Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Free Speech, what's that?

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx? headline=Veterans+for+Peace+group+pulled+from+city+parade&articleId=1a6b 09d3-baff-4ce0-b9ad-a6eb1e838e92 Veterans for Peace group pulled from city parade By PAT GROSSMITH AND MARK HAYWARDUnion Leader StaffMANCHESTER – Members of Veterans for Peace yesterday were pulled out of the Memorial Day parade in Manchester and threatened with arrest for refusing to march without banners identifying themselves.They were later allowed to participate carrying their banners, one of which read, "Veterans for Peace Honor the Fallen."Melanie Martel, a Manchester resident, said she saw a police cruiser pull up with its lights on. She said the officer, identified as Sgt. Peter Bartlett, stood in front of the Veterans for Peace group and would not let them continue.For a few minutes, the parade behind the police officer stopped. Eventually, the officer forced the Veterans for Peace marchers to the west side of Elm Street, near the Brady Sullivan Tower. =Members of Vetrans For Peace, from left, James Romer, Joseph Turcotte, John Sanders and Will Thomas bring up the rear of Manchester's Memorial Day parade after being briefly denied entry into the parade over a sign they wanted to carry calling for troops to be brought home from Iraq and Afghanistan. (BOB LAPREE)"They were red-faced, screaming at each other," said Martel, a professor of general studies at the New Hampshire Technical Institute in Concord.Eventually, other people in red shirts came and talked to the police and Veterans for Peace, Martel said. Once the last marchers passed, the Veterans for Peace marchers fanned the banner across Elm Street and continued down the street, the police car following behind.Martel said her 10- and 13-year-old daughters were shocked."They thought it was something that would happen in Russia," she said. But one spectator shouted a compliment to the police officer."The people in the crowd were as polarized as the whole country," Martel said.Joseph Turcotte of Manchester, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran who took part in the invasion of Iraq, was one of the Veterans for Peace members pulled out of the parade.He explained some of them were carrying protest signs that said, "Support the Troops, Bring Them Home."Turcotte said parade officials considered the signs politicial and inappropriate for the parade.Robert A. Howe, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran who served as one of the parade's coordinators, said he told Mike Lopez, master of ceremonies and an at-large alderman, and parade chairman Ronald Boisvert, about the protest signs.Howe said Lopez told Manchester Police Lt. Richard Valenti, who had Sgt. Bartlett talk to the peace veterans.Boisvert, when asked about the controversy, maintained the order came from Valenti. Both he and Lopez referred a reporter to Tony Karam, commander of the Manchester Veterans Council which sponsors the parade.Karam said protest signs are not allowed. Veterans for Peace, which has participated in the parade for several years, is aware of that rule, he said.Will Thomas of Auburn, a Cold War veteran and member of Veterans for Peace, said two years ago the group agreed not to march with protest signs. Last year, he said they did not bring protest signs.However, he said with polls showing 66 percent of the American people are against the war, some of the marchers brought signs stating, " Support the Troops, Bring them Home."Thomas said they agreed to put those signs away, but Bartlett insisted their Veterans for Peace banners were verboten as well."They actually threatened to arrest us," said Thomas, who last week was convicted of trespassing in Concord District Court for a peace protest sit-in at the office of Sen. Judd Gregg.Howe said it was all a misunderstanding. He said he talked with Bartlett, straightened out the situation and the small Veterans for Peace group, which included those who served during World War II as well as the Korean, Vietnam and Iraqi wars, was allowed back in.By then, however, they were at the tail end of the parade.They completed the march down Elm Street, from Webster Street to Veterans Park, and were met with sporadic applause.The desert camouflage Humvee and motor transport vehicle, however, were crowd pleasers and drew the loudest applause.

Request from a friend

The VA is reporting a random act of stolen electronic information from 26.5 million veterans. The government is asking veterans [since 1975] to call 1-800-FED-INFO and listen to the instructions from the automated person. If you want to speak with a representative, then you can just hit "0".
Can you please post this information on both your blog and website?

WW1 Vet still lives at 110

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/05/30/wwi_soldier_at_110_among_last_survivors_of_an_era/now this is a story worth reading, he served in France during WW1 and then served again in WW2, the things this man has seen many of us learned about in history class in the 50's and 60's and are not even taught any longer in elementary schools. True living history, talk about stamina.....SALUTE

Monday, May 29, 2006

from one of my fans lol

FIRST OF ALL MIKE I ASK YOU THIS QUESTION! FROM YOUR ARTICLE ON FORSAKEN VETERANS, ARE YOU NOT ANY BETTER THAN THOSE SORRY ASS PUKES (CHENEY & RUMSFELD) WHEN ALL YOU WANT IS AN APOLOGY FROM THEIR LYING LIPS? I SHOULD THINK AS A DISABLED VETERAN WRONGED BY THESE PUKES YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST TO HAVE THEM PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW, AS EVIDENCED BY THE NUREMBERG TRIALS. SECONDLY, I SHOULD THINK THAT YOU WOULD BE SCREAMING TO THE MASSES ABOUT THIS AS WELL AS WHAT HAS RECENTLY HAPPEND TO THE RECORDS OF 26 PLUS MILLIONS OF VETERANS!

JUST WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH EXPOSING THESE ROTTEN NO GOOD SORRY SONS OF BITCHES? YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I, THAT IF THE FACTS WERE KNOWN AND THE SUPPORT OF EVERY VETERAN ABLED OR DISABLED, PUBLICALLY MASSED ON MEDIA, THAT THE PRESSURE WOULD FORCE THEM TO ADMIT, MUCH LESS GET THEM PROSECUTED AND PUT WHERE THEY BELONG IN LOCAL PRISONS, NOT COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSES AT EGLIN ETC.

DEMAND FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FROM THOSE SORRY ASS PUKES COLLECTIVELY, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AS THE GOVERNMENT IS BEYOND BEING BANKRUPT AT PRESENT, AND WIPE OUT THE OUT DATED MANUAL OR CODES.

WITH REGARDS TO THOSE SORRY ASS PUKES I AM TALKING ABOUT EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM GOING BACK AS FAR AS POSSIBLE LIKE IT WAS DONE IN THE NUREMBURG TRIALS, AND BET ME YOU WOULD SEE A GOVERNMENT TAKE REAL NOTICE NOT JUST SWEEPING THINGS OUT THE BACK DOOR, HOPING IT WILL BE BLOWN AWAY WITH THE NEXT WIND! AS YOU WELL KNOW THE LONGER YOU TAKE IN GETTING IT ROLLING THE LESS CHANCE YOU WILL HAVE OF SUCCEEDING IN THE END AS THEY WILL EITHER HAVED DIED OFF OR ESCAPED TO POINTS BEYOND PROSECUTION BOUNDRIES.

IN CONCLUSION I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU GET OFF YOUR PITY ME TRIP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, OTHERWISE, RESIGN YOURSELF TO LETTING THESE PUKES GET AWAY WITH MASS MURDER!

SINCERELY,

President Bush says more must die to honor those already killed WTF?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900409.html In a Memorial Day Address at Arlington National Cemetary the most revered burial place for service members President Bush said we needed to persevere in the war on terror to honor those laready killed. How does getting more killed honor those already dead, that logic makes no sense. It's time to admit PNAC made some bad estimates about the end result and withdraw our forces from Iraq, and let the chips fall where they may. We can not force our style of government on other nations, they have to want it to start with, this was a PNAC initiated war, urged by Chalabi and friends in DOD until he fell out of grace, when they learned all of his "reports" were bogus, from his "spies" so now the solution is to stay the course and watch more of this nation's children die for "what"? Mr Bush's place in history?

DU Killing our Soldiers?

http://www.news-journalonline.com/special/uranium/Are U.S. soliders being killed by their own armor and weapons?
Dustin Brim went into the Army a healthy man. A year later, he returnedhome. His body was riddled with incurable cancer. Could his own weaponsand armor — made with a byproduct of enriched uranium — have been the cause please read the entire article and get educated about the effects of DU ask your elected officials to push for accountability on it's effects.

General Wesley Clark's Memorial Day Message

Last week, I returned to Kosovo for the first time since I retired from military service.
For me, this trip was very personal. In 1999, I commanded the NATO forces that stopped the genocide against ethnic Albanians by Slobodan Milosevic and his Serbian forces. Now Kosovo is on the road to independence, a nation that respects the rights of all its citizens. It was so moving to return to Kosovo and meet thousands of people who had been liberated from Serbian oppression, hearing their stories and learning about their experiences. You can see some of the photos from my recent trip here.
This was an example of how we CAN do it right: diplomacy first, strong leadership, working with others, and using force only as a last resort. We had a plan for what to do after the operation before we began air strikes.
During the Kosovo War, we were fortunate not to lose a single American soldier in combat -- but in most military operations we aren't so lucky. We owe the men and women of our armed forces our deepest gratitude for their willingness to serve in harm's way, whether it's protecting Americans during natural disasters here at home or defending our country and defending freedom abroad.
Today across America, we take time to remember those who have given their lives defending the cause of freedom throughout our nation's history. This year, as our soldiers are serving with honor in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the Balkans, and around the world, I hope you will join me in observing Memorial Day, whether it's attending an event in your local community or simply taking a personal moment to remember the men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country and to honor their families.
As this Memorial Day passes, I urge our leaders and all Americans to fully honor our troops and respect their sacrifice. That means ensuring our men and women in uniform are properly equipped, trained, and organized.
That means providing our troops and veterans the medical care they deserve, and providing Reservists and National Guard members health insurance for themselves and their families through TRICARE, the military's health care system, just as the active force does.
That means eliminating the "widow's tax," which penalizes the survivors of those killed in combat by reducing the benefits to which they are entitled.
Finally, as we embark upon our fourth year in Iraq and as the Bush Administration continues its heated rhetoric toward Iran, we owe it to all of our brave service men and women, their families, and to all Americans, to recommit to the principle that military force should only be used as the very, very last resort. Only when all diplomatic, economic, and political options have been exhausted should we send our military forces into battle.
After all, the greatest way to honor our men and women in uniform is to require their sacrifice the least.
Gert and I send you our very best wishes for a safe and happy Memorial Day.
Sincerely,
Wes Clark
Visit SecuringAmerica.com
Invite your friends and family to join WesPAC today! Tell-a-friend!
If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for WesPAC.
This message was sent to testvet@aol.com. Visit your subscription management page to modify your email communication preferences or update your personal profile. To stop ALL email from WesPAC, click to remove yourself from our lists (or reply via email with "remove" in the subject line).
Paid for by WesPAC -- Securing America's Future.Contributions and gifts made to WesPAC are nottax-deductible for federal income tax purposes.

