24
   

Congratulations, House Republicans!

 
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 12:30 pm
@coldjoint,
The Pink Prevaricator wrote:

Quote:
You seem confused about the way the system works.


Printing money and buying securities inflates the market. The money is an illusion. And you, are a hopeless Shill.

When has the Fed bought securities to inflate the market? Which specific securities do they own? Where can I find that ownership listed in company filings since the companies would be required to report anyone that owned that much.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 01:39 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Which specific securities do they own? Where can I find that ownership listed in company filings since the companies would be required to report anyone that owned that much.


You are the one with the links and talking points, now you are saying you can't produce numbers that say anything different? C'mon Shill. Your bullshit is past refuting anymore.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 01:50 pm
@parados,
Do you really believe ice brain (cj) has the capacity to back up anything he posts?
ROFLMAO

Try ZERO.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 01:53 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Do you really believe ice brain (cj) has the capacity to back up anything he posts?


A lot of what I post is proven already. Obamas own words come back to bite him everyday. And his inaction is legendary when it comes to anything but his agenda.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 02:11 pm
Quote:
VA Scandal: A Liberal Democratic Big Government Failure


Quote:
Now there is data showing that Fournier is right. Since the VA news scandal began dominating the news, Republicans have picked up three points in the generic ballot, the “wrong track” number has hit a recent high (70%), and President Obama’s job approval has slipped a net four points from only two weeks earlier. A deeper dive into the data here:

A plurality of voters (and the highest percentage recorded in recent months), want to “send a signal of opposition to President Obama” with their November vote (including 51% of Independents).
When specifically informed about the failings of the Phoenix VA hospital at the center of the recent controversy, six-in-ten call it a “clear failure of President Obama,” including one-third of Democrats. Moreover, eight-in-ten agree that this is a clear failure of the U.S. Congress.
80% are “less likely to vote for an incumbent Congressman or Senator who made campaign promises to protect veterans, but got to Washington and allowed this to happen instead of protecting America’s servicemen and women.” A majority (52%) strongly agree.

Now you know why Democrats, in the words of Charles Krauthammer, are “screaming loudly.” Our nation and its government have a responsibility to our veterans. It’s yet another egregious sign of an inept and incompetent government that has been run by Democrats for the last five years. There’s a huge difference between talking about change and administering change, and Democrats like Kay Hagan, Jeanne Shaheen and Mark Begich have mastered the former and failed miserably at the latter. Voters are tired of a dysfunctional and dishonest government.


http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2014/05/22/va-scandal-a-liberal-democratic-big-government-failure/
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 02:23 pm
@coldjoint,
What about the Teapublican/Teabilly Congress that cut the budgets for VA??? And has been since GWB's first term.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 02:28 pm
Tea party leader, Laurel man arrested in Cochran case
Geoff Pender and Sam R. Hall, The Clarion-Ledger 3:15 p.m. CDT May 22, 2014
mayfield2

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/26a7de9c742663b7c7c91b6c11ddd249f8e3ed37/c=0-42-800-643&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/JacksonMS/JacksonMS/2014/05/22//1400789564000-mayfield2.jpg

(Photo: Rick Guy/The Clarion-Ledger)
1068 CONNECTTWEET 1 LINKEDIN 19 COMMENTEMAILMORE

2:45 p.m.: Third person charged today in the Rose Cochran video scandal is John Mary. Authorities have not confirmed he has been arrested, only charged. No other details are known.

2:16 p.m.: Chris McDaniel has released a statement following today's arrests in the Cochran video scandal.

"As we have said since day one, the violation of the privacy of Mrs. Cochran is out of bounds for politics and is reprehensible. Any individuals who were involved in this crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," McDaniel said in a statement.

LIVE COVERAGE: See our live coverage stream below as political editor Geoff Pender reports from Madison City Court.

1:47 p.m.: Madison Municipal Judge Dale Danks has set bond for Mark Mayfield at $250,000.

Richard Sager's bond has been set at $250,000 per count. He faces one charge of conspiracy and one charge of tampering with evidence.

1:39 p.m.: District Attorney Michael Guest says the man accused of taking allegedly illegal photos of Rose Cochran is now facing conspiracy charges. Clayton Kelly is expected in court in the city of Madison today.

1:30 p.m.: District Attorney Michael Guest confirms that Richard Sager of Laurel is the second person arrested today in relation to the Rose Cochran photo scandal.

