Over the past few months, this right-wing’s handling of Veterans issues has gone from bad to worse.

January: House Republican Leaders remove Rep. Christopher Smith from his chairmanship of the Veterans Affairs Committee after he repeatedly asserts his independence from Leader Hastert. Most major Veterans organizations are outraged.

February: The proposed 2006 budget only included a very small increase — even though there will be a huge increase of service members who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan injured, and it would require Veterans to pay $250 a year to use the VA health services.

March: Hundreds of disabled veterans descended on the House Veterans Affairs Committee as it was holding hearings, to protest the 2006 budget.

And, now, Smith’s replacement, Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN) wants to dramatically overhaul the Veterans Administration. Where does he start? By redefining what a veteran is. To cut costs, Buyer wants to reshape benefits and VA programs so that they are only available to a very specific group of veterans. Hastert has also recently announced the formation of the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission. Buyer wants them to consider offering one-time payments to some veterans with disabilities, preventing them from ever pursuing any additional claims — even if they have a degenerative disease that gets worse with age.

Ever wonder why Wal-Mart has more workers on Medicaid than any other corporation in America? According to CEO Lee Scott, why should the company provide basic health coverage for employees when, heck, the American taxpayer can pick it up?

Talking to reporters today, Scott explained Wal-Mart’s health care was so dismal that employees were better off living off of the state:

“There are government assistance programs out there that are so lucrative it’s hard to be competitive, and it’s expensive to be competitive.”

Telecom giant Verizon ponied up $5,000 to DeLay’s Legal Expense Trust during the summer and fall of 2001. Why? Good question — after all, DeLay “hasn’t been a major player in the telecom policymaking arena for nearly a decade,” as the National Journal noted last June.

Yet DeLay’s role as House leader gives him “the ability to advance or quash virtually any legislative proposal that crosses his desk, including telecom-related measures,” explaining why DeLay “continues to receive significant political donations from some of the communications industry’s biggest corporate names,” including Verizon.

And what was going on during the summer and fall of 2001, when Verizon dropped 5k on DeLay? A major debate in the House on legislation (called the Tauzin-Dingell bill) that freed Verizon and other big telecom firms from sharing both their telephone and broadband operations with competitors, a regulatory shift they’d been pushing “for years.” And surprise, surprise, in 2002, “after much lobbying, the House passed the Tauzin-Dingell broadband deregulation bill.”

Nissan gave $5,000 to Tom DeLay’s legal defense fund. No surprise, given DeLay’s fervent efforts over the years to protect automakers from any fuel efficiency standards. According to the Detroit News, DeLay was the driving force behind a “freeze,” enacted in the 1990s, which “prohibit[ed] the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from spending any money to even study the possibility of a fuel economy increase.”

That freeze was lifted in 2001, as Congress was set to vote on bills surrounding President Bush’s energy policy. A Congressional panel was considering adding a provision to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards. Automakers, including Nissan, opposed that provision. According to Crain Automotive News, auto lobbyists jumped into action, targeting their favorite advocate:

At a meeting arranged by freshman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., Big 3 executives discussed with House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, ways to head off a CAFE increase.

[...]

The CEOs of six automakers sent a letter to members of the Michigan congressional delegation and warned of possible adverse consequences for “our companies, suppliers, dealers, employees and consumers.”

[...]

CEOs signing the letter are from GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Nissan North America Inc., Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. and Volkswagen of America Inc.

The Senate rejected attempts to impose CAFE rules in 2002 and 2003.

Miami based Bacardi U.S.A. has contributed $3,000 to Tom DeLay’s legal defense fund. The liquormaker has also contributed more than $40,000 to two political action committees set up by DeLay. Why? Well, frankly, it’s been a small price to pay for the favors DeLay has done for the company recently. From Roll Call, 10/1/03:

With help from House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), Bacardi-Martini Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of the Bermuda-based rum maker, is on the verge of scoring a big victory in the long-running battle over who owns the rights to the legendary “Havana Club” rum label, a victory that could prove very lucrative in a post-Fidel Castro world.

DeLay is lobbying to include language in the 2004 Defense authorization conference report to amend U.S. trademark law to make it comply with a ruling by the World Trade Organization last year that threatened Bacardi’s claim to the Havana Club brand.

Opponents of DeLay’s proposal point out that his measure was never vetted by any committee in either the House or the Senate, and benefits Bacardi alone, and they claim it could potentially harm U.S. companies that have intellectual or property claims in Cuba.

In addition to lobbying for the insertion of the language in the conference report, DeLay sent a letter to Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans in November 2001, seeking to influence the outcome of then-pending administrative proceedings over the rights to the Havana Club trademark. According to the Palm Beach Daily Business Review, the legislation was widely referred to as ‘the Bacardi bill.’ Texas Congressman Chris Bell filed an ethics complaint with the House that accused DeLay of backing a pro-Bacardi bill in exchange for a $20,000 contribution in July 2002.

So what were DeLay and Abramoff doing in Russia, having “fancy dinners” with Russian officials and energy execs? They’ve given plenty of reasons, but we’ll let you be the judge:

A) “DeLay’s staff said he…did work at each stop, meeting with former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, speaking to Scotland’s Conservative Caucus and pushing for religious freedom in Moscow.” (Washington Post, 3/3/05)

B) “The one-week trip was described on DeLay’s travel disclosure forms as a fact-finding mission.” (National Journal, 2/25/05)

C) “A publicist who works for Abramoff attorney Abbe David Lowell said Abramoff did lobby for Chelsea but not for Naftasib. The publicist said Abramoff thought ‘bringing a greater understanding of Russia to American decision makers was and is good for America.’” (Washington Post, 4/6/05)

Or could it be…

D) “[During the period DeLay and Abramoff traveled to Moscow,] prominent Russian businessmen, as well as the Russian government, depended heavily on a flow of billions of dollars in annual Western aid… Unlike some House conservatives who scorn such support as “corporate welfare,” DeLay proved to be a “yes” vote for institutions bolstering Russia in this period. For example, DeLay voted for a bill that included the replenishment of billions of dollars in IMF funds used to bail out the Russian economy in 1998.” (Washington Post, 4/6/05)

Just in from CNN. Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) launches his latest “defense”:

“I can’t — no Member can be responsible for going into the bowels of researching what this organization, how it gets its money or how it’s funded…What’s going on here is a concerted effort to twist and — to twist the truth to make it look seedy and it’s just not true.”

Raw Story reports:

A Texas energy company being investigated with regards to improper fundraising by those connected with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) held a baby shower for DeLay’s daughter Danielle Ferro in May 2002–and the event was attended by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who paid for some of the congressman’s overseas travel

The shower, reported in the Washington, D.C. newspaper Roll Call Jun. 10, 2002…was held at the Washington offices of Reliant Energy Inc., a Texas-based power company that has given heavily to DeLay and his political action committees.

Donations from Reliant to DeLay’s Texas PAC – some of which occurred while key energy legislation was being drafted – are now the subject of a Texas state probe. And Reliant has contributed $20,000 to DeLay’s legal defense fund.