Wage peace not war

These mist covered mountains Are a home now for me But my home is the lowlands And always will be Some day you'll return to Your valleys and your farms And you'll no longer burn To be brothers in arms
Through these fields of destruction Baptisms of fire I've watched all your suffering As the battles raged higher And though they did hurt me so bad In the fear and alarm
You did not desert me My brothers in arms
There's so many different worlds So many different suns And we have just one world But we live in different ones
Now the sun's gone to hell And the moon's riding high Let me bid you farewell Every man has to die But it's written in the starlight And every line on your palm We're fools to make war On our brothers in arms
Wage peace War is obsolete.

Missing Man Formation

I posted this before last night. It's a published poem of mine. This time, it's just for you.
Missing Man Formation Near Punchbowl National Cemetery, Honolulu (Memorial Day, 1985)
I come into the kitchen, call the children to the sound: at first only a quickening at the temples, then the rumble of swift descent, invisible, like sudden spring thunder. The girls hurry toward the urgency in my voice. Two clutch fans of dealt cards, one pulls a brush half-caught through her tangled morning hair. We press together at the opened door;
nearby, the mynahs chatter fiercely--their rustling display and shrill pitch in vain competition with the four planes that appear now. They fly so low toward the crater we see numbers distinct on their wings, the pilots' faces obscured only by speed and the sky's glare. And the children, who have never left anyone behind, neither in their hearts nor the earth, are surprised when one jet hooks
upward to trace the long gray arc of disappearance. And in the seconds that the jet's firm grace takes itself from us, they are not astonished, as I am, that loss, at this distance, takes on such beauty.
It is never too late to be what you might have been...George Eliot
by begone on Mon May 29, 2006 at 03:33:28 AM PDT

Memorial Day letter from Congressman Walter B. Jones

Dear Citizen:
As we each look back on the events and experiences in our lives, there are a handful of memories we cherish the most. As our nation looks forward to celebrating Memorial Day, I would like to share one of my most treasured experiences.
Like all members of Congress, I have visited wounded troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Hospital, and I have attended funerals of American military men and women who have lost their lives. It is a humbling experience to attend the funeral of a soldier who has given their life for this country, and equally humbling to talk to a soldier who has lost a leg.
One funeral in particular, a memorial ceremony in honor of Marine Sergeant Michael Bitz, is an experience I will remember for the rest of my life. Michael Bitz was a 31-year-old amphibian assault vehicle driver who was killed in Iraq in March 2003 while trying to evacuate wounded troops. It was an outside service held in my district on the grounds of Camp Lejeune, facing the banks of the New River.
I watched as Marines folded the flag that draped Michael's coffin, and presented it to his wife, Janina Bitz, who was seated next to me. When Janina stood and began reading from the last letter her husband sent her, it was obviously an emotional moment for everyone in attendance. This brave young Marine left behind a wife, a two-year-old son and a pair of newborn twins he never saw.
During the service, Michael's two-year-old son, Joshua, dropped a toy and a Marine gunny sergeant in dress uniform stooped to pick it up. As the Marine looked down and handed Joshua his toy, and the little boy looked up at him, it hit me - this child would never know his father.
That day was an awakening for me, as I realized the depth of the loss for families who have lost a loved one in the military. I was overwhelmed with appreciation.
As I drove 72 miles home to Farmville that day, I thought about what I just witnessed and began thinking of what God intended me to take from the experience. I felt that if everyone could see what I had seen, they couldn't help but view our brave military men and women with the same appreciation.
Shortly after Michael Bitz's funeral, I decided there was something I could do to show the families of our fallen troops that the gift of their loved one will never be forgotten. With the help of my staff, we began lining the hallway near my Capitol Hill office with posters bearing the "Faces of the Fallen" as a tribute to the troops who have given their lives in Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom.
Every day hundreds of visitors pass this display and many pause to look at the faces of the brave men and women who selflessly sacrificed their lives for our great nation and their fellow Americans. On more than one occasion, I have seen tears from visitors who are overcome with gratitude for the courage, bravery and dedication of these men and women who have died for their country.
To show my appreciation to these families in a more personal way, I have also felt called to write letters to the families of each U.S. soldier, sailor, and Marine killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In these letters, I share a quote by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a letter he sent to the family of a soldier killed in World War II: "He stands in the unbroken line of patriots who have dared to die, that freedom might live, and grow, and increase its blessings. Freedom lives, and through it, he lives - in a way that humbles the undertakings of most men."
These words are as fitting for today's heroes as they were for the heroes of yesterday.
Memorial Day is a day to reflect upon those who have given their lives in the past, as well as those in the present. This Memorial Day, I hope Americans will take time to remember and pay tribute to the men and women in uniform who have died serving their country. It is only because of their courage and their sacrifice that America is free.
May we never forget to say "Thank you."
Sincerely,Walter B. Jones

Sunday, May 28, 2006

words from CW3

I find it strange that the government now claims they are getting around to studying it again - will our new veterans have to wait for 30 some years before anyone decides that it actually does affect people and disable them? Will the claims be subjected to even more levels of scrutiny because all these vets are just frauds or malingering? If the VA cannot discourage enough veterans will they launch 3rd and 4th reviews to verify over and over what is already know to exist? Will the adjudication process simply wait until some sign of improvement is shown by the veteran to justify the extra low award that is given and state the veteran is expected to only get better?I really think the study is trying to simply determine which are the best drugs to apply in the "Medicate and Forget Them" policy that has be so consistently relied on in the past - That will also be the basis to announce that the veteran is now cured so there is no further need for disability payments - Any lie will work when the President's Prime Tax Cuts must be saved - :http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2755/context/archiveFemale Vets Come Home to Second War on TraumaRun Date: 05/28/06By Pamela BurkeWeNews correspondentMemorial Day offers time to remember U.S. casualties in Iraq and note that this war involves a historic number of women. Once home, many female survivors fight a second war against post-traumatic stress disorder. The VA is studying ways to help.SANTA CLARA, Calif. (WOMENSENEWS)--At a Rotary Club luncheon here recently, Major L. Tammy Duckworth showed a photo of the Black Hawk helicopter she was co-piloting in Iraq as an Army captain from the Illinois Army National Guard. Part of her mission on Nov. 12, 2004, was to drop candy and toys to children.An arrow pointed to the cockpit where she sat when the rocket-propelled grenade hit it and exploded.Duckworth woke up 10 days later at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., missing most of both legs, with a shattered right arm, limited movement in her left arm and hand."I was just in this despair when I thought I had crashed the helicopter," she said in an interview. "Later on, when I knew that we had been hit and that it wasn't a crash, I was relieved from the depression and all of the pain. I knew that I was fighting to do my job as a soldier and as a pilot until my last conscious breath."Duckworth, now running for an Illinois seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, is one of 11 female amputees to return from recent U.S. operations in Iraq and elsewhere.Women make up almost 15 percent of all active duty U. S. military personnel.Women are excluded by the Pentagon from front-line combat units, but improvised explosive devices, roadside bombs, and small arms fire have struck them and their vehicles from all sides.U.S. military action in Iraq has caused 2,460 U.S. military fatalities, according to Friday figures on Iraq Coalition Casualties, which operates a Web site that posts lists derived from deaths reported by the Department of Defense.That death toll includes 52 U.S. servicewomen who died in the Iraqi conflict, 34 by hostile fire. Seven more died as a result of operations in Afghanistan. One died on duty in Djibouti. These 60 deaths outnumber female fatalities in Korea, Viet Nam, and the first Iraq War combined.Wounded Women at Historic LevelThe numbers of wounded women and female amputees, meanwhile, are considerably less than their male counterparts--at least 378 wounded versus 17,490; 11 amputees versus over 400--but they are historic for modern day warfare.Many of the women wounded in the war undergo months of rehabilitation and face a second, psychological war. Also known as shell shock or combat fatigue, psychiatrists call it post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD.The Department of Veterans Affairs is currently spending $5 million for what it calls the largest clinical trial ever on psychotherapy for PTSD and the first to focus exclusively on female veterans with the disorder. Researchers recruited 284 women with current or past military experience and symptoms of the condition and tested two kinds of psychotherapy on them.A Pentagon study published in March on the mental health of soldiers returning from deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan found that more than one- third of U.S. soldiers received psychological counseling. A statistic buried in the study: 23.6 percent of women reported a mental health concern compared with 18.6 percent of men.Although strides are being made within the VA to treat PTSD, Duckworth says veterans and citizens must keep the pressure on."Parades are nice but if that person can't get help for her PTSD, you've not honored her sacrifice."One Woman Finds a Way to CopeAnn, a former supply sergeant in the National Guard, found a way to cope with her PTSD earlier this year. Although she's not ready for the public to know her real name, Ann believes in herself again after a long, uphill battle with the legacy of her time on the frontlines in Iraq.She told Women's eNews that she lived thru daily mortar attacks on her compound; duty at Abu Ghraib Prison when it was under constant fire; and the anxiety of avoiding roadside bombs while driving a five-ton truck to deliver food and equipment to troops in and outside Baghdad.She returned home in 2004 after a one-year tour of duty. The following year she was given an unexpected assignment. Her unit was sent to New Orleans, where, with no bullet-proof gear, she was threatened and shot at while patrolling streets."I had been struggling since I got back from the war," Ann remembers. "After the Katrina deployment, that tremendous fear for my life came back and it was the final straw."Following a lengthy and frustrating search for psychiatric help both in and outside of the VA, she finally was referred to the Women's Trauma Recovery Program in Menlo Park, Calif., a tiny, 60-day, 10-bed program hidden inside the VA's vast health care system.The program, which is included in the VA's Women's Mental Health Center and is part of the VA's National Center for PTSD, leads and explores cutting edge treatment for female veterans. It aims to boost women onto a recovery path and refer them to local healthcare providers to ensure continuity of treatment.Isolation on Home FrontTrauma survivors typically think that others can't possibly understand what they have experienced. They fear that if they share their deepest thoughts they will be rejected.Many veterans, especially those like Ann with children, survived in Iraq by blocking their feelings to get from day to day. Back in civilian life those defenses can cause them to suffer a sense of isolation from normal society. The recovery program addresses this by having patients relive their traumatic military experiences and discuss it with others trying to make the same transition. Vets who aren't ready to talk about their trauma concentrate on developing their interpersonal skills."These women are trying to reconcile the trauma they've seen in Iraq with our society which puts so much importance on where people get their hair cut," says Dr. Darrah Westrup, program director of the Women's Mental Health Center and the attending psychologist of the facility where Ann recovered. "They have been irrevocably changed and we have to help them believe that they still have a life here."As part of her recovery, Ann worked on a quilt. She stitched the phrase "Every day in every way I'm getting better" around a rainbow.She recently finished her treatment and is now one of almost 400 veterans from several wars to graduate from the Menlo Park program.She returned home to an office job with the military until she receives her discharge papers and to care for her two young children."It was hard on them for me to come to the center," she says. "I reminded them that it would make mommy better because I was sleeping 16-18 hours a day. I couldn't function. I thought it would be easier now that I'm home, but I'm taking it one day at a time."