Sager is a P.E. teacher at Mason Elementary School in Laurel. He's also the assistant boys soccer coach for the high school. He served as the head soccer coach at Mississippi Delta Community College from 2002-06.
richard sager hs

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/3eeba7d0621475bb5c4c336c78164b0be580619b/c=0-23-232-332&r=183&c=0-0-180-238/local/-/media/JacksonMS/JacksonMS/2014/05/22//1400783706000-richard-sager-hs.jpg
Richard Sager is facing conspiracy charges in the Rose Cochran video conspiracy case.(Photo: Facebook)

12:30 p.m.: Madison city court officials say that Mark Mayfield will appear before a judge today.

Also, attorney Kevin Camp, who represents Clayton Kelly, said two more arrests either have been or will be made in addition to Mayfield. All three are expected to face conspiracy charges.

ORIGINAL STORY:

The vice chairman of the Mississippi Tea Party and one other suspect have been arrested in connection with the photographing of the bedridden wife of U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran.

Attorney Mark Mayfield, a vice chairman of the Mississippi Tea Party and an officer with the Central Mississippi Tea Party, was arrested Thursday by Madison police. The second suspect arrested has not been identified.

Charges have not been released. Merrida Coxwell and John Reeves are representing Mayfield. Reeves declined comment, and Coxwell said he had just received the call and did not know the charges at this time.
mayfield madison canvassing

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/c5d70826c1e1aadc4d9db56e3bed54ae41620b17/c=3-0-637-477&r=x383&c=540x380/local/-/media/JacksonMS/JacksonMS/2014/05/22//1400780330000-mayfield-madison-canvassing.jpg

Mark Mayfield, far left, is shown in this photo posted April 5 to the Chris McDaniel for U.S. Senate Facebook page. Mayfield, who is shown with other volunteers who were knocking on doors in Madison County, is facing charges in relation to the alleged illegal photographing of U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran's wife.(Photo: Facebook)

In an April 5 post, Chris McDaniel's campaign posted on its Facebook page a photo of Mayfield and five other volunteers, saying, "Here's part of a crew that reached over 500 homes walking in Madison today. Great work team!"

Clayton Kelly, 28, of Pearl was arrested Friday and faces a felony charges of photographing or filming another without permission where there is expectation of privacy and exploitation of a vulnerable adult, which carries up to a 10-year sentence.

Authorities claim Kelly photographed Rose Cochran at St. Catherine's nursing home in Madison, where she is bedridden and suffering from progressive dementia. Kelly, a political blogger and McDaniel supporter, allegedly used the photos in a video he posted online.
mayfield and mcdaniel

Mark Mayfield (left) and state Sen. Chris McDaniel(Photo: Special to The Clarion-Ledger)
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 02:32 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
What about the Teapublican/Teabilly Congress that cut the budgets for VA??? And has been since GWB's first term.


The VA has plenty of money. It is mismanaged. And this administration has no respect for the military. It is all lip service. (Killary lying to families about Benghazi ,Obama cutting a raise from 1 and a half% to 1%, and gutting defense. Not to mention firing anyone who is not with the program) Again this administrations priorities have taken all of O' Dickheads time. Those priorities now are Cap and Trade enforced by the EPA.

Veterans are not important and citizens are considered subjects.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 02:36 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Nothing Democrats haven't done. Your double standard is showing. It is more than clear the left will do anything to win. Why should a Tea party guy not use their sleazy methods? After all you are always spouting off about equality. This is a non-issue in the cesspool of politics, and you seem to fond of ****..
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 03:17 pm
@coldjoint,
**** you. How do YOU know that? Because some half assed twit on SSI sits and blogs this crap all the time? What's the matter jagov, you don't how how to read a real news source?
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 03:20 pm
@coldjoint,
Just for you, idiot,from Time Magazine (left wing, right?)


U.S. Veterans
Are U.S. Veterans Selfish?

Mark Thompson @MarkThompson_DC

Jan. 26, 2014
MOAA
As the Pentagon budget vise tightens, those who served complain over cuts

It’s an impudent question, but one that naturally surfaces given the outrage rolling in from assorted veterans’ groups as Congress and the Pentagon seek ways to trim government spending that sometimes affect those who have volunteered to fight America’s wars.

It’s also the predictable downside to enlisting only 1% of the nation’s citizens to fight, and possibly die, to strive to achieve national goals.

When presidents and congresses insist on waging war with no shared sacrifice, it should come as scant surprise that those who have done all the sacrificing squawk when their expected benefits end up on the chopping block.

But it is disquieting. It suggests that the nation is developing a military caste, separate and apart from the nation. It seems the military is in danger of becoming just another special interest group.

SaveOurBenefit.org

Congress set off the latest fireworks when it proposed trimming the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for working-age veterans by 1 percentage point late last year. Then last week, a new storm arose when the Pentagon said it was considering cutting the subsidies it pays to military commissaries—on-base grocery stores boasting lower prices that are reserved for military personnel, including many veterans—that could force many such facilities to close their doors.

