When budget numbers start being used during elections, one has to start digging – either a place to hide or a place to find the truth.

In the September 1 Duluth News Tribune Sen. Norm Coleman wrote that the House of Representatives approved $30.3 billion“ for veteran’s health care “which is $500 million more than requested by key veteran groups.”  On the other hand, Gen. Wesley Clark wrote that Bush’s VA “budget is nearly $4 billion lower than the $33.6 billion recommended by leading veterans’ organizations.”

My first question is, which figure did the veteran groups request - $29.8 billion or $33.6 billion?  One of these men must be wrong.  Do I leave it at that, believe neither, and dig a place to hide?  Or, do I start digging to find the truth, or at least something closer to it?  My curiosity won and I started digging for the truth.

With about three steps I found the “The Independent Budget, A Comprehensive Budget and Policy Document Created by Veterans for Veterans, FY2004” at http://www.pva.org/independentbudget/index.htm (no longer available on May 18, 2007).  The veteran groups that developed the document are AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.  I chose to download the executive summary and found a good table comparing the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 Appropriation, the FY 2005 Administration Request, and the FY 2005 IB (Independent Budget) Recommended Appropriation.

Guess what?  Sen. Coleman may be right, sort of.  The IB requested $29,791,488,000 for medical care.  Guess what again?  Gen. Clark may be right, sort of.  The IB requested $33,595,693,000 for the total VA budget.  The difference in the IB figures includes medical and prosthetic research, benefits administration, cemetery administration, construction, and other administration costs.

The corresponding figures in the IB report for the FY 2005 Administration Request are $26.9 billion and $29.8 billion.  In other words, the Bush administration proposed about the same figure for the total VA budget as the IB proposed for medical care only.

Since the President proposes and Congress disposes, I checked what Congress disposed.  Sen. Coleman did write “the House approved” $30.3 billion.  I worked my way through the House web site (http://www.house.gov) to the Thomas web site which maintains the text and status of the bills submitted to Congress.  The VA Appropriations Bill is H.R. 4423. It was submitted in May, 2004, and according to Thomas, as of September 1, 2004, it is still in the Ways and Means Committee and the Appropriations Committee.  Maybe Thomas doesn’t give us normal citizens as up-to-date information as is available to senators.

Whatever, I made do with what details I had available.  I waded through the text of H.R. 4423 looking for figures corresponding to the IB table.  After my eyes glazed over, I just asked my browser to search for dollar signs.  I added the figures I found into a spreadsheet I made from the IB table, and came up with something different than the figures the administration proposed and the figure Sen. Coleman said the House approved.  The House proposed budget for medical care is $28.9 billion, $2 billion more than the administration proposed and $0.8 billion less than the IB proposed.  This is less than the $30.3 billion that Sen. Coleman wrote that the House approved.  The House proposed a total budget of $30.4 billion, over $3 billion less than the IB proposed. Like the President’s budget, it spends far less than the IB recommends for construction, about half as much.  Interestingly, the House-proposed total budget is very close to what Sen. Coleman wrote that it approved for “veterans’ health care”.   Is Sen. Coleman comparing apples and oranges?

I think I will go with General Clark’s figures.  He notes the “nearly $4 billion lower than the $33.6 billion recommended” by the IB.  He compares apples to apples.

Mayor Bergson, do you think I should bill the Republican Party for the two hours that I spent figuring this out?