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Gulf War One statistics: troublesome

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=000069;p=1#000000 the number shwon in this study has to make a sane person question if this many people can really all be "mentally" challenged or has the research data been manipulated to show no legitimate causes for all these real medical problems that are in the realm of know chemical weapons problems, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal and nuerological problems. There are two earlier health studies on chemical weapon exposures one bt eh National Institute of Health in January 1994 http://www.ehponline.org/members/1994/102-1/munro-full.html and then there is this German study based on WW2 Wermacht soldiers exposed to Sarin and Mustard agents during WW2 that were followed from 1945 thru 1975 by the German government http://www.sipri.org/contents/cbwarfare/Publications/pdfs/cw-delayed.pdf after seeing thse two reports I really have to question Doctor William Pages March 2003 IOM report that DOD commissioned to rebut claims that the Sarin and mustard agent exposures at Kamisayah in March 1991 has caused many of the GWS medical problems.

VA Colonel proclaims "Mad as Hell"

Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson said Thursday he is striving to find out why it took his agency two weeks to reveal the theft of personal data from 26.5 million veterans, telling Congress he is "mad as hell" that he wasn't told right away http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/05/25/ap2773085.html I am glad he is mad, but what is he going to do to FIX IT? As he was testifying we got another W moment in time, along the lnes of " A heck of a job Brownie" Tony Snow was telling the media that the President has full faith and confidence in Secretary Nicholson, I am glad he has, his data wasn't stolen as he was out before 1975, but my data as well as 26.5 million other veterans data is out there on the market so to speak, like a time bob just waiting to go off, and instead of offering us what companies do in data thefts, free credit checks, monitoring services etc, the VA wishes us luck that it won't be used against us, while protecting the employee who did this, they waited 19 days to even report it to the public and then have the nerve to state it was for "our" protection. The VA "Colonel" needs to be demoted, break his saber, rip the eagles off his uniform and throw his azz out the door. Does anyone in side the beltway have any "honor and dignity" left, is anyone responsible for anything, or is this the administration of "pass the buck" instead of "the buck stops here"?

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Senate Democrats on VA committee's 2007 request