“This is yet another undeserved blow to our men and women in service—and their families—in the name of ‘necessary cutbacks’ to reduce an ungainly national deficit,” American Legion National Commander Daniel Dellinger said, after learning of the commissary proposal. “Like the trimming of expenses to be made by reducing military retirees’ pensions, this is an inexcusable way of attempting to fix a fault by penalizing the blameless.”

The notion that vets are seeking more than their fair share upsets some of their leaders. “Vets are anything but selfish!” says Norb Ryan, president of the Military Officers Association of America. “If anything, vets are too selfless. They are also idealistic…Vets are fair and therefore, they expect others to be fair.”

Recent veterans agree. “I don’t think veterans are any more or less selfish than the general public,” says Brandon Friedman, who served as an infantry officer with the Army in Afghanistan and Iraq. “However, I do think veterans are very vocal about protecting the benefits they’ve been promised.”

Alex Lemons, a former Marine sniper who served three tours in Iraq, is torn by the debate. “As a vet, I feel like we have made ourselves into a protected class and anyone else who isn’t in it can go to hell,” he says. “I took lives and watched lives be taken.” He says he’d prefer to see weapons cut before commissaries:

The commissary is where you bump into wives, girlfriends, boyfriends, children, chums and old vets, some of whom have family down range. They might ask you, `Will the guys in that platoon like this beef jerky or these potato chips?’ or `How have things been, emotionally, since you got back?’ Would anyone out there in the civilian world ask these questions? No. We don’t get the luxury of living in one house and in one community all our lives so places like this offer something else beyond cheap groceries. I know that won’t be popular amongst economists but this intangible stuff is what makes doing such a shitty job that much more manageable.

Besides, in the overall scheme of government spending, the veterans make a fair point: civilian entitlements, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have ballooned, while dollars dedicated to defense have shrunk markedly as a share of the federal budget.

But that masks the growth in per-troop compensation, which has increased by 60% since 9/11, not counting inflation. “Military compensation has outpaced civilian wages and salary growth since 2002,” the Pentagon’s most recent Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation said. The average enlisted person now earns, in all forms of compensation, more than 90% of his or her civilian counterparts; officers are paid more than 83% of civilians with similar education and experience.

Congress has routinely boosted military pay raises, which also increase pensions, beyond that sought by the Pentagon. More than four out of five veterans never get a pension because they have served fewer than 20 years in uniform, although they are eligible for health care and other benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Those who “make 20”—so-called “military retirees”—collect a pension worth at least half their basic pay.

VFW

“Such cost growth is unsustainable, and the leadership of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines all agree that the costs of benefits for personnel are starting to crowd out other important investments that support training, readiness and modernization,” four senior retired officers said in a statement in support of the pension trim issued by the nonprofit the Bipartisan Policy Center. “Such a change is much needed—but it’s only a first step. Additional reforms to compensation to ensure benefits are both fair and sustainable will be essential to slow the rise of personnel costs and to ensure the military is able to make the necessary investments to maintain sufficient capability to fight and win wars.”

It appears likely that Congress will reverse course on the veterans’ pension cut. The fact that lawmakers can’t make a minor trim to a benefit enjoyed by a minority (retired veterans under 62) of a minority (once again, less than one in five vets is eligible for a pension) doesn’t bode well for the wholesale revamping that the World War II-era military personnel system needs.

MOAA

But this slugfest comes as no surprise to anyone who has been monitoring the defense-budget debate in recent years:

– Former defense secretary Robert Gates, in his new book, Duty, views much of Congress as little more than scavengers, plucking carrion from the U.S. Treasury to keep wasteful military spending pouring into their districts. “Any defense facility or contract in their district or state, no matter how superfluous or wasteful, was sacrosanct,” he writes. “I was constantly amazed and infuriated at the hypocrisy of those who most stridently attacked the Defense Department as inefficient and wasteful but fought tooth and nail to prevent any reduction in defense activities in their home state or district.”

– Over the weekend, as if to prove Gates’ point, boosters of North Carolina’s Fort Bragg said they were readying to fight any proposal to shrink or close the post. As the Army’s most-populated installation, it’s not going to shut down. Congress, in fact, has recently barred the Pentagon from conducting additional base closings, even though the U.S. military has 20% more real estate than it needs. But it’s telling that Bragg’s backers already are preparing to preserve the post’s 70,000 soldiers and civilians, and are seeking even more. “In the past, we worked to keep what we have,” Greg Taylor, executive director of the Fort Bragg Regional Alliance, said. “This time, we intend to go after what we want.”

– Last week, William Hartung and the independent Center for International Policy said Lockheed Martin, the builder of the F-35 fighter, is inflating how many jobs production of the plane will create (Lockheed denies the charge).

