Friday News Roundup — March 29, 2024
Greetings from Washington, D.C. In this week’s roundup, Ethan Brown examines the critical intersection of veteran benefits, force readiness, and military recruitment. Congressional debates over veteran benefits escalate, potentially undermining military readiness and exacerbating the recruitment crisis.
Meanwhile, Greyson Hunziker provides an early glimpse into the highly anticipated 2024 Presidential Election, emphasizing the historic rematch between President Biden and former President Trump, digging deep into the polls and statistics which will determine the outcome of the race.
Congressional Arguing Over Veteran Benefits Impacts Force Readiness
Ethan Brown
Over the weekend, the federal government managed to avoid a potential shutdown over funding, but one key issue has emerged in committee deliberations which has the potential to dramatically impact military readiness and government accountability: reneging on promises to care for American combat veterans in the wake of veteran support funding.
In summary: the Veterans Administration has requested $24.5 billion for the Toxic Exposure Fund (TEF), put in place to fund healthcare and responses to claims of toxic exposure authorized under the 2022 PACT (“Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act”), which directly cares for American service members exposed to noxious and hazardous environmental toxins during the post-9/11 Wars. The request represents 10 percent of the VA’s mandatory spending, and has been the lynchpin of partisan bickering over the implementation of the necessary and ambitious PACT act going back years (which meant thousands of veterans suffered from healthcare shortcomings because their respiratory and chronic issues resulting from toxic exposure weren’t covered by their disability claims with the VA).
It’s an issue near and dear to me, being one of those combat veterans who spent years (two in Afghanistan alone) of my life breathing in the unholy fumes of a warzone as ordered in service to this great nation. The argument against increasing the TEF funding comes from the same policymakers — specifically the Congressional Budget Office — who are now squabbling over whether or not this fund “triggers [unrelated] mandatory spending… [or] if some could be paid, as they have been previously, from discretionary appropriations (thereby increasing discretionary authorization levels).” The simple concern is whether or not this mandatory spending could be wrongly conflated with other pork-barrel initiatives, as if such a thing has never been done before in congressional budget bills.
The first connection that must be made between two seemingly disparate issues is this: the manner in which the U.S. federal government takes care of the men and women who voluntarily serve this country has a direct, explicit impact on whether or not the next generation of Americans raise their right hand and swear their oaths of service. It’s quite simple, but apparently a very difficult correlation to understand and adhere to by lawmakers who’s decisions impact the lives and quality of life for those who have served.
It’s no great secret that the U.S. military is presently mired in a recruiting crisis, an issue I’ve been covering for several months now, and am diving into research to further understand the nature of the recruiting crisis, and means by which congressional, defense department, and civilian (community) stakeholders can help redress the myriad problems. Let’s zero in on one key component to this crisis which is invariably going to impact that next generation of prospective American service members: toying with mandatory funding which provides life-saving healthcare and support for injured combat veterans is going to negatively impact the recruiting crisis. In an era driven by information — the likes of which young people have more at their fingertips than ever before — public awareness of the federal government reneging on critical issues such as the care and compensation for veterans directly and implicitly undermines public faith and trust in the government and the military as institutions.
That eroding faith and public trust is a key issue, especially going into an election year marred by the continuing partisan division across this nation. In short, it’s been bad for years, and it’s just getting worse as a result of lawmakers making issues such as this healthcare coverage for veterans a point of contention, and doubly worse after undermining the process by which this important initiative was enacted. It gets worse still: the suspension or withholding of earned benefits by veterans has been a regular contributor to untimely deaths, missing coverage, and lack of quality of life support for veterans whose wellbeing as disabled citizens depends on their rightful compensation from the federal government.
There is a waterfall effect when the issue of life-cycle care for service members is brought to any debate, one which I will attempt to summarize here. The American people can be reliably counted on to see veterans’ issues as a lodestone to public sentiment…something to generally agree is important and reflects the moral fabric of our liberal democracy. Historically, issues involving the military are a bipartisan, core issue whereas petty squabbling gets set aside for doing the right thing (funding, enabling and ethically vectoring the national defense enterprise). Just as historically, the military and post-service (veterans) components are seen as two separate policy issues, and their foundational connection is often missed when discussing the distinct policies which affect them. But this case of lawmakers debating on whether or not to withhold and shuffle appropriations for veteran benefits reflects why the American public is wary and hesitant to offer up its next generation of sons and daughters to national service.
Military recruiting is suffering because it took too long for the federal government to recognize the long-term health implications of sending American sons and daughters to fight in the post-9/11 wars; wars which (as I’ve written extensively) eroded public faith in the U.S. government as a result of wayward strategy, ineffective policy and abstract war-making. The American body politic has the means to rebuild (some) of that lost trust by ensuring that its veterans and service members can faithfully expect to be cared for throughout their life cycle.