March 2, 2006Views and Estimates Letter on the FY07 VA Budget Proposal - Signed by Ranking Member Akaka, Senator Jeffords, and the Democratic Members of the Senate Committee on Veterans' AffairsThe Honorable Judd GreggChairman The Honorable Kent ConradRanking Member Committee on the BudgetUnited States SenateWashington, DC 20510Dear Chairman Gregg and Senator Conrad: Pursuant to Section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Democratic Members and Senator Jeffords of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs (hereinafter the “Undersigned Members”) hereby report to the Committee on the Budget their views and estimates on the fiscal year 2007 (hereinafter, "FY07") budget for Function 700 (Veterans' Benefits and Services) and for Function 500 (Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services) programs within the Committee’s jurisdiction. This letter responds to the Committee’s obligation to provide recommendations on veterans' programs within its jurisdiction, albeit from the perspective of the Undersigned Members. I. SUMMARYThe Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) requires, at a minimum, $3.45 billion in additional funding in FY07 to support its medical care operations. Our requested medical services increase is $1.49 billion over the Administration’s request. Once again, the Administration’s proposed budget includes a number of legislative proposals designed to generate additional savings and revenue. The Undersigned Members unanimously reject each of the legislative proposals – the increase in prescription drug copayments from $8 to $15 for “middle-income” veterans; the annual enrollment fee of $250 for “middle-income” veterans; and eliminating the practice of offsetting VA first-party copayment debts with collections from insurance companies.With respect to benefits, we disagree with the amount requested for staff at the Veterans Benefits Administration for compensation and pension, and at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. We also recommend additional funding for the Department of Labor’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service. In addition, we believe it is time to provide non-service connected pension for Filipino veterans who served alongside American troops during World War II. The projections for discretionary account spending in the outyears are disturbing. The VA health care system would be decimated should the Administration’s budget for future years become a reality. It is our view that veterans, who have sacrificed for this country, are carrying a disproportionate share of the burden to balance the Federal budget. We believe that the Government can be fiscally responsible and reduce the Federal deficit and debt, and still fulfill our commitment to our Nation’s veterans. The cost of war must include the costs of caring for servicemembers when they return home.II. DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNT SPENDING A. Proposed Medical Services While we generally agree with the Administration on the level of funding required to support VA health care, we differ on the amount that needs to come from actual appropriated dollars, relative to the amount that can be garnered directly from veterans in the form of new fees and increased copayments, or “saved” by the use of less than concrete efficiencies.Prescription Drug Copayment Increase for Priority 7 and 8 Veterans: The Undersigned Members oppose the Administration’s increase to this copayment from $8 to $15, for a projected savings of $355 million from increased revenue and decreased enrollment of these categories of veterans. In large measure, Priority 7 and 8 veterans – earning as little as $26,902 – cannot afford to pay almost double for needed prescription drugs. $250 Enrollment Fee for Priority 7 and 8 Veterans: The Undersigned Members oppose the Administration’s new enrollment fee of $250, for a projected savings of $410 million from increased revenue and decreased enrollment of these categories of veterans. Again, this proposal is targeted at “middle-income” veterans, and we believe it is an unacceptable financing mechanism.Offset of First-Party Debt: The Undersigned Members of the Committee oppose a change in law which would eliminate the practice of offsetting or reducing VA first-party copayment debts with recoveries from insurance companies. Presumably, many of these veterans were drawn to VA because of low-cost prescription drugs. Yet, in most cases, acquiring these drugs requires visits to a specialty care provider. The vast majority of these veterans are elderly and on a fixed income. They are not "high-income" by any local economic standard but are certainly over the "means test" threshold. While the current primary care copayment of $15 is in line with most private insurance companies, VA's specialty care copayment is $50 per visit. The amount is high enough to be an instant disincentive to seeking medical care in VA. VA estimates this change would yield $31 million in increased collections.Efficiencies: The Administration is estimating cumulative efficiencies of $1.1 billion in FY07, which results in an additional $138 million in efficiencies for the medical services account. At the request of the Committee’s Ranking Member, the General Accounting Office performed an audit of VA’s management efficiency savings claimed for FYs03-06. GAO reported VA lacked a methodology for making these assumptions and found that the Department could not support its own estimates. VA has termed these efficiencies as “clinical” rather than “management” this year, but regardless of their classification, they should not be used to offset increased appropriations until such time as they are verifiable.1. Current Services (+$892 million)Payroll inflation, increases in the costs of goods, and other “uncontrollables” dictate funding increases of at least $892 million in FY07 simply to maintain the level of current services. VA’s medical care payroll costs will increase by $458 million in FY07 due to non-optional cost-of-living and within-grade salary and wage adjustments, as well as increases in government-paid Social Security, health insurance, retirement, and other benefits. The cost of inflation and rate changes for goods and services (including pharmaceuticals) dictates the need for an additional $434 million in funding in FY07.We are concerned that the Administration has not adequately budgeted for enough physicians and nurses to meet the increased demand for veterans seeking VA medical care in FY07. The number of physicians, Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, Licensed Vocational Nurses, and Nursing Assistants in the Medical Services account has remained nearly flat since the FY05 budget submission. Although the FY07 budget shows a net increase of 100 Physicians (12,337 to12,437), there has been no increase in the number of Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, Licensed Vocational Nurses, and Nursing Assistants. VA should make the establishment of a national nurse staffing standard a high priority and budget funds accordingly to accelerate the completion.2. Rescinding the Ban on Priority 8 Veterans (+$706 million)VA has seen a substantial increase in enrollment, especially in the number of “middle- income” veterans – those whose financial means are above the HUD geographical low-income threshold for their respective counties. In January 2003, the Administration halted enrollment for Priority 8 veterans.The Administration’s request for FY07 assumes the enrollment ban on Priority 8 veterans will continue. The Undersigned Members estimate that new resources of $706 million are needed to restore access for these veterans. We believe veterans needing VA care should not be prohibited from enrolling in the system. Indeed, adequate appropriated funding should be provided to VA so that all veterans have access to VA services. Additionally, many of these veterans bring health care coverage with them and continue to pay copayments for care and drugs, so, in effect, they actually bring revenue into the system, offsetting the cost of their care. We can think of no other health care system which discourages insured patients from seeking care.The Undersigned Members believe it is important to note that this cost estimate would be reduced if the ban was actually rescinded, due to the fact that the Priority 8 veterans who would come into the system would bring their third-party insurance with them, in addition to paying copayments for their care and prescription drugs. Both of these factors would generate revenue that would offset VA’s obligations. 3. Demand Changes (+$1.726 billion)In large measure, we support the Administration’s estimated cost for demand and case mix changes for all veterans’ priorities ($1.495 billion). It is abundantly clear that veterans are relying heavily upon VA for pharmaceuticals. In addition, older veterans present for care with debilitating and chronic conditions requiring a higher – and more expensive – level of care. We would also like to address the issue of returning servicemembers, as we believe the Administration is once again underestimating demand. VA has estimated that any potential workload from OIF/OEF will be negligible relative to the overall number of new enrollees each year. Such veterans cost VA $232 million to treat in FY05, and ultimately required an increase of that same amount in FY06 for a total funding level of $464 million. We believe that VA should keep their level of funding for treating these veterans in FY07 consistent with the current fiscal year, as these returning servicemembers are entitled to a two-year "automatic" window of eligibility for VA care upon their separation from service (Public Law 105-368). As such, we recommend a total funding level of $696 million for treating OIF/OEF veterans under current law, for an increase of $231.7 million over FY06.4. New Initiatives (+$123 million)The Undersigned Members of the Committee accept the Administration’s proposed new initiatives. While we support each of these initiatives, we believe that more can and should be done – especially in the areas of readjustment counseling and rehabilitative care. The first is critically important for returning OIF/OEF servicemembers; the second is a lifeline for veterans of all ages.Vet Centers. As the War on Terrorism continues, the number of veterans seeking readjustment counseling and related mental health services through Vet Centers will continue to grow. Experts predict that as many as 30 percent of those returning servicemembers may need some kind of mental health treatment – from basic readjustment counseling to care for debilitating PTSD. Furthermore, a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 35 percent of Iraq veterans received mental health care during their first year home. Despite increases in the number of veterans coming for care to Vet Centers, the budget for the program has remained relatively stagnant. We note that legislation to authorize $180 million in funding for Vet Centers passed the full Senate last December. We therefore recommend that Vet Centers receive a funding increase of $81 million above FY06 to meet that end.Rehabilitation. The Administration is projecting a decrease in the average daily census for its residential rehabilitation care program. We believe that the rate of spending for this account should maintain the same rate of growth as in previous years. Rehabilitative care programs offer a full range of rehabilitation services in a supportive environment, with minimal medical care. We recommend an increase of $42 million for this program.Our overall views on medical spending are summarized in the chart below:Current Services$458 million -Salary and wage adjustments and increases in benefits$434 million - Inflation and rate changes for goods and services$892 million - Subtotal Current Services $706 million - Restoring Enrollment to Priority 8 Veterans Demand$1.495 billion - Administration’s Estimate for Demand$231 million - OEF/OIF Workload$1.726 billion - Subtotal Demand New Initiatives$81 million - Vet Centers (Readjustment Counseling)$42 million - Rehabilitative Care$123 million - Subtotal New Initiatives $3.45 billion -Total New Funding Needed for FY07 B. Proposed Discretionary Spending for FY08-FY11The Administration’s proposed budget for discretionary spending in the near term lays out a financial path which would devastate VA health care. The cuts over five years would total $10.3 billion, including $789 million in FY08; $2.33 billion in FY09; $4.033 billion in FY10; and $4.94 billion in FY11.We are fully cognizant that the proposed budget contains assumptions about future years. Nevertheless, we view the current strategy as one which gives in the first year and cuts heavily thereafter. Veterans groups know and understand that a frozen appropriation coupled with cuts in other programs will translate into a reduction of services and benefits. Any budget resolution must reverse these cuts in the future years.C. Medical and Prosthetic ResearchThe Administration's proposed FY07 budget for the direct costs of VA research is $399 million, representing a $13 million cut from the current year level of $412 million. This sum is insufficient to sustain current research initiatives or to provide the program growth necessary to attract and retain quality clinical staff; rather, it would result in the direct loss of 96 projects and 286 FTE. We believe that an additional $35.7 million to the Administration’s proposal is required to sustain the current VA research and development program commitments and cover inflationary cost increases associated with these commitments. This will ensure that VA is able to continue addressing the special needs of our country’s veterans, and enable VA to continue to recruit and retain the highest quality physicians. Therefore, we recommend a total funding level of at least $434.7 million to maintain current services and avoid any personnel or project cuts. D. Grants for State Extended Care Facilities (SECF)The Administration is proposing a funding level of $85 million in FY07 for the SECF Grant program, the exact same amount that VA estimates it will spend on the program in the current fiscal year. The Undersigned Members believe that this program should receive a slightly higher level of funding, as it is a cost-effective and successful long-term care program.SECF’s provide long-term care services to over 27,000 veterans in 119 locations across 47 States and Puerto Rico. Construction matching grants are awarded both for new construction in States with the highest needs as defined by P.L. 106-117, and for repair, renovation, or expansion of existing State Homes. Federal construction grants fund up to 65% of the cost of construction, with States contributing at least 35% of the total cost. In FY06, the Administration proposed zeroing-out the funding for the construction grant program from $104.3 million in FY05. Congress rejected this proposal, although the final appropriation level was reduced by $19.3 million to $85 million. With construction costs rising, and at least $237 million in pending SECF construction grant requests already approved by States, the Undersigned Members recommend that FY07 funding for SECF Construction Grants be increased from the FY05 baseline to account for inflation costs (current annual CPI index of 4%, accounting for $4.2 million of the increase), then by $19.3 million to restore the cut in FY06; for a total FY07 funding request of $127.8 million. This amounts to a net $23.8 million increase above the Administration's FY07 request of $85 million.E. Compensation and Pension ServiceVA anticipates an end-of-fiscal year 2007 pending workload of 396,834 receipts. Despite this projected inventory, the Administration’s budget would cut direct compensation staff by 149. We do not believe that VA can manage this increased workload without additional staff.VA has stated that caseload from the Vietnam and Gulf War eras is increasing rapidly and that this trend is expected to continue through the budget year. Additionally, the best indicator of new claims activity is the size of the active duty force. Over 616,000 veterans of the Gulf War era are in receipt of benefits from VA. More than one million servicemembers have deployed in support of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. Therefore, we can expect a large number of new claims as a result of these ongoing conflicts. These new veterans deserve to have their claims rated timely and accurately. We recommend an additional 200 FTE for direct compensation work. This number would help to reduce the expected end-of-fiscal year 2007 backlog. We ask for an additional $17.1 million to accomplish this goal.F. Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment We support the provision in the budget that increases staffing by 130 FTE over the FY 2006 level for VR&E to fully implement the Employment Coordinator position for the Job Resource Labs. The additional FTE will aid in the implementation of the Five-Track Employment Model, which was suggested in the Department’s April 2004 Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Task Force report.Additionally, VR&E’s workload is expected to increase 2.5 percent in 2007 as a result of the VBA-wide effort to increase outreach activities to separating servicemembers. VR&E expects more veterans to utilize their services as the number of wounded veterans from Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom increases. We will monitor staffing needs at VR&E to ensure that our disabled veterans are receiving the assistance necessary to enable them to become employable and maintain that employment, or achieve, to the maximum extent practicable, independent living. G. InsuranceVA’s insurance division is continually recognized for its excellent, professional service provided to veterans, active duty servicemembers, and their beneficiaries. We support the Administration’s request for this division.H. Housing Housing is one of the best-run VA divisions. VA helps veterans and active duty personnel purchase and retain homes in recognition of their service. However, we take note of the decrease of 17 FTE and will monitor whether Housing is able to continue its high standard of service given that VA expects more eligibles to take advantage of the loan guaranty as interest rates continue to rise. Additionally, VA anticipates defaults and foreclosures to increase consistent with the high volume of loans guaranteed in 2002 and 2003. We applaud VA’s efforts to assist veterans with foreclosure avoidance. We look forward to obtaining statistics on active duty military personnel and veterans who could not have purchased homes but for VA assistance.I. Board of Veterans’ AppealsThe Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) is responsible for making final Departmental decisions on behalf of the Secretary for the thousands of claims for veterans’ benefits presented for appellate review. There is a glaring problem with BVA’s appeal resolution time despite its decrease from 622 days in 2005 to 600 days in 2006. The numbers are not expected to improve to the strategic target of 365 days (from receipt of the Notice of Disagreement to rendering of final decision) in the near future. While the Administration’s request of $55,309,000 would support 444 FTE, we recommend BVA be provided with 25 more employees at $2,875,000 above the Administration’s budget to reduce the backlog at BVA and decrease the average days pending.J. EducationWe support the Administration’s request of $90.1 million in discretionary funding for educational assistance administered by VA. The proposal calls for an increase of 46 FTE over the fiscal year 2006 level for a total of 930 FTE for fiscal year 2007. Education claims rose by 35 percent between fiscal year 2002 and 2004. We believe the additional FTE will increase the timeliness of education claims’ processing.K. Office of the Inspector GeneralThe work of the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) has made significant contributions to management effectiveness throughout VA. Its independent oversight of VA’s programs and activities has resulted in a return on investment over the last three years of $128 for every $1 spent. Given the diverse and complex nature of VA’s significant and important mission, the VA could effectively utilize $10 million over the Administration’s request to improve service to our Nation’s veterans. We recommend that $4.3 million be used to support 20 additional FTE in the Fugitive Felon Program, and $5.7 million be utilized to support 51 FTE that would expand OIG oversight.In the Fugitive Felon Program to date, using about 17 FTE, the VA OIG identified $218.2 million in estimated erroneous payments, $237.3 million in estimated cost avoidance, and 1159 arrests– including 73 VA employees. We estimate that the additional $4.3 million and 20 FTE could result in cost avoidance reaching $209.6 million and 1100 arrests per year, as law enforcement agencies issue an estimated 2 million new felony warrants a year. These 51 FTE would support additional auditors, healthcare inspectors, and criminal investigators to focus on enhanced quality and safety of health care including issues of credentialing and privileging, identity theft to obtain medical care, and drug diversion; and systemic audits to improve financial management controls, information technology security, claims processing timeliness and accuracy, and procurement practices. L. Department of Labor, Veterans’ Employment and Training VA estimates that one in three homeless Americans has served their country in the Armed Services. Congress established the Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program (HVRP) in 1987 amid concerns that the number of homeless veterans has risen steadily since the Vietnam War. HVRP provides competitive grants to community-based organizations to offer outreach, job placement, and supportive services to homeless veterans. Homelessness presents a high barrier to employment, and homeless reintegration programs help break down that barrier with specialized support unavailable through other programs. HVRP also offers specialized support to compliment its employment services for many veterans who have been turned away from other programs because of substance abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder.The Department of Labor estimates that 16,250 homeless veterans will be served through HVRP at its fiscal year 2006 appropriated level of $21.78 million, nearly the same amount requested in the fiscal year 2007 request. This figure represents just 4 percent of the overall homeless veteran population, which VA estimates to be more than 400,000 over the course of a year. While the fiscal year 2006 appropriation was the most received by HVRP in any fiscal year, it funds the program at only 44 percent of the authorized level. An appropriation at the authorized level of $50 million would enable HVRP grantees to reach an estimated 36,820 homeless veterans. Therefore, we request an additional $28 million for HVRP. We additionally recognize that VETS would benefit from an additional $12 million for Veterans Workforce Investment Grants (VWIP) and the National Veterans’ Training Institute (NVTI). Give the unemployment rate for young veterans, VWIP should continue to expand its efforts to target recently separated veterans. Those involved in the delivery of services to veterans must be adequately trained. We expect that with additional funding, NVTI will develop new courses based on the Jobs for Veterans Act.III. MANDATORY ACCOUNT SPENDINGWe support the budget request of $42.1 billion for entitlement programs, and request an additional $106 million for non-service connected pension for Filipinos who served alongside U.S. servicemembers during World War II. This Administration’s requested increase in mandatory funds provides for a 2.6 percent cost of living adjustment in 2006. A 2.6 percent increase is the expected increase estimated in the Consumer Price Index and is the same increase expected for Social Security benefits. Other than the cost-of-living increase, there were no other legislative proposals for this mandatory account in the President’s budget. IV. CLOSINGWe thank the Budget Committee for its attention to the Undersigned Members’ views and estimates of the Administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget, and we look forward to working with the Committee in crafting a budget for VA that truly meets the needs of our nation’s veterans.

