible population of priority level 8 veterans by 10 percent... [T]his expansion would jeopardize both access to care for the Nation's veterans in its core population and sustainability of high-quality care for which VA has been recognized."

It's here the political battle starts. First, the Congressional Committee use an appropriation bill that very few within the White House or the full House would feel comfortable publicly disavowing and then add controversial Priority 8 initiative which is not supported by the Bush Administration. 

Who is not going to support the troops and the vets? 

The VA motto, "to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan," is excerpted from President Lincoln's second inaugural address.  But today's VA encompasses much more than Lincoln's original patriotic ideal.

The expansion of care to more veterans comes at a cost and the Administration has consistently stated their support for needy veterans but realize they cannot open the system to all veterans without jeopardizing care to those who need it the most.  But alas, it is an election year and Congress is compelled to show the American people they support the military, veterans and more importantly, those that have borne the most recent battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. This legislative desire places the Administration in a difficult position to balance the budget while ensuring appropriate government programs are adequately funded.

So who won this battle?  Well it appears Congress won, since the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2009 passed the House on August 1, 2008 with a vote 409 to 4 with expectation the Senate will pass its companion Bill, S. 3301, before the full Senate in September. And according to insiders within the White House, the President will begrudgingly sign the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriation Bill after it's out of conference, but all other appropriation bills will not get passed unless they absorb the cost of the Military Construction/VA bill.

Related Stories:

[+] Armed Services Committee crafts bill requiring State and Defense Departments to cooperate

[+] New Post-9/11 GI Bill offers greater benefits

[+] Presidential candidates on veterans