Senator Lucas’ “Big Gamble”

by Kayla Owen

Senator Louise Lucas

Virginia state Senator and Chair of the powerful Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee, Louise Lucas, is known for her love of casinos, skill games, and other gambling enterprises. Her greatest political gamble may be unfolding before our eyes this week.

When Virginia’s biennial 2024-2026 budget was signed on May 13, 2024, just two-weeks before Memorial Day, Virginia’s veteran community discovered language hidden within the budget bill (SB/HB 6001) that gutted the Virginia Military Survivors and Dependents Education Program or VMSDEP. VMSDEP is a longstanding state tuition waiver program for the surviving family members of soldiers killed or missing in action and military veterans left severely disabled from their service. The recent cuts to VMSDEP constitute the largest rollback of Veterans Benefits in Virginia’s history — a state that supposedly is committed to being the most Veteran-friendly in the country.

Facing public outrage over the surprise cuts, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin and House Speaker Don Scott, D-Portsmouth, publicly announced their commitment to a full repeal and restoration of VMSDEP to its pre-March 13th language. Standing in the way of righting this wrong is Louise Lucas.

The Senate finance chair flat out refused Tuesday to entertain a bipartisan bill that would reverse the cuts. She appears hellbent on betting her political future as well as the democrats’ razor-thin majority in the House and Senate on this latest political stunt. Virginia’s over 700,000 veterans, Gold Star survivors, and First Responders are monitoring her every move.

The public outrage over the surprise changes to VMSDEP extends beyond Virginia’s military veteran community. Heading into Tuesday’s Senate hearings, the Virginia State Chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) sent a letter urging the General Assembly and Governor Youngkin to restore VMSDEP while expressing concern that Lucas might attempt to hijack the scheduled June 18th reconvene session to push her controversial “skill” gambling machine agenda.

The FOP’s concerns, combined with Youngkin’s reluctance to entertain Lucas’ “skill games” until the VMSDEP issue is resolved, leads many Virginians to suspect that Lucas is gambling with and leveraging the livelihoods of thousands of surviving Gold Star and severely wounded veteran families in pursuit of a pet project.

The vast majority of Virginia’s political leaders realize that changes to VMSDEP were a huge mistake. Sneaking cuts to public benefits by legislating through the budget and without prior stakeholder notice and input is wrong in so many ways. A “clean repeal,” followed by a comprehensive study to inform sound recommendations heading into the regular 2025 Legislative Session is the only way to right this wrong.

Going forward, the Attorney General — in coordination with the Governor and General Assembly — must consider legal and legislative options to prevent future sneak cuts to public benefits through the budget process. Legislators must be reminded that the process of making changes to VMSDEP is not exempt from Virginia’s Administrative Process Act and related requirements for procedural due process. Additionally, Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act clearly states that, “the affairs of government are not intended to be conducted in an atmosphere of secrecy since at all times the public is to be the beneficiary of any action taken at any level of government.”

With SB 6005 Lucas proposed Sunday excluding all non-combat deaths (training accidents, suicide, etc.) as well as service members rated as 90-100% severely disabled due to non-combat related injuries. These changes disproportionately impact women and minority veterans. Heading into Tuesday’s Senate Finance meeting, the bi-partisan efforts of Senators Bryce Reeves, R-Fredericksburg, and Jeremy McPike, D-Woodbridge, SB 6006 garnered the support of several Democrat Senators as well as 19 Republicans — more than enough votes to advance their bill out of the Senate and to the House. Lucas refused to docket the bill.

Ironically, Lucas voted in 2019 to expand eligibility to the very same groups she now wants to cut from VMSDEP eligibility. She also voted in favor of forming a VMSDEP work group to study “recommendations on legislative actions and budgetary modifications that could improve the stability, strength, and long-term viability of the program.” In both cases she’s flipped her position, pulling the rug out from under her Senate colleagues and constituents. Rather than exercise proper legislative due diligence (e.g., complete programmatic study on potential VMSDEP changes and impacts and listen to stakeholder concerns), Lucas wants to jam immediate cuts to VMSDEP without fully understanding the potential adverse impacts.

Had a work group been formed in advance to thoroughly examine all data and make better informed decisions, it would have offered greater data and insight into how various communities would be adversely impacted and by how much. According to recent data from the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, veteran women and people of color, in particular, will be disproportionately affected by Lucas’ proposed eligibility “fixes” to VMSDEP.

Women, for example, were not permitted in combat military occupational specialties until as late as 2016. This limits the number of combat-related disabilities among women compared to their male counterparts. Under Lucas’ proposed changes, VMSDEP is accessible only to veterans with combat- related disabilities.

Women veterans are also twice as likely as men to receive a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosis, but not all PTSD diagnoses are related to combat. Some reports propose that as high as 84% of female service members experience some form of unwanted sexual contact during their military tenure. Research also shows that a quarter of female service members are harassed or assaulted every single year and 33% or 1-in-3 women leaving the military have experienced military sexual trauma (MST). MST often contributes to severe mental health challenges and related disability ratings. Under Senator Lucas’ proposed changes to VMSDEP, most women veterans would not qualify for VMSDEP since MST is non-combat related.