Staggering number of GW vets get compensation

Additionally, the best indicator of new claims activity is the size of the active duty force. Over 616,000 veterans of the Gulf War era are in receipt of benefits from VA. More than one million servicemembers have deployed in support of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. Therefore, we can expect a large number of new claims as a result of these ongoing conflicts. These new veterans deserve to have their claims rated timely and accurately. We recommend an additional 200 FTE for direct compensation work. This number would help to reduce the expected end-of-fiscal year 2007 backlog. We ask for an additional $17.1 million to accomplish this goal.

Link to the Courant newspaper article

http://www.courant.com/news/specials/hc-mental1a.artmay14,0,6150281.story This is one of the most comprehensive artcle seen on PTSD and the effects it is having during the current Global War of Terror or as W now tries to proclaim it WW3.

The recent VA debacle

Hi - hope this will get passed up to my elected officials -I love this quote: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,98337,00.html?ESRC=eb.nlAfter the incident, the employee promptly informed the VA, which did not tell FBI until late last week, according to two law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk publicly about the investigation.Again this just shows the total disregard at all levels of rules and regulations routinely practiced by federal employees. Obviously something has got to start changing. Does anyone seriously expect us to accept statements that will not be owned up to? Now the media will probably have a field day creating more angst among the veterans.Another quote:"This is a scandal," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in a briefing with reporters. "The information was kept from the American public. I would hope that the administration is figuring out a way to find out what happened and then find out some way to make sure that all these veterans are made whole."Here is a hint to " make sure that all these veterans are made whole. " Pass Mandatory Funding for veterans healthcare. At the very least schedule an up or down vote immediately in the US House and Senate or are the Republicans simply too cowardly to show their true levels of support? Demand that veterans can now at least be assured that there health care will be provided.Stop the piling on by muckrakers with their own agendas and the drooling dribble of various details - that will do no good for the victims of this crime - just fire the VA Colonel who failed to cover up this mess (thankfully) and hold the government accountable for all the problems (if any) that will be created later. Publish a report that identifies the scope of the damage and enact special penalties that can be applied to any future conviction if the victim is a veteran.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

A Friends view on Attorneys for Veterans

The expressed editorial opinion from the National Adjutant of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), Mr. Arthur H. Wilson, is all well and good in so far as it highlights the issue underlying the claims process. The incredibly long amount of time that it takes for a claim to be processed within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). To quote from the article, " The real issues are the timeliness and accuracy of the decisions handed down by VA claims workers. " Yet this does not even begin to address the other issues that are so numerous that they are also staggering obstacles for a veteran to overcome. Yes, I realize that this may sound like a whacked out - unreasonable veteran simply howling at the moon. I am sure that many will try to discredit me (after all I am a VA mental case for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rated at a hundred percent-total and permanent), and they will assail the points that I wish to put forward. Some may even go so far as to characterize this as an attack upon a national Veteran Service Organization (VSO) because they will misconstrue what I am trying to point out, and attempt to redefine my words to suit their own purpose. But I am willing to bet that there are a whole bunch of other veterans who actually have the same sentiments.I reiterate that I am not trying to attack any organization, but simply point out that there is a vast underlying discontent with a system that is so broken it should not be propped up with a few self serving remarks from a national level official of a veteran service organization that is existing only to serve its own interests despite any claims of altruism they may wish to profess. After all, why would a national service organization advocate a position that will ultimately restrict the options available to a veteran? And for the question as to why a veteran should pay for assistance, the answer is simple. He is already paying in so many unmeasured ways beyond reason in the incredible delays that are forced upon him. This mandatory waiting has become a routine factor in the claims process. Also I must question why Mr. Wilson is claiming that only " some attorneys advocate changing the system. " I would also require positive proof that attorneys are somehow cherry picking easy wins as implied in the statement that they " have the luxury of hand picking their clients. "This is especially so in light of his further statement as to the favorable percentage rates in performance of veteran service organizations when compared to lawyers. It could just as easily be stated that this result on the very face of it seems to indicate that attorneys may in fact be choosing to represent the more difficult cases. The veteran service offices clearly have the luxury of defining a loss as a lack of validity in the veteran's claim, and yet demand that the attorneys must now surpass some unspecified standard until now even unstated and that they be more successful. It is also unrealistic to expect that the probably inadequate statistics compiled to date will actually maintain any conclusions that may be based solely upon someone's conjecture. Not even the VA continues to keep statistical records on the numbers of claims that are denied as was reported in the VA Inspector General Report that was the smoke screen used to justify an unconscionable position that ALL claims for PTSD must now undergo an unscrupulous secondary review process before being granted. This was further described as a reasonable position because any claims that would result in a rating of 100 percent disability must also undergo a secondary inquisition. Therefore one injustice is cited as permission to commit another. Yet, the DAV does not stand up and adequately rail against this preposterous barrier to fairness in the claims process, nor has there been a continuous denunciation of those responsible for turning the " advocacy " process into one of a guaranteed adversarial contest.However, the DAV argument proffered by Mr. Wilson assumes that all veterans will actually have access to a qualified representative. This is a dubious assertion at best in light of recent reporting that the DAV just closed one office at a medical center in Texas. Why would any veterans service organization seek to limit the type and scope of representation that a veteran may choose from the myriad of possible selections? Does it not make more sense for an organization that is supposedly in existence to ensure that all veterans can obtain fair treatment from the government to celebrate anytime a veteran is successful in his claims regardless of the manner in which the individual was represented? Furthermore, if the DAV were to actually be a little more forward thinking on this issue, there are probably many attorneys who are at best reluctant to take on this type of claim, and would actually welcome someone's expertise in this field. If the DAV could then provide a type of para-legal service to those attorney offices at a rate of five or ten percent of the total fees collected, then the DAV could also have a wonderful new source of funding. Naturally, this would also mean that the claim must be won, and that the consequence would be the DAV is not paid if the veteran does not win. That extra bit of motivation (money) might even be a determining factor in raising the current DAV success levels that are claimed to be better than that of the average attorney practicing law.At any rate the real winner will still be the individual veteran. So again I ask why is a national veteran service organization opposed to permitting a veteran to simply exercise a freely made choice in selection of his advocate? Will we now see various national organizations make claims as to why people should join their crew simply because they have a higher rate of success in the claims process as compared to others? I happen to sense that there must be something drastically wrong in an organization that seems proud to report a record of less than a 20 percent success rate in the appeals process.Furthermore, the current DAV service officer in Sioux Falls, SD is apparently so universally disliked that few if any veterans will be happy with any results obtained. And also it must be pointed out that this NSO is virtually unassailable. If he simply decides that he does not like the veteran, then what controls are in place to stop him from simply screwing up the entire claim, and report that the veteran's case obviously has no merit. In short it is nothing more than this is what you get-if you don't like it, then lump it in with all of life's other dissapointments. At this point in dealing with the entire VA system, absolutely nothing would surprise me. There is no advocacy anywhere, just the lip service provided during the claims processing.