Reneging on the promises made by the PACT act by claiming an unfounded risk of increased discretionary spending — using the fiscal responsibility argument when the lives of veterans are at risk — is not only bad policy, but it’s telling young American’s that they won’t be taken care of it they sell their health and wellness in service to this country.
Ethan Brown is a Senior Fellow at CSPC and author of the “Visual Friendlies, Tally Target” trilogy of books on air power in the Global War on Terror.
An Early Look at the 2024 Presidential Election by the Numbers
Greyson Hunziker
A Historic Matchup
The 2024 rematch election is a historic one. Only six previous presidential elections have featured the same two major candidates, and only twice before has a former president run against a sitting president. This will be the second time in U.S. history that the two major party candidates have held the presidency. The only other occurrence was in the 1892 election in which former President Grover Cleveland defeated sitting President Benjamin Harrison. In 1912, former President Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive against sitting President William Taft and Woodrow Wilson.
Moreover, President Biden and former President Trump easily won their nominations, yet they remain quite unpopular with the public. According to 538, Biden’s approval rating is 39.1 percent, just one percent higher than Trump’s when he left office and 6.3 percent lower at this point in the Trump presidency. As president, Trump never had an approval rating above 50 percent, and Biden has been under water since around 200 days into his administration. Currently, only 42.6 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Mr. Trump.
This upcoming election follows the 2020 election, which produced a record-high turnout during a global pandemic. Trump secured more votes than any candidate other than Biden, whom he lost to by over 7 million votes. Trump and Biden topped Obama’s 2008 record by nearly 5 million and 12 million votes, respectively. This election will be extremely competitive, focused on highly divisive issues like immigration, reproductive rights, and, of course, the economy.
Current Polling
The RealClearPolitics Poll Average currently has Trump winning by one percent compared to a Biden lead of 6.6 percent four years ago to the day. The election will likely be decided in the six states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. These six swing states are listed as toss-ups by The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, which provides ratings on how specific locales will likely vote. Cook rates congressional, gubernatorial, and presidential races, placing Electoral College votes into solid, likely, lean, and toss-up categories. The solid and likely categories are not competitive races, and these will give Democrats 226 electoral votes and Republicans 219. North Carolina is the only state in the lean category, meaning it is a competitive race where Republicans have an advantage. This brings the count to 226 to 235, leaving the six toss-up states worth a total of 77 electoral votes.
Recent polls suggest that Trump has a slight advantage in these states, which were also battlegrounds in 2020. In polls of a five-way race between Biden, Trump, Kennedy, West, and Stein, Trump’s margin increases, excepting Michigan. This is true of the general election polls as well, with the RCP average showing Trump winning by 2.4 percent as opposed to one. While polling this early is only so reliable, it can be helpful to gauge the current state of the race and what candidates and voters may be responding to.
The Major Issues
In February, a Gallup poll found that immigration is the top issue for 28 percent of respondents compared to a combined 26 percent responding with economy, inflation, and national debt, and 20 percent saying government. These are issues that Biden is deeply unfavorable on. He has a 29 percent approval on immigration and 41 percent on the economy. A Morning Consult survey with Bloomberg News found that swing-state voters are [most] likely to blame Biden…for the increase in migrant crossings.” Across the swing states, including North Carolina, “41% of voters blame the incumbent president and 35% blame Democrats on Capitol Hill, compared with 14% each who blame congressional Republicans or the Trump administration.”
The candidates blame each other and their respective parties for immigration policy failure. David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, argues that Biden should acknowledge the hard times people have endured but point to the recovery and a brighter future. Trump will point to the high inflation earlier in the Biden administration and claim the economy was better during his presidency.
Reproductive rights and Trump’s legal cases are potentially high-impact issues as well. On Tuesday, Democrat Marilyn Lands won a special election for Alabama House District 10 by 25 points by campaigning on abortion and IVF access. She lost this purple district in 2022 to a Republican by 6.6 percent. This followed a Supreme Court decision ruling that embryos are children, leading to clinics pausing IVF services, a backlash, and then IVF immunity laws covering clinics and patients. Although much is up in the air, reproductive rights are a winning issue for Democrats. Additionally, Trump is facing 88 counts across four criminal cases. An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, which has Biden leading by one point, found that Biden’s lead would increase to six points with a Trump conviction.
Overall, Trump appears to have a slight edge at this point in the race. However, there is a lot of time left before November and numerous unpredictable factors. Whichever candidate effectively appeals to swing state voters on the key issues can assume a vote advantage.
Greyson is a student intern at CSPC.