SaveOurBenefit.org

Lockheed has said the $400 billion program—the most costly weapons system in world history—will produce 125,000 jobs. “There’s just one problem with Lockheed Martin’s assertions about job creation,” Hartung says. “They are greatly exaggerated.”

Hartung says using job-creation yardsticks from prior Pentagon programs suggests the program is likely to create only half that number of jobs.

But look at the bright side.

For decades, contractors exaggerated the threats that they said only their weapons could deter. Today, they’re allegedly exaggerating how many jobs assembling their weapons will generate.

That shift in emphasis—from deployment to employment—speaks volumes.

With Congress. communities and contractors now focusing so intently on themselves, why shouldn’t veterans?
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 03:22 pm
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2014/140522-why-hasnt-the-president-delivered-on-his-promise-to-improve-health-care-and-education-for-veterans.jpg
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 03:28 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Why is it that the GOP cuts funding for consular security, and they want to have five committees to investigate why the security in Benghazi was lacking.
Then comes the problems when the VA hospitals where the GOP cut funding (more veterans from the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars requiring health care), and now they want heads to roll because some hospital administrators falsified waiting times.

Quote:
How many veterans hospitals are in the US?
According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, as of July 30, 2010, there were 153 VA hospitals, 773 outpatient centers, and 260 Vet Centers (counseling) in the US.


And,
Quote:
Providing Health Care for Veterans

The Veterans Health Administration is America’s largest integrated health care system with over 1,700 sites of care, serving 8.76 million Veterans each year.


TNCFS
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 03:40 pm


GOP Dishonors Veterans’ Sacrifice with Benefit Cuts and Privatized Healthcare Schemes
By: Rmuse more from Rmuse
Monday, May, 28th, 2012, 10:00 am



Print Friendly

Another Memorial Day is upon us to remember the men and women who died while serving in the United States Armed Forces, and with American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, it is important to reflect not only on their service and sacrifice, but on the reason they are in harm’s way. Using the military should be a last resort and only to defend this nation, however, there are politicians and leaders who take advantage of the military’s dedication and force to advance their own self-interests and they dishonor America’s service members with their cavalier attitude toward human life and taxpayer dollars.

The men and women who volunteer to defend America do so out of a sense of duty, and they are to be commended profusely for their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice in service of their country. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly had nothing to do with defending the homeland, and looking back on the Bush administration’s folly in both countries invokes myriad feelings of betrayal because the terror attacks on 9/11 that precipitated the wars was avoidable if Bush et al heeded warnings in August of 2001 that Al Qaeda intended on flying commercial airliners into buildings on American soil. It is now part of the historical record that when Bush entered the White House in 2001, one of the first questions his team asked was “where are the war plans for Iraq,” and despite volumes of evidence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction or involvement in the terror attacks on 9/11, the cowards Cheney and Bush fabricated evidence, lied to the American people, and sacrificed thousands of American service members lives to enrich the oil industry, Dick Cheney’s company Haliburton, and the evangelical mercenary army, Blackwater Inc. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and five of their legal counsel were convicted of war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo; the criminals remain free and the blame lies solely with the media, but that is another story.

The Bush administration’s blatant disregard for the lives of our brave soldiers is only matched by the deceit and machinations the warmongers perpetrated in order to enrich their wealthy corporate friends, and for we Americans who lost loved ones and friends, there is nothing but contempt that should serve as reminders that any politician who lusts for war is not worthy to lead. This author’s family has lost six precious lives to Bush’s cowboy diplomacy, and nurtures a beloved son-in-law who fought in the Battle for Baghdad and still struggles with horrific nightmares and regret at taking lives because of a lie. Every combat veteran returns home inexorably altered, and it behooves America’s leaders to carefully consider the psychological, physical, and financial impact of their decision to go to war.

The presumptive Republican presidential candidate, Willard Romney, has made no secret that he is panting to send Americans to engage in a war with Iran, and it is in part because of his Bush-Cheney chicken hawk sensibilities and his cult’s belief that they are “latter day American Israelis.” It is Willard’s lifelong trait to promote sending other Americans to fight and die on foreign soil while he avoids making any sacrifice, and according to the Mormon cult, missionary service is more important than serving in the military. When Romney was queried whether his five sons served their country, he said they were serving by working to get him elected president, and pointed out that they proselytized for the cult for two years.