A Friends take on the Attorney Issue for Veterans

The expressed editorial opinion from the National Adjutant of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), Mr. Arthur H. Wilson, is all well and good in so far as it highlights the issue underlying the claims process. The incredibly long amount of time that it takes for a claim to be processed within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). To quote from the article, " The real issues are the timeliness and accuracy of the decisions handed down by VA claims workers. " Yet this does not even begin to address the other issues that are so numerous that they are also staggering obstacles for a veteran to overcome. Yes, I realize that this may sound like a whacked out - unreasonable veteran simply howling at the moon. I am sure that many will try to discredit me (after all I am a VA mental case for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rated at a hundred percent-total and permanent), and they will assail the points that I wish to put forward. Some may even go so far as to characterize this as an attack upon a national Veteran Service Organization (VSO) because they will misconstrue what I am trying to point out, and attempt to redefine my words to suit their own purpose. But I am willing to bet that there are a whole bunch of other veterans who actually have the same sentiments.I reiterate that I am not trying to attack any organization, but simply point out that there is a vast underlying discontent with a system that is so broken it should not be propped up with a few self serving remarks from a national level official of a veteran service organization that is existing only to serve its own interests despite any claims of altruism they may wish to profess. After all, why would a national service organization advocate a position that will ultimately restrict the options available to a veteran? And for the question as to why a veteran should pay for assistance, the answer is simple. He is already paying in so many unmeasured ways beyond reason in the incredible delays that are forced upon him. This mandatory waiting has become a routine factor in the claims process. Also I must question why Mr. Wilson is claiming that only " some attorneys advocate changing the system. " I would also require positive proof that attorneys are somehow cherry picking easy wins as implied in the statement that they " have the luxury of hand picking their clients. "This is especially so in light of his further statement as to the favorable percentage rates in performance of veteran service organizations when compared to lawyers. It could just as easily be stated that this result on the very face of it seems to indicate that attorneys may in fact be choosing to represent the more difficult cases. The veteran service offices clearly have the luxury of defining a loss as a lack of validity in the veteran's claim, and yet demand that the attorneys must now surpass some unspecified standard until now even unstated and that they be more successful. It is also unrealistic to expect that the probably inadequate statistics compiled to date will actually maintain any conclusions that may be based solely upon someone's conjecture. Not even the VA continues to keep statistical records on the numbers of claims that are denied as was reported in the VA Inspector General Report that was the smoke screen used to justify an unconscionable position that ALL claims for PTSD must now undergo an unscrupulous secondary review process before being granted. This was further described as a reasonable position because any claims that would result in a rating of 100 percent disability must also undergo a secondary inquisition. Therefore one injustice is cited as permission to commit another. Yet, the DAV does not stand up and adequately rail against this preposterous barrier to fairness in the claims process, nor has there been a continuous denunciation of those responsible for turning the " advocacy " process into one of a guaranteed adversarial contest.However, the DAV argument proffered by Mr. Wilson assumes that all veterans will actually have access to a qualified representative. This is a dubious assertion at best in light of recent reporting that the DAV just closed one office at a medical center in Texas. Why would any veterans service organization seek to limit the type and scope of representation that a veteran may choose from the myriad of possible selections? Does it not make more sense for an organization that is supposedly in existence to ensure that all veterans can obtain fair treatment from the government to celebrate anytime a veteran is successful in his claims regardless of the manner in which the individual was represented? Furthermore, if the DAV were to actually be a little more forward thinking on this issue, there are probably many attorneys who are at best reluctant to take on this type of claim, and would actually welcome someone's expertise in this field. If the DAV could then provide a type of para-legal service to those attorney offices at a rate of five or ten percent of the total fees collected, then the DAV could also have a wonderful new source of funding. Naturally, this would also mean that the claim must be won, and that the consequence would be the DAV is not paid if the veteran does not win. That extra bit of motivation (money) might even be a determining factor in raising the current DAV success levels that are claimed to be better than that of the average attorney practicing law.At any rate the real winner will still be the individual veteran. So again I ask why is a national veteran service organization opposed to permitting a veteran to simply exercise a freely made choice in selection of his advocate? Will we now see various national organizations make claims as to why people should join their crew simply because they have a higher rate of success in the claims process as compared to others? I happen to sense that there must be something drastically wrong in an organization that seems proud to report a record of less than a 20 percent success rate in the appeals process.Furthermore, the current DAV service officer in Sioux Falls, SD is apparently so universally disliked that few if any veterans will be happy with any results obtained. And also it must be pointed out that this NSO is virtually unassailable. If he simply decides that he does not like the veteran, then what controls are in place to stop him from simply screwing up the entire claim, and report that the veteran's case obviously has no merit. In short it is nothing more than this is what you get-if you don't like it, then lump it in with all of life's other dissapointments. At this point in dealing with the entire VA system, absolutely nothing would surprise me. There is no advocacy anywhere, just the lip service provided during the claims processing.

Monday, May 22, 2006

Veterans Data stolen 26.5 Million

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/22/vets.data.reut/ in a theft of all data for america's veterans names, SSAN etc a identitiy thiefs dream cache.....how long did it take this person to download this much data and why wasn't he caught doing it?

The Ins and Outs of PTSD

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000004;p=1#000001 This link is one of the most comprehensive listings of how to file a PTSD claim with the VA and with links and resources for treatment assistance for the problem

Sunday, May 21, 2006

New Mexico Honors Vietnam Veterans

http://www.gallupindependent.com/2006/may/052006vvmgr.html in a grand way the state of New Mexico has commemorated a new monumnet to the men of New Mexico that served this nation in Vietnam, when a picture becomes available I will get a link posted to it.

How Iowa deals with PTSD

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060521/NEWS11/605210341/1001/NEWS&lead=1 Many states could learn a lot about how to deal with combat veterans returning home from war, by watching how Iowa has dealt with it, you have to be pro-active, due to the warrior culture soldiers are not usually going to say Hey I have a problem, I need help, by the time that happens it is already to late, in my case it took 32 years and 4 marriages, I wish these programs had been around years ago, I might have enjoyed life more, read and learn. Please help them help you

Rep. Murtha and Haditha

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,97896,00.html?ESRC=eb.nlAnybody up for bets on this one?? Think back to My Lai and 1Lt Calley - - so who is the guy going to be that takes the fall on this one? Think Bush and Rumsfeld will actually let it go up the chain? Or will some 2LT be sacrificed as the scape goat for Bush's War Crimes ??Now don't get me wrong - this was in fact wrong - should be investigated - tried by court martial - and convictions to follow --- just like the CW3 who was convicted for the murder of his subject undergoing interrogation techniques - they will probably get a letter of reprimand - I guess that is probably fair because they were just following orders that included the demand that they show everyone who was the new sheriff in town.

Purple Hearts for PTSD ?

http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/theheart.htmWar related PTSD is a psychological-rooted condition that may or may not manifest physical symptoms based on a singular or multiple incidents resulting from real, imagined, or combination of real and imagined memories that an individual claims or believes they are unable (or unwilling) to resolve unless perpetual therapeutic and/or financial assistance is provided them. However, regardless of any physical ailments or manifestations associated with war-related PTSD this psychologically based condition is neither a wound nor injury caused by enemy or friendly fire. PTSD is a negative by-product of a human memory phenomenon that occurs normally but can some times be attached by the individual to an unwanted memory or series of conscious or unconscious memories that if obsessed can lead to physical symptoms such as irritability, sleeplessness, bedwetting, aberrant, unsociable or anti-social behavior, etc. PTSD is strictly an individual condition that is not shared by everyone experiencing the same or similar wartime incidents. That is, if all members of a platoon are shot at the same time by an enemy they will all suffer gunshot wounds. But if all members of a platoon experience a psychologically upsetting situation not all will later claim symptoms typically diagnosed as PTSD. Lastly, the physical symptoms claimed by PTSD petitioners were never medically certified at the time the claimant asserts precipitated them. Both the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress have relied on objective scientific studies to conclude that PTSD is neither an enemy or friendly fire inflicted wound or injury. The Department of Veterans Affairs provides treatment and/or compensation for diagnosed cases of PTSD. No United States military medal has ever been established by DOD or Congress for post-service psychological based symptomatic disorders. Previous petitions by veterans or veterans groups to make this condition eligible for a new or existing medal were not approved.

