Nothing more, nothing less

Advertisement

DIOSCORO R. Recio, a regular reader of this column, has yet to agree with anything I have ever written. His comments against me or my positions regularly appear in the online edition of the paper. His latest e-mail was a broadside on last week's column about unity in the fight for Filipino veterans equity.

Mr. Recio wrote: "Let it be stated that our heroes did not fight and sacrifice for partial freedom, partial justice and partial equity. They fought with valor and dignity for full respect, full independence and full equality. Mr. Rodis, they did not fight for partial liberation. Therefore, we should not kowtow to the United States government and settle for anything less than full equity."

Along with his group of activists, Mr. Recio has had a particularly vexing problem dealing with the World War II Filipino veterans issue. Just what exactly did "our heroes fight and sacrifice for?" Did they fight to liberate the Philippines from the Japanese occupation or to preserve the Philippines as a commonwealth of the United States?

Lobbying the "imperialist" US Congress to obtain benefits for the Filipino soldiers who fought under the US Army Forces in the Far East (USAFFE) may pose certain political contradictions for Mr. Recio and his group.

They have nonetheless made a calculated decision to support the Filipino WW II veterans based on their assessment that the Filipino veterans enjoy widespread support in the Filipino community and that the issue is an effective community organizing and educational tool.

They would educate the Filipino community about the deceit and treachery of the US government. They would highlight the fact that after enticing the Philippine commonwealth soldiers and the Filipino guerillas to remain loyal to the US during the Japanese occupation, the US Congress passed the Rescission Act on February 18, 1946 stripping the veterans of the benefits promised them for their steadfast loyalty to the US.

For almost 25 years, nothing was really done about the Rescission Act until WW II veteran Marciano Haw Hibi raised the issue in a deportation proceeding in San Francisco in 1969. From that point on, the Filipino veterans have been lobbying the US Congress for the rights promised them by the US government that were set aside by the Rescission Act.

Their first major success occurred in 1990 when the US Congress passed a law which provided for the naturalization of Filipino WW II veterans.

More than 25,000 of them immigrated to the US and became US citizens. About 20,000 chose not to apply for US citizenship and remained in the Philippines.

Those vets who became US citizens then began lobbying for the benefits that they were deprived of when the Rescission Act was passed. Among them were pension, health, burial, and widows' benefits.

Under the leadership of Pat Ganio and Guillermo Rumingan (Bataan Death March and Cabanatuan guerilla rescue survivors) and Eric Lachica (a son of a veteran), the American Coalition for the Filipino Veterans (ACFV) succeeded in getting the US Congress to pass health, burial and widows' benefits for the veterans.

The only remaining issue now is the pension benefits. When the initial calculations were made by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in 1998, the cost estimate for "full equity" for 60,000 Filipino WW II veterans receiving $800 a month amounted to about $700M a year. The latest updated CBO estimate in November of 2004, based on the attrition rate of the veterans, is now about $159M a year.

While the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill (HR 4574) seeks the extension of the same benefits for Filipino WW II veterans that regular American WW II veterans receive, the sponsors acknowledge that it is one thing to pass a bill and quite another to pass an appropriations measure to fund it, especially with a half-trillion dollar deficit facing the US government.

Congressional supporters of HR 4574 all back the proposal of Rep. Lane Evans (D-Illinois) to include $22-M a year in appropriations for the Filipino veterans. The proposal calls for each veteran to receive $200 a month, whether in the Philippines or in the US.

For US-based veterans, this $200 a month in military pension would be added to the $600 a month in SSI benefits that they already receive. In California, they receive an additional $200 a month from the state.

If these US-based Filipino veterans were to receive $800 a month in military pensions, they would have to give up the $600 a month in SSI benefits they currently receive which is based on having little or no income. On the other hand, the proposed $200 a month would not affect their SSI benefits.

But $200 a month for Filipinos in the Philippines is a substantial amount where the average income is $234 a month. For the remaining 18,000 Filipino WW II veterans in the Philippines, receiving 10,600 pesos a month would feed and shelter and clothe thousands of poor families.

Does Mr. Recio understand this? This is what he wrote further: "The issue is not about numbers, the issue is about doing what is right for our elders. Funding as we have observed from the war in Iraq and all the other corporate giveaway programs and government waste under the Bush administration is everywhere. We should not be content with Mr. Rodis and Mr. Lachica's fixation with dollar amounts. The real issue is equity, like the veterans themselves say: "nothing more, nothing less!"

As long as Mr. Recio and his group continue to advance their agenda of "no compromise on full equity," the Republican majority in the Congress will not have to worry about passing the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill. The cost is the bottom line for the House Republicans as shown by the fact that only 19 of them (now less Rep Randy Cunningham) have ever signed on as sponsors of the equity bill. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert's dictum, a majority of the 230 House Republicans will have to be mustered to secure a floor vote on the bill, notwithstanding the 192 House Democrats who have supported the bill as co-sponsors.

Mr. Recio's uncompromising position is just fine with the Republican majority as they won't have to deal with passing the bill. This is also just fine for Mr. Recio and his group as the inequity will continue to provide them with a useful educational example of imperialist treachery.

When you don't get anything, you get your wish: "nothing more, nothing less."

Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.