When most Americans today are honoring veterans’ sacrifice, Romney is six months into promoting giving veterans vouchers for their healthcare benefits to enrich the health care industry, and it informs where his true loyalties lie. Instead of increasing funding to care for the men and women who served in the military, Romney hopes to cheat them out of the benefits they earned. Romney’s hero and Republican’s courageous fiscal guru’s budget that passed in the Republican House of Representatives cuts $11 billion from veteran’s spending, or 13% less than President Obama proposes in his budget. In fact, in the nearly 100-page Ryan Path to Prosperity budget, the word veteran is not mentioned one time. Romney’s privatization scam would “be inadequate, and become more so over time, so that veterans who don’t make enough money to top them up would fail to receive essential care” according to noted economist Paul Krugman.

Republicans are warmongers who love sending America’s soldiers into harm’s way, but are ill-inclined to care for them after their service is over. Bush underfunded the Department of Veterans Affairs by approximately a billion dollars in 2005, and it took Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs, Jim Nicholson, begging Congress to pass emergency supplemental spending until they finally acted just to keep the doors open.

On this Memorial Day, it is important to remember our service members’ sacrifice by more than flying the American flag or saying “support our troops.” America promised its veterans to provide health care after their sacrifice and service, and the GOP dishonors them by cutting their benefits and promoting privatizing their health care. However, more than anything, a leader, or potential leader must think long and hard before sending them in harm’s way and it should only be as a last resort and not because a Mormon thinks he is a latter day American Israeli defending god’s chosen people or to secure oil. It is telling the Republicans will increase defense spending to start wars and kill Muslims, but when it comes time to care for the brave soldiers who fight their wars, they claim fiscal responsibility and slash their benefits and propose giving them vouchers that are insufficient to fund their health care.

President Obama is a staunch supporter of our military and especially veterans, and his reluctance to send them in harm’s way for no apparent reason has garnered condemnation from Romney and Republican warmongers who dishonor their commitment by slashing benefits and pushing for more wars. America owes it to its service members to support them during and after their service, and to employ them only to defend our nation; not to enrich the oil industry, Haliburton, or the defense industry. It is incumbent on all Americans to thank the brave men and women who defend our liberty every day by ensuring that we choose leaders who use their service prudently, and that after they have served, to fulfill the promise of providing the care they need; anything less dishonors their service and commitment. Republicans have shown they have as much contempt for veterans as they do for every other American, and it demonstrates they do not support the troops before, during, or after they send them to another needless war.
GOP Dishonors Veterans’ Sacrifice with Benefit Cuts and Privatized Healthcare Schemes was written by Rmuse for PoliticusUSA.
© PoliticusUSA, Mon, May 28th, 2012 — All Rights Reserved
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 03:42 pm
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17117430/ns/politics/t/veterans-face-budget-increase-then-big-cuts/

Veterans face budget increase, then big cuts
Some complain Bush trying to make long-term deficit figures look better



updated 2/12/2007 10:56:53 PM ET


WASHINGTON — The Bush administration’s budget assumes cuts to funding for veterans’ health care two years from now — even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.

Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012. But even administration allies say the numbers are not real and are being used to make the overall budget picture look better.

After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly — by more than 10 percent in many years — White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends — its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Bush took office — sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.

“Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care,” said Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA’s budget. “Or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions.”

A spokesman for Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the top Republican on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, called the White House moves another step in a longtime “budgeting game.”

“No one who is knowledgeable about VA budgeting issues anticipates any cuts to VA funding. None. Zero. Zip,” said Craig spokesman Jeff Schrade.
Advertise

Edwards said that a more realistic estimate of veterans costs is $16 billion higher than the Bush estimate for 2012.

In fact, even the White House doesn’t seem serious about the numbers. It says the long-term budget numbers don’t represent actual administration policies. Similar cuts assumed in earlier budgets have been reversed.

The veterans cuts, said White House budget office spokesman Sean Kevelighan, “don’t reflect any policy decisions. We’ll revisit them when we do the (future) budgets.”

The number of veterans coming into the VA health care system has been rising by about 5 percent a year as the number of people returning from Iraq with illnesses or injuries keep rising. Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans represent almost 5 percent of the VA’s patient caseload, and many are returning from battle with grievous injuries requiring costly care, such as traumatic brain injuries.

All told, the VA expects to treat about 5.8 million patients next year, including 263,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House budget office, however, assumes that the veterans’ medical services budget — up 83 percent since Bush took office and winning a big increase in Bush’s proposed 2008 budget — can absorb a 2 percent cut the following year and remain essentially frozen for three years in a row after that.

“It’s implausible,” Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said of the budget projections.

The White House made virtually identical assumptions last year — a big increase in the first year of the budget and cuts for every year thereafter to veterans medical care. Now, the White House estimate for 2008 is more than $4 billion higher than Bush figured last year.