A multitude of national level studies reveal major discrepancies between post-military disability ratingshealth care access and income disparities between whites and non-white veterans. The same studies often highlight characteristics of veterans such as divorce rates which double that of the general population, leaving many veterans as single parents and a disproportionately higher number of single-income mothers. For many of these single parents, the VMSDEP program is the only viable way to support sending their children off to college.

Department of Veterans Affairs data also reveals that blacks have proportionately higher rates of high disability ratings (e.g., >60%) as compared to white veterans. Additionally, while the total number of veterans are predicted to drop in the next decade, the number of minority veterans are projected to increase. See the below charts:

So, while Lucas touts being champions for greater diversity, equity, and inclusion, and the advancement of women, blacks and other people of color, SB 6005 promises to hit these veteran communities the hardest. Additionally, many victims of MST experience PTSD and are extremely vulnerable to sudden and severe bouts of depression, substance abuse, and suicidal ideations. Abruptly cutting these veterans off without any prior notice or opportunity to be heard is already causing this highly vulnerable veteran population to spiral.

This blow to Virginia’s veterans (especially women and minority veterans) does not comport with Lucas’ stated commitment to ensuring “…that everyone can access educational opportunities and reach their full potential.” Her proposed changes to VMSDEP also runs counter to the State Council for Higher Education in Virginia (SCHEV)’s strategic plan, which prioritizes “equity” above all else, while mentioning it specifically over 40 times.

Ultimately, the message from Lucas and allies such as Senator Mamie Locke, D-Hampton, and Scott Surovell, D-Mount Vernon, the mental, physical, emotional, financial struggles of thousands of veterans just are not as important as the perceived fiscal health of a few “not for profit” public universities that would lose tuition revenue. This is unacceptable.

Virginians must stop Lucas’ political flip-flopping games and reckless gambling with the livelihoods of Virginia’s most vulnerable communities. Let’s all help get VMSDEP fully restored and put Virginia back on the path of becoming the most veteran friendly state in the Nation.

Kayla Owen is co-founder of VMSDEP Friends.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

28 responses to “Senator Lucas’ “Big Gamble””

  1. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    Remember her in the crowd pulling down, illegally, a Confederate statue?
    Where is the no one is above the law crowd?
    That was a real, on the books, crime.
    Come on, Portsmouth. You can't get somebody better than her? Not one? Got a bit of megalomania it seems to me…

  2. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Without question Lucas is seeking to hold the vet benefits hostage to the gambling legislation. The Senate is back tomorrow and perhaps by then her colleagues will have knocked some sense into her head. Perhaps.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Sounds like hardball politics. Whose fingers are on the bad idea to begin with that the public will see when they ask "who did this"?

      The thing I'm getting out of this for the GOP/Youngkin/etc is "Don't mess with Lucas".

      This kind of politics is unique to Lucas? Oh go on now……….

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        As a one-time sportswriter, I'll score this a wild pitch. Blame was jointly shared and fuzzy until Lucas made this bonehead move.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          I kinda think if Lucas felt she got a fair shake on the skill games, she might have returned the favor. it looked to me she might have gotten snookered in the GA end game.

          I'm thinking the GOP did this to themselves and now need help to fix it.. and Lucas is willing for a price, her skill games and some egg on the face…

          Someone screwed up big time and either Reeves is part of it or he's not such a great legislator!

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          I kinda think if Lucas felt she got a fair shake on the skill games, she might have returned the favor. it looked to me she might have gotten snookered in the GA end game.

          I'm thinking the GOP did this to themselves and now need help to fix it.. and Lucas is willing for a price, her skill games and some egg on the face…
          ( BOTH the veterans issue as well as Lucas issues).

          Someone screwed up big time on the veterans thing and either Reeves is part of it or he's not such a great legislator!

          And somebody named "yahoo" underestimated Lucas… more than once…

          1. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            I hope your blind loyalty is rewarded when you join Democrat Heaven. You make Jeff Schapiro appear fair in comparison.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I'm really no fan of Lucas. It's really is a non-partisan pragmatic view. I've seen this same behavior
            on the other side for other issues in the past. It's politics. Youngkin and company disrespected Lucas
            and that total bad karma – you of all people KNOW THIS!

            WHO paid for knocking down Youngkins stadium? Lucas? 😉

          3. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            He's their target demographic, reliable vote no matter what they do/do not do if there is a D after the name.

  3. Dan Dukes Avatar
    Dan Dukes

    I am confused why folks continue to think there were changes to the program in 2019. It segregated the stipend (new section 608.1) from the waiver (608) and didn't change anything else. Practically all the changes in 608.1 (italicized) are copies of 608 criteria and cut/paste paragraphs from previous 608 version. https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+ful+CHAP0317
    But, then again, I know I need new glasses, so maybe someone can help me out?

  4. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Summer. This is when state and local government along with school boards do their shadiest work. The public is too busy on vacation. No one is paying close attention.

