Posted by Tina
The scandal at the Phoenix VA was covered by the media awhile back and promises of improvement were made by the current administration. I don’t know how improvement can be expected, much less met, when the people in charge aren’t disciplined and fat bonuses are handed out, but that’s what happened. The administrator’s bonus money was rescinded due to the public outcry that followed. If I know government bureaucracy a way was made for that bonus to make it’s way into her pocket anyway. A report in 2014 shows that in three years prior the VA handed out $100 millon in bonuses.
The poor treatment of our vets at the VA continues. Today it’s being reported that under new rules living vets are being declared dead and their benefits cancelled. Katie Pavlich reports:
VA officials are now admitting the agency declared more than 4,000 living veterans, dead, cutting off their benefits. Navy Veteran Mike Rieker from Florida is one of them.
“The system failed, whatever they’re doing doesn’t work. It was supposed to be corrected and of course it wasn’t,” Rieker told Fox and Friends during a recent interview. “Things move at the speed of darkness at the VA.”
“One of my biggest concerns is that there are a lot of people who don’t know who to contact [when benefits are cut off],” Rieker, who was able to get his benefits back with help from a Congressman, continued. “You call the VA and they say, ‘We’ll investigate it,’ and who knows how long that takes.”
Kaitie posted a tweet from Senator John Cornyn to top off her story: “Principi: VA funding has grown by nearly 86 percent from 2009; the agency’s fiscal year 2017 budget request is for $182.3 billion.”
So the problem isn’t money, although an investigation into where the money is going may be in order. The problem is bureaucracy. The problem is an administration that makes speeches and doesn’t follow through. The problem is no competition and plenty of job security, nothing to cause those administering the care incentive to do a good job.
This is unacceptable. We need a leader that will take charge and get something done.
Donald Trump has been criticized about the money he promised to veterans earlier in his campaign. Today he flattened that criticism. 100% of the nearly six million (And possibly more) he raised for the vets will go to the vets. None of the money will be spent for administrative costs. Trump, you see, took the time to vet the organizations so he could be sure the money he donated was not squandered or misused.
It’s refreshing to find someone who follows through, who cares about how money will be managed, and who does more than make a campaign promise to throw money at a situation, commonly known as pandering for votes.
When Trump was asked about how he would change the VA system he said that veterans should not have to wait for treatment so if there was a wait time the vet should be issued a card that allows him go to a private sector doctor or hospital that would be paid by the government for the services.
Our veterans deserve much better than they are receiving in terms of healthcare. In terms of the next election, I would put more faith behind something positive being done in a Trump presidency than in the big government presidencies of either Hillary or Bernie two candidates who prefer to create bureaucratic red tape.
Major Surgery is required to fix the VA. FIRING 90% would be a good start!
Let’s turn the VA into the paper-pushers they are and get them outta the Veteran Health Care business! Let our Vets go to regular doctors for treatment as they are certainly worth more than the political hacks, paper-pushers and do-nothings currently infecting the VA.
Quite right, Soden. Having personal bad experience with the Phoenix VA hospital, I can attest that it is FUBAR, to use an old Army term. One of the problems is that the VA is not run by vets. It is mostly bureaucrats, paper-pushers as you say, who have no feeling for the actual vets. They may as well be at the EPA, which is probably where most of them come from. But it all originates at the highest level of appointments by an administration that hates vets and a president who would rather praise our enemies in Hiroshima.
Soaps: “But it all originates at the highest level of appointments by an administration that hates vets and a president who would rather praise our enemies in Hiroshima.”
Can you clarify what you mean by this, Soaps? I read Obama’s entire speech in Hiroshima, and could not find any point where he “praised our enemies.” Can you tell me which portion you are referring to?
Tina: “Donald Trump has been criticized about the money he promised to veterans earlier in his campaign. Today he flattened that criticism. 100% of the nearly six million (And possibly more) he raised for the vets will go to the vets. None of the money will be spent for administrative costs. Trump, you see, took the time to vet the organizations so he could be sure the money he donated was not squandered or misused.
It’s refreshing to find someone who follows through, who cares about how money will be managed, and who does more than make a campaign promise to throw money at a situation, commonly known as pandering for votes.”
Do you really just…believe anything this man tells you? If so, why? He lied about his stance on the Iraq War; he lied when he pretended to be his own spokesperson, and is now lying about that lie; he lied when he claimed he only said sexist things about Rosie O’Donnel; he admits that he exaggerates his wealth (which is called lying); he lied when he said he never called Marco Rubio Facebook’s private senator; he lies about everything.
And he’s lying about this, too.
Donald Trump says he loves the vets, but he can’t stop lying to them—and the rest of us.
The mogul repeatedly misled the public Tuesday while trying to quiet concerns about whether he had raised the promised millions for veterans charities. Sure, he listed $5.6 million he had allocated to veterans groups during the hour-long, rabbling press conference, but that’s $400,000 short of what he said was raised in January—despite his claim that more is still coming in.
There was an initial surge of donations after Trump’s January fundraiser for veterans charities, accounting for less than half the pledged amount.
In recent weeks, under increasing media scrutiny, Trump has apparently boosted that figure to the $5.6 million he listed on Tuesday. The Daily Beast reached out to each of the 20 new charities Trump listed, of the 15 that responded, all confirmed they had received the amounts announced at the press conference. One additional organization, Project for Patriots, has not yet received non-profit status approval from the IRS.
Many of the charities The Daily Beast reached out to said they had received checks within the last week or two weeks—coinciding with a May 24 Washington Post story questioning whether he had distributed the promised $6 million. An Associated Press survey of the veterans groups yielded more than two-dozen responses—about half of them reported checks dated May 24 or beyond.
There were several problems with Trump’s explanations as to why it took so long to account for the alleged $6 million—but the most dubious claim by far was that he didn’t want to take personal credit for helping the veterans that he claims to love so much.
“I wanted to keep it private, if we could, I wanted to keep it private, because I don’t think it’s anybody’s business if I want to send money to the vets,” Trump said, despite the fact he raised the money at a flashy, broadcasted event as a cover for declining to attend a Fox News debate.
There is no shortage of cases in which Trump flaunted the money he raised for vets. Over and over again, he used veterans as political pawns during the heat of the Republican presidential primary process.
Before the Iowa caucuses, he held a rally in Iowa in which he presented an oversized check to local charity Partners for Patriots. And just prior to the New Hampshire primary, Trump presented another novelty check to Al Baldasaro, one of his veteran co-chairs and a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
This faux-humility is also undercut by Trump’s own Twitter account, which has repeatedly played up the $6 million he supposedly raised in January—never mind that he hasn’t reached this figure, even today.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Iowa was amazing last night. The event could not have worked out better. We raised $6,000,000 for our great vets. They were so happy & proud
5:42 AM – 29 Jan 2016
4,245 4,245 Retweets 13,680 13,680 likes
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
While under no obligation to do so, I have raised between 5 & 6 million dollars, including 