Saturday, May 20, 2006

VDBC Votes 11-2 to check SSD payments and reasons

http://www.vawatchdog.org/old%20newsflashes%20MAY%2006/newsflash05-21-2006-7.htm well that damn camel got his nose under the tent flap, I can see huge prolems coming if Congress does not become Democrat in Jan 2007, we can see where the republicans put their priorities tax cuts for the rich, it sure in't on disabled veterans. As they pointed out we that draw SSD and VA comp are only 15% of the vet population drawing SSD, so we are a vulnerable group, if they get us this time who's next, everyone getting less than 50%? Once they get a taste of blood, they always want more...

widows can appeal denials of SC death benefits

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/lifestyle_columnists/article/0,1375,VCS_432_4713139,00.html This is an article that is written by a retired Colonel that is the Veteran Service Officer (VSO) for Ventura County California other good info to.

House approves 12% increase for vets's healthcare

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/20/house_oks_12_increase_on_veteran_health_benefits/ this article from the Boston Globe explains the amounts and where the money is supposed to go, it also highlights the fact that a Republican lawmaker used parlimentary procedures to strip 500 million from the VA building budget, which means some hopsitals and clinics will not be funded this next FY. Again cut the vets, while cutting taxes for the rich, a nice gesture to show how much america's veteran are appreciated by the Republicans. Does this mean that the campaign slogan "A Promise Made Is A Promise Kept" was just more lip service?

Friday, May 19, 2006

Disabled vets denied healthcare

The VA does it again this story in the Marine Times out 30 minutes ago says it best, http://www.marinetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1813135.php to say it does not surprise me would be an understatement

Sunday, May 14, 2006

South Carolina elected officials voting records for veterans issues

Disabled American Veterans807 Maine Avenue, SouthwestWashington, DC 20024Phone: 202-554-3501"Formed in 1920 and chartered by Congress in 1932, the million-member DAV is the official voice of America's service-connected disabled veterans -- a strong, insistent voice that represents all of America's 2.1 million disabled veterans, their families and survivors."The following ratings indicate the degree that each elected official supported the interests of the organization in that year.

DAV Compilation of South Carolina Elected officials voting record on veteran friendly issues

SC
U.S. Senate
Sr
Lindsey O. Graham
Republican
42
SC
U.S. Senate
Jr
Jim W. DeMint
Republican
33
SC
U.S. House
1
Henry E. Brown
Republican
0
SC
U.S. House
2
Addison G. 'Joe' Wilson
Republican
0
SC
U.S. House
3
James Gresham Barrett
Republican
0
SC
U.S. House
4
Robert D. 'Bob' Inglis
Republican
0
SC
U.S. House
5
John McKee Spratt
Democrat
100
SC
U.S. House
6
James E. 'Jim' Clyburn
Democrat
100

the rest of Congresses voting record is available here.

http://www.vawatchdog.org/old%20newsflashes%20MAY%2006/newsflash05-14-2006-1.htm

a friends letter to his Senator

During its March 2006 meeting, the Commission discussed the Congressional intent of Public Law 108-136, which created the Commission. Specific focus was on interpreting the intent of the law and what that means in terms of the Commission's authorities. Also discussed by the Commission members was how data could be acquired from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and how it could be matched to administrative data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as well as how results could be interpreted, if SSA data were collected. Some veterans in receipt of VA disability compensation also receive SSDI; some for the same disability, some for a combination of service-connected and nonservice-connected disabilities, and some for disabilities unrelated to their service. The frequency and amount of benefits received is not known."

The Social Security System does not care what caused the disability only that you qualified for it by working! That is one issue. The other issue is the Social Security System for 100%, which is all it is concerned about, allows cumulative total effects, regardless of cause. The VA rating system is totally different!

The VA disability rating is for Service Connected disability. Of course the most common of these is with exceptions is the wounding by the direct actions of the enemy soldier or the result of serving in a combat environment.

The whole process of getting the Congress to interpret its own laws was unconstitutional and shows just how much support there are for Veterans.

No one, not one of you is going to tell me this is NOT a Bush Administration initiative to not only offset but this will be very similar to the Veterans Disability Tax that has robbed Veterans of disability for over 130 years in the Billions of dollars and maybe in the Trillions. All so, the government can hand out Billions to folks that are not even supposed to be here and all these failed socialism programs. I.e. Bush hands out an EXTRA billion dollars to illegal alien health care with the stroke of a pen. Then our congress argues for months on end whether to fund an extra 1.5 billion to support the VA. Slight difference in earned value here but you see who is important and who is not.

Just how long do you think that you will be able to treat Veterans this way and then get young men and women to support your actions. We are becoming like the Roman Empire and will before long be outsourcing our defense to third party companies like Haliburton.

You as a decorated veteran should have more feelings for what is going on. You get $15,000 a month for life if you leave the Senate and yet that organization is constantly trying to cut benefits to veterans. Why don't you support a bill to decrease the amount of retirement received by congress personnel and senators? One term and $15000 retirement. I did 20 years and I get $1,400. My duty led me to potential risk, your duties containing no risk. Where is the logic?


Welcome Home
Joe

Saturday, May 13, 2006

DAV editorial on Offsets

http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/DAVoffset.htm this is a great article that explains what the VDBC is attempting to do please contact your elected officials and tell them to stop this now.
Why is DOD Ignoring these "Hero's" From 1952 thru 1975 there were a series of "classified medical research" projects paid for by the CIA and DOD, they used "volunteers" in the tests, the majority of the time, there are 2300 known volunteers for biological tests at Fort Detrick 1952 - 1972 and 7120 enlisted men used in the chemical weapons and drug experiments at Edgewood Arsenal. These men have been forsaken by their government for compensation and recognition