  5. Dan Dukes Avatar
    Dan Dukes

    I am confused why folks continue to think there were changes to the program in 2019. It segregated the stipend (new section 608.1) from the waiver (608) and didn't change anything else. Practically all the changes in 608.1 (italicized) are copies of 608 criteria and cut/paste paragraphs from previous 608 version. https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+ful+CHAP0317
    But, then again, I know I need new glasses, so maybe someone can help me out?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      so the folks up in arms about it are wrong and lying about it?
      And if no change is true why is Youngkin and Reeves acting so guilty?

      1. Dan Dukes Avatar
        Dan Dukes

        No, Heath's right. I was reading it through a biased lens.

    2. Heath Dunbar Avatar
      Heath Dunbar

      Respectfully disagree, Dan. The devil is in the details, but prior to that chapter 317 revision in 2019 that you linked to, the word "veteran" and the phrase "as a result of such service" appeared to – intentionally or not – refer to service "during military operations against terrorism, on a peacekeeping mission, as a result of a terrorist act, or in any armed conflict". By adding the words "who served in the Armed Forces of the United States, Reserves of the Armed Forces of the United States, or Virginia National Guard" after "veteran" in chapter 317, the legislators appear to include simply "service" in one of those organizations, without the so-called "combat" qualifier. If that interpretation is correct, then it did constitute a major change. We have seen the increase in subscription to the program following the passage of this; it stands to reason that was due to a broadening of the eligibility criteria and not simply increased awareness efforts on the part of DVS.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Is there a timeline for the changes to the program? When did it expand who would get the benefit? Was it just a one-time thing in 2019 and it steady gained folks since then and then in 2024.. someone said "we have to do something, it's gotten out of hand"?

        1. Heath Dunbar Avatar
          Heath Dunbar

          The changes that are typically noted were in 2006 when it was rebranded from the Virginia War Orphan Education Program to the Virginia Military Survivors and Dependents Education Program, and eligibility changed from KIA, POW or totally disabled to KIA, POW or >/=90% disabled. Looks like they realized in 2007 they had been inexact, so they clarified the disability must have been due to service in combat. Then in 2019 they intentionally removed that stipulation. Interestingly, Del. Torian was one of the patrons to that change. Yes, the program grew after that. SCHEV likes to show the chart with increasing participation year after year, implying infinite growth. A different analysis shows that after 48% growth in both '20 and '21, year over year growth dropped into the 30's in '22 and has continued a gentle decline the following 2 years. USDVA data shows veteran population nationally decreasing by 27% over the next decade and a half, while the cohort most likely to put a kid in college (40-64) will drop by 34%. So growth will continue to slow, and then turn negative.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            thank you. Are there similar other programs in other states or is Virginia sorta unique?

          2. Heath Dunbar Avatar
            Heath Dunbar

            There are others, but Virginia was, briefly, one of the better ones. In line with the aspiration to be the "#1 state for veterans to retire". https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ffd907ece7a502bdacd6552b78b0327bad1b03d48ec82ac1d1a853d49324b4c9.jpg

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            thanks! This, combined with the significant tax credits ought to attract military retirees.

          4. Heath Dunbar Avatar
            Heath Dunbar

            I'm sure that was the plan. Someone forgot to tell the schools or get them on board. Little tougher now.

          5. SoIncredulous Avatar
            SoIncredulous

            So, let me get this straight: after 20 years+ of war people were 'surprised' that the number of disabled veterans increased?

            And the wars began in 2001 / 2003. So many veterans who fought had kids who began accessing the benefits in 2020 (like when they turned 18/19 and could use a benefit for college)?

            Seems absolutely predictable to me … But 'common sense' does not appear to be common any longer.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            It was classic "do-gooder" stuff. They wanted to "help" without really doing enough analysis to see what it was going to cost – and when the costs started going up, they reacted badly and prematurely.

            We've been told the GA always does a financial impact analysis for legislation.

            I'm thinking at this point, that sometimes it's a theory more than a practice!

            The fiscal impact of legislation is fundamental to doing a budget.

            And Youngkin and Reeves and company needed to get with the veteran groups before they acted – to discuss the issue and try to arrive at a compromise… rather than top-down secretive changes… that veterans knew little about until a done deal.

            Bad/poor/inappropriate governance in my view , and yes both sides do it at times.

      2. Dan Dukes Avatar
        Dan Dukes

        Heath, I started and got pretty far in response when I realized my bias that I don't personally know anyone that served who doesn't meet at least one of the four 'combat' criteria. I stand corrected.

  6. Bill Reynolds Avatar
    Bill Reynolds

    Senator Louise Lucas is on a personal Jihad against Gold Star Families and severely disabled Veterans in her fight for her Skills Games

  7. Clarity77 Avatar
    Clarity77

    Lucas, my nominee for leftist poster child in the state of Virginia. What does it say about those who support and vote for her?

  8. The House repeal bill has 96 sponsors/patrons as of yesterday.

  9. 97 co-signers/patrons in the House of Delegates as of this morning…… what will the Lucas-bullied Senate do?

Leave a Reply