And the VA has been known to get short-term estimates wrong as well. Two years ago, Congress had to pass an emergency $1.5 billion infusion for veterans health programs for 2005 and added $2.7 billion to Bush’s request for 2006. The VA underestimated the number of veterans, including those from Iraq and Afghanistan, who were seeking care, as well as the cost of treatment and long-term care.

The budget for hospital and medical care for veterans is funded for the current year at $35.6 billion, and would rise to $39.6 billion in 2008 under Bush’s budget. That’s about 9 percent. But the budget faces a cut to $38.8 billion in 2009 and would hover around that level through 2012.

The cuts come even as the number of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is expected to increase 26 percent next year.

In Bush’s proposal to balance the budget by 2012, he’s assuming that spending on domestic agency operating budgets will increase by about 1 percent each year.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 03:46 pm
Bush Plans VA Funding Cuts in '09
Critics say White House may have made up numbers to keep budget promise.


By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer
Published: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 3:05 a.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 5:42 a.m.

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration's budget assumes cuts to funding for veterans' health care two years from now - even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.

Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012.

But even administration allies say the numbers are not real and are being used to make the overall budget picture look better.

After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head.

Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly - by more than 10 percent in many years - White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends - its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Bush took office - sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.

"Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care," said Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA's budget, "or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions."

A spokesman for Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the top Republican on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, called the White House moves another step in a longtime "budgeting game."

"No one who is knowledgeable about VA budgeting issues anticipates any cuts to VA funding. None. Zero. Zip," said Craig spokesman Jeff Schrade.

Edwards said that a more realistic estimate of veterans' costs is $16 billion higher than the Bush estimate for 2012.

In fact, even the White House doesn't seem serious about the numbers.

It says the long-term budget numbers don't represent actual administration policies.

Similar cuts assumed in earlier budgets have been reversed.

The veterans' cuts, said White House budget office spokesman Sean Kevelighan, "don't reflect any policy decisions. We'll revisit them when we do the (future) budgets."

The number of veterans coming into the VA health care system has been rising by about 5 percent per year as the number of people returning from Iraq with illnesses or injuries keep rising.

Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans represent almost 5 percent of the VA's patient caseload, and many are returning from battle with grievous injuries requiring costly care, such as traumatic brain injuries.

All told, the VA expects to treat about 5.8 million patients next year, including 263,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House budget office, however, assumes that the veterans' medical services budget - up 83 percent since Bush took office and winning a big increase in Bush's proposed 2008 budget - can absorb a 2 percent cut the following year and remain essentially frozen for three years in a row after that.

"It's implausible," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said of the budget projections.

The White House made virtually identical assumptions last year - a big increase in the first year of the budget and cuts for every year thereafter to veterans' medical care.

Now, the White House estimate for 2008 is more than $4 billion higher than Bush figured last year.

And the VA has been known to get short-term estimates wrong as well.

Two years ago, Congress had to pass an emergency $1.5 billion infusion for veterans' health programs for 2005 and added $2.7 billion to Bush's request for 2006.

The VA underestimated the number of veterans, including those from Iraq and Afghanistan, who were seeking care, as well as the cost of treatment and long-term care.

The budget for hospital and medical care for veterans is funded for the current year at $35.6 billion, and would rise to $39.6 billion in 2008 under Bush's budget.

That's about 9 percent.

But the budget faces a cut to $38.8 billion in 2009 and would hover around that level through 2012.

The cuts come even as the number of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is expected to increase 26 percent next year.

In Bush's proposal to balance the budget by 2012, he's assuming that spending on domestic agency operating budgets will increase by about 1 percent each year.

On the Net: White House Office of Management and Budget: http://www.omb.gov
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 03:49 pm
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_sherwood_070302_bush_cutbacks_va_hos.htm

General News 3/2/2007 at 08:23:02
Bush Cutbacks VA Hospitals But Praised Walter Reed
By Sherwood Ross (about the author) Permalink (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): Bush Failure-in-Chief; Health Care Socialized-Nationalized; Health Care Uninsured; Health Care- Veterans; Pentagon; Veterans; Veterans Admin VA, Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

opednews.com
Yesterday (March 1), Walter Reed hospital director Major General George Weightman got canned. Army Secretary Francis Harvey said he lost "trust and confidence" in his ability to make improvements. Yet Weightman may be only a human sacrifice to save face when, in point of fact, the shoddy treatment at the Pentagon's flagship hospital is really the fault of the White House.

Recall that when President Bush visited Walter Reed on January 17, 2003 he praised it. On that occasion, Bush said, "Having been here and seeing the care that these troops (from Afghanistan) get is comforting for me and Laura. We are--should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way." Either Bush was dissembling or Walter Reed has careened madly downhill on his watch.