WHY NO MEDALS OR RECOGNITION FOR "TEST VETS"
In the years between 1952 thru 1975, the DOD authorized enlisted men to be used for human experimentation. The CIA funded these tests along with DOD, they were primarily conducted at three military bases, although there were many other tests conducted from the Pacific to the East Coast, to these men, it was all a test board.
The bases discussed by this article are Fort Detrick, Maryland, Deseret Test Center, Utah and Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland. The people in primary charge of the programs were mainly at CIA Langley, VA and at Special Operation Division, (SOD) of Fort Detrick. The person in overall charge was named DR. Sidney Gottlieb of the CIA, it has been reported that in 1953 he controlled 6% of the entire CIA budget, with no oversight for these projects, impressive to say the least.
The scientists in charge of these tests at Edgewood Arsenal were all highly decorated by the government for their roles in this research using chemical weapons such as Sarin, BZ, mustard agents, nerve agents, drugs such as LSD, PCP, scopolamine. In all the scientists used 254 different substances at Edgewood Arsenal on 7120 enlisted men from the Army and Air Force "volunteers."
They received the highest awards DOD could bestow on civilian employees. In 2002 the Army honored a Doctor Frederick Siddell by naming the new learning center at Aberdeen Proving Grounds the Siddell Learning Center, before DR Siddell passed away. His University of Alabama Medical School, has honored him in their Hall of Fame, by putting up the following statement "Doctor Frederick Siddell has treated more chemical weapons victims than any other Doctor in America. He was sent by the Sate Department to Tokyo in 1995 for the Tokyo Subway Incident." They left off the part that he was the one who had exposed all his victims to the chemical weapons and it was silent on the use of the LSD, PCP and other drugs utilized at Edgewood Arsenal. The enlisted men did not even get certificates of appreciation for their part.
In 1975 the Department of The Army Inspector General conducted an investigation into the human experimentation and issued a report now known as the DA IG Report of 1975 on Human Experimentation, the Army keeps titles simple. It states that the DOD, CIA and the Army were violating the Nuremberg Codes of 1947 with the conduct of these experiment for the past 23 years. The Secretary of the Army ordered an immediate stop to human testing, and in 1976 President Gerald Ford issued an Executive Order banning all human experiments with chemical weapons and drugs for military purposes. The CIA and the Army apologized for their roles in this mess. The DOD headed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld remained silent.
It is now May 2006 and here is an update on where the "test vets" are now, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report based on health data gathered in FY2000 from the 7120 men of Edgewood Arsenal, the study can be found online at the NAS/IOM site under the author's name Doctor William Page or here is the link http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3795 /4913/5842.aspx, This report shows that by 2000 that using IRS, VA and Social Security Records they could only find 4022 survivors, which indicates that 2098 of the men were already deceased, a few may have moved overseas after their service and left the US behind, doubtful that all of them did though or even a majority of them. That is 40% of the men probably dead.
Of the 4022 that did respond, if you look in the fine print you will learn that 54% of the men or about 2200 men are disabled, yet the report does not go into the why's or the medical problems causing these statistics. The purpose of this study funded by DOD at the amount of one million dollars was to determine if the personnel exposed at Kamisayah Iraq in March 1991 when they destroyed the ammunition depot there, and exploding the Iraqi Sarin filled weapons and mustard agent filled weapons and other CW weapons because no one knew how to read the Arabic labels.
DOD needed to know what these veterans would face in the next twenty to forty years, and what kind of financial liability the federal government was facing. The only pool of people the government had that were exposed to Sarin was the Edgewood Test Veterans from 1952 thru 1975. Obviously the study was not very thorough and was extremely focused, it looked primarily at neurological problems, totally ignoring, cardiac, gastrointestinal and pulmonary. Despite the fact that previous studies on Sarin and other chemical weapons and linked the exposures to neurological, pulmonary, gastrointestinal and cardiac related problems. These studies are here, the first is a report from a German Doctor who treated "Wermacht Soldiers" from WW2, from 1945 thru 1975, so it is very general in it's terms but the conclusions show that all of the problems are related to Chemical Weapons exposure (CW) it was written in 1974 and published in 1975, two items of notable interest the part where he discusses the "beagle farm" at Edgewood Arsenal, and the fact that the international CW and Biological Weapons Research knew that the animals were a joke and that in fact the Americans were doing human experimentation there. Then he also discusses the use of a defoliant in Southeast Asia called Agent Orange, long before the Vietnam Veterans started to complain about it. http://www.sipri.org/conten ts/cbwarfare/Publications/p dfs/cw-delayed.pdf
The other report is from our own National Institute of Health in January 1994 on Sarin, BZ and other similar type weapons it reaches basically the same conclusions as does the German study but in far more technical terms, none of which Doctor William Page found when he was doing the March 2003 IOM study for DOD, which makes a sane man or woman question what was the real intent of the study prepared by DR Page, his conclusion match none of the known data, why? http://www.ehponline.org/me mbers/1994/102-1/munro-full .html
In 2005 one of the test veterans attempted to receive his promised "Soldiers Medal" his fight for it has taken him thru the Board of Military Records Correction, Department of the Army JAG, from which he received the statement, in their legal opinion they state "In fact Mr. XXXXX did participate in the tests at Edgewood Arsenal in 1958, he did no more or less than other test participants and therefore is not entitled to the award of a medal of exceptional merit"
Taken in that context, no Mr. XXXX did not go above and beyond his fellow test participants, what they did not consider is the fact that all 7120 men of Edgewood Arsenal Experimental Test Program went above and beyond what the other soldiers in the Army did during the same time period.
It was due to these men volunteering they developed Chemical Weapons suits they use today called MOPP gear, PAM2 as antidote's, the current gas mask in use, and many other item's used by military and civilians world wide, developed thru the experiments. The fact that 75% of the men are either prematurely dead or disabled shows they paid a great price for their "volunteering" and in return what they have received is nothing, no veteran benefits related to the tests, no recognition for the hazardous assignment they participated in. The men that used them were recognized and hailed as hero's, why? DR Van Sim and DR Siddell were the scientists that violated the Nuremberg Codes of 1947 with the highest approval of government for all practical purposes a Presidential Signing Statement that began under President Truman and that continued thru President Ford.
Lt. Colonel (Retired) Bernard G. Elfert of Florida in an interview last year with Thomas D. Segel a highly decorated Korean War and Vietnam War veteran, stated that :"Clinical and other testing was conducted to determine the effects of various agents on humans. The testing programs were highly classified. I am unaware as to the current security classifications of the toxic chemicals and phychochemicals employed there, so I cannot specify their designations, the agents involved or regimens. However, I have heard that since then most agents tested have been outlawed for military use." Elfert says, "In the absence of volunteer participation the various chemical agents could not have been tested. The nature of the testing involved agents that posed unknown risk factors and such hazards could not be forced on military personnel as a duty." He believes the exposure to these various tests placed volunteers in danger and at great personal risk going far beyond the call of duty. In his opinion, those who underwent the tests were heroic." http://www.gopusa.com/comme ntary/tsegel/2005/ts_07221. shtml
In lieu of the fact that we now know that during the First Gulf War that Officer's of the Army were awarded Bronze Stars just for being assigned to the theater of operations, Supply Sergeants were awarded Bronze Stars for having toilet paper for their Commanders comfort, the Army's current position that these men do not deserve an award of the Soldier's Medal as they had been promised, let alone not even an Army Commendation Medal, for going above and beyond.
These men all 7120 of Edgewood Arsenal and the 2300 men of the biological tests at Fort Detrick all meet the criteria for award of the coveted Soldier's Medal for their volunteering for these hazardous tests, and the Army or DOD needs to get off the dime and award them before the last of these men die. Posthumous Awards are nice, but they are better presented while still alive.
3-12. Soldier's Medala. The Soldier's Medal, section 3750, title 10, United States Code (10 USC 3750) was established by Act of Congress 2 July 1926.
b. The Soldier's Medal is awarded to any person of the Armed Forces of the United States or of a friendly foreign nation who, while serving in any capacity with the Army of the United States, distinguished himself or herself by heroism not involving actual conflict with an enemy. The same degree of heroism is required as for the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross. The performance must have involved personal hazard or danger and the voluntary risk of life under conditions not involving conflict with an armed enemy. Awards will not be made solely on the basis of having saved a life.
The above was taken from the regulations for awards. Myself I don't think I did anything heroic, but if they have a medal that says "Hey stupid, we told you not to volunteer for Anything" I need one of those.
My last thought and it isn't very nice, but I don't know what else to think, because it is a very real possibility, but the fact these men or their families can not be recognized, is that in doing so it would highlight the roles of Vice President Richard B. Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in their approval of enlisted men in the chemical weapons and drug research in 1974 and 1975 at a time in history when they are demanding Saddam be prosecuted for using chemical weapons on the Kurds in 1987 and 1988. The embarrassment might be more than the current administration wants to deal with given, Katrina, NSA spying, Iraq itself, and now the contemplation of war with Iran.
I hope this administration is not that petty that they refuse to give these veterans the medals they deserve and the veteran benefits they are entitled to, by the heroism of volunteering for these tests, despite the fact that the recruiters for the tests deceived them, and flat out lied in stating that the tests were in fact not hazardous.

where did it go?

http://www/gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-410 supposed to be three recommendations that DOD agreed to, but someone has deleted the file why? This file was dealing with veterans who were exposed to chemical weapons and or drugs while in service before 1975 when the tests were supposedly stopped. Who, why and when did they delete this? hmmmmmmmmm

from a Vet in Florida

For the Nay Sayer Veterans out there on this Veterans Disability Commission Social Security offset issue, you better wake up!

From one of the AO group who obviously lives in Florida.

Today May 11, I called both Senator Nelson, and Congressman Putman who both sit on the Veterans Committees in both houses. Senator Nelson knew all about the Offset of Social Security Disability and V.A. Disability and said that panel was holding secret meetings that he was opposed to and he said it would never get the votes.

Congressman Putman said he was unaware until he just found out today. He is opposed to it also.

One is a Dem. and the other a Rep. Sen. Nelson has taken time to talk to me personally many times.

I called the VFW in Washington and left a message to talk to someone about why the VFW isn't concerned. I was not there but my wife got a call from a Mr. Jim Adam's tel 202-608-8372. I got his number off the web stating if you have any questions about upcoming legislation on benefits to call this number. While I was out he called my wife and without knowing, the subject laid into her and said I should not call there especially if it concerns the Bush administration.

He said if I have any problems to call my Rep's. If I still needed to talk to him to call him, back.

He was not even aware of my position of asking why the VFW is not supporting us VET's on this issue and why.

I feel like burning my life membership card with the VFW.

My wife said he was very rude and condescending. By the way, I'm an Independent not a Dem. or a Rep.

I just want you all to know about our great VFW who works so hard for us.

They seem quite political to me.

Mike

"Testvet"

To explain this, I chose the name due to the fact that in May 1974, I "volunteered" for a medical research unit that was doing experiments at a place called Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland. I was assigned to Company C 2/47th Infantry, 9th Inf Div Fort Lewis Washington. I was selected along with nine other men, and we left Fort Lewis on 18 June 1974 to drive our cars to Edgewood. We arrived there on 25 June 1974. The purpose explained to us was to test uniforms and equipment for future use in the military. We were told the experiments were so "safe" that there was no reason to follow us once we left the program, at the end of our TDY in August 1974. None of us ever gave it a second thought, you trust the Officer's over you right, the Chain of Command would not allow anyone to abuse the troops now would they, not intentionally. We were poked and prodded, peed in the cup, gave up many tubes of blood and then we were classified into 4 groups, A, B, C and D, of course we did not know any of this back then, I learned this in October 2002. I knew in 1974 that I had a clearance to be used as a Level A subject for use with pyschochemicals in a note to a Dr. Drederick Siddell. What I was exposed to there, I can't tell you as I don't have a clue. We all carried cards for the police so that if we were stopped they had a telephone number to call where there was laways someone on duty 24/7 to get the cops to release us if they were holding us for suspected drug users, we all had so many needle marks we looked like junkies. Blood tests sometimes as often as every hour, injections etc. I remember sealed rooms, that had self contained ventilation systems, where they could spray something into the room as an aerosol, then pump out the contaminated air and replace it with fresh air. A state of the art lab was opened about three weeks before we arrived as a group. We were the first "test group" to utilize the facility. It was nice. We had been promised 4 day work weeks with 4 hour work days. No KP, No guard duty, no details none of the normal garbage the Army has to fill a Private's normal day. In other words we all looked on it as a three month vacation from the Army. It paid well to, with mileage allowance, per diem, and 2 dollars a day TDY pay, we each collected right around 4,000.00 dollars on 2 September when we got back to Fort Lewis. The Master Sergeant in the Finance office decided he wasn't going to pay us, as POV travel was to expensive, he wanted us to take what a plane ticket would have cost the government about 400.00 dollars each so instead of the 4,000 we were entitled to we would only get about 900.00 each, by losing the milage and 18 days per diem, 9 days each way. A staff Sergeant with us, told us no way, he went to the IG's office, he came back with a Lt Col about 15 minutes later, the Lt Col, told the Master Sergeant that the money was not coming out of his pocket and that the travel was completed, if he objected, it should have been done before we left, not after we got back. The Master Sergeant was stammering, needless to say we all got our 4,000. each. We went to a steak house in Tacoma to celebrate. Thus what we had been was Chemical Weapon and Drug Test subjects, and now I am a veteran, so I called myself TestVet the rest of all that was way to long for a screen name, and since I was one, I gave myself the nickname, besides it was better than my other alternative what else do they call a guy with the last name of Bailey why "Beetle Bailey" of course. I answer to either one lol. Mike