Anyway, go figure. Bush hails conditions at Walter Reed, a military facility that is not part of the VA system and where conditions are deplorable, yet, during his tenure, he has worked to make it tougher for vets to get care at VA hospitals which, for the most part, are excellent, as this vet can personally attest.



"Ten years ago, veterans hospitals were dangerous, dirty, and scandal-ridden," The Washington Monthly reported in its January, 2005 issue. "Today, they're producing the highest quality care in the country. Their turnaround points the way toward solving America's health-care crisis."



And Business Week's July 17th last year, reported, "if you want to be sure of top-notch care, join the military. The 154 hospitals and 875 clinics run by the Veterans Affairs Dept. have been ranked best-in-class by a number of independent groups on a broad range of measures, from chronic care to heart disease treatments to the percentage of members who receive flu shots. It offers all the same services, and sometimes more, than private sector providers."



Where patients in the private sector are lucky to get 20 minutes with their doctor, vets commonly get lengthy, head-to-toe annual check-ups and, when indicated, tests utilizing the latest technologies. The VA has a sterling, 99.9%-plus accuracy record for filling prescriptions, in part because of its model electronic medical-records system.



Things at VA hospitals weren't always this way. VA underwent a dramatic makeover starting around 1995 under the Clinton administration's Dr. Kenneth Kizer, VA's health under secretary.



Last year, on a budget of $35-billion, the VA provided services for 5.4-million of the nation's approximately 26-million vets, most of whom are eligible for free or low-cost care.



Many VA employees work there for idealistic reasons. One technician told me she got "fed up with the paperwork" in private sector medicine and switched to the VA to devote herself to caring for patients full-time. Generally, the attitude is proactive. At an outpatient facility to get a flu shot at the Miami VA, the clinician asked, "When did you have your last pneumonia shot?" and when I told him, he replied, "Okay, hold out the other arm." The VA cuts costs by stressing preventive medicine. And if you need eye glasses and hearing aids, there may be no better place than the VA to get tested and get quality product.



Shoddy conditions reported at Walter Reed undoubtedly are true, but this writer has seen just the opposite in visits to VA hospitals in Spokane, Miami, Orange, N.J., Roanoke, Va., and Sturgis, S.D. These impressions, of course, reflect only a small random sample, but they were all favorable. By contrast, ABC's Diane Sawyers reported on "Primetime" on April 8, 2004, of finding sickening conditions in VA hospitals and of patients waiting up to eight hours to see a care-giver.



If there's trouble in the VA, it may not be the quality of care but the Bush administration's goal to shrink the system by closing hospitals and stiffening eligibility requirements.



Reporter Rick Anderson wrote in "Home Front"(Clarity Press), VA enrollment soared from 2.9-million in 1996 to 6.8-million in 2004. While older veterans die at the rate of 1,000 per day "newer veterans are signing up for benefits at a much slower rate, in part because many are being refused services due to budget and service cuts at the VA."



And as the Pentagon outsources ever more jobs to private sector firms like Halliburton, the size of the armed forces is being cut back radically, meaning fewer veterans and fewer VA visits in the offing. In Iraq, for example, approximately one contract warrior is killed for every 10 uniformed soldiers. U.S. fatalities in the Iraq killing field is actually 10 percent higher than reported by the Pentagon.



However, as the cost of private sector health care and health insurance premiums rise, and as VA services improve, a lot of veterans are abandoning the private sector they had relied on to seek out VA medicine.



On the same day Bush visited Walter Reed, Anderson writes, his VA officials floated a plan to limit new enrollments, the idea being to suspend medical care for "better off" vets, those with incomes exceeding $35,000 a year, a plan rebuffed by Congress. Bush did succeed, though, in cutting the budgets for mental health and drug treatment by 30% amd 40%, respectively, he said. Anderson writes, "Facilities are being closed despite the real and emotional toll on veterans. The plan is to move further towards out-patient services," opening two new VA hospitals while closing seven.



Reducing facilities is an odd step to take when it is widely believed the worst aspect of VA health care is the length of waiting time vets endure to get to see a doctor. In 2003, nearly a quarter of a million veterans waited six months or longer for a first appointment or an initial follow-up, exposing the system's lack of capacity, according to one study.



The VA system may be less than perfect but, when given adequate resources, it can and does appear to provide better care than the private sector and with less paperwork. Maybe it's the prototype of the universal health care system the American people want. And maybe the Pentagon's other hospitals, such as Walter Reed, could be incorporated into it.



Whatever, canning the director at Walter Reed, a facility that got swamped with wounded from Bush's illegal wars, is no answer and likely just an act of shameless scapegoating.

#

(Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based columnist. For comments or to arrange for speaking engagements contact him at [email protected]).
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 03:52 pm
Bush budget cuts veterans health care in 2009

CNN (CNN is Fox in a clean shirt)

February 13, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration's budget assumes cuts to veterans' health care two years from now -- even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.

Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012. But even administration allies say the numbers are not real and are being used to make the overall budget picture look better.

After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly -- by more than 10 percent in many years -- White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends -- its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Bush took office -- sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.

"Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care," said Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA's budget. "Or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions."

A spokesman for Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the top Republican on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, called the White House moves another step in a longtime "budgeting game."

"No one who is knowledgeable about VA budgeting issues anticipates any cuts to VA funding. None. Zero. Zip," Craig spokesman Jeff Schrade said.

Edwards said that a more realistic estimate of veterans costs is $16 billion higher than the Bush estimate for 2012.

In fact, even the White House doesn't seem serious about the numbers. It says the long-term budget numbers don't represent actual administration policies. Similar cuts assumed in earlier budgets have been reversed.

The veterans cuts, said White House budget office spokesman Sean Kevelighan, "don't reflect any policy decisions. We'll revisit them when we do the (future) budgets."

The number of veterans coming into the VA health care system has been rising by about 5 percent a year as the number of people returning from Iraq with illnesses or injuries keep rising. Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans represent almost 5 percent of the VA's patient caseload, and many are returning from battle with grievous injuries requiring costly care, such as traumatic brain injuries.

All told, the VA expects to treat about 5.8 million patients next year, including 263,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The VA has been known to get short-term budget estimates wrong as well. Two years ago, Congress had to pass an emergency $1.5 billion infusion for veterans health programs for 2005 and added $2.7 billion to Bush's request for 2006. The VA underestimated the number of veterans, including those from Iraq and Afghanistan, who were seeking care, as well as the cost of treatment and long-term care.

The budget for hospital and medical care for veterans is at $35.6 billion for the current year, and would rise to $39.6 billion in 2008 under Bush's budget. That's about 9 percent. But the budget faces a cut to $38.8 billion in 2009 and would hover around that level through 2012.

The cuts come even as the number of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is expected to increase 26 percent next year.

In Bush's proposal to balance the budget by 2012, he's assuming that spending on domestic agency operating budgets will increase by about 1 percent each year.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 05:19 pm
The Real Scandal: 258,000 Veterans Lack Healthcare Because Republicans Won’t Expand Medicaid
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/22/real-scandal-258000-veterans-lack-healthcare-republicans-refuse-expand-medicaid.html

The Real Scandal: 258,000 Veterans Lack Healthcare Because Republicans Won’t Expand Medicaid
By: Jason Easley
Thursday, May, 22nd, 2014, 12:50 pm


While Republicans are trying to blame the problems at the VA on President Obama, the real scandal is that the Republican refusal to expand Medicaid in 23 states has left 258,6000 veterans without healthcare.

According to a 2013 Urban Institute study:

Analysis of the 2008-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) indicates that 535,000 uninsured veterans and 174,000 uninsured spouses of veterans—or four in 10 uninsured veterans and one in four uninsured spouses—have incomes below 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) and could qualify for Medicaid or new subsidies for coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Most of these uninsured—414,000 veterans and 113,000 spouses—have incomes below 100 percent of FPL, and will therefore only have new coverage options under the ACA if their state expands Medicaid. However, fewer than half live in states in which the governor supports their state participating in the expansion, while the majority live in states that have chosen not to expand Medicaid or have not yet decided whether to expand. The extent to which uninsured veterans and their family members with incomes below the FPL will have access to new coverage options under the ACA will depend on whether they live in a state that adopts the Medicaid expansion.

Pew used the Urban Institute data, and the state by state neglect of veterans on this map:
http://edge2.politicususa.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/VETERANS-MEDICAID-INFOGRAPHIC-485x411-1.jpg


snip//

Blaming Obama isn’t going to get Republicans out of this one. For the last two years, congressional Republicans have voted against bills that would have created jobs, and provided better healthcare for our vets. House Republicans even voted to throw 170,000 veterans off of food stamps.

The great hypocrisy is that while Republicans are blaming President Obama for the VA, they refusing to provide hundreds of thousands of veterans and their families healthcare. They can wave the flag all they want, but when the rubber hits the road, Republicans have repeatedly betrayed our veterans.

It is tragic that any veteran died while waiting for care from the VA, but how many veterans are dying or losing family members because Republicans refuse to expand Medicaid?

That is a question that Republicans don’t want to have to answer.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2014 08:21 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
http://edge2.politicususa.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/polusa-logo-360x86-1.jpg

That is a Hell of source. What exactly was in the bill besides expansion of medicaid. The Democrats won't tell you that. More than likely there are amendments the Republicans can't accept.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/20/2024 at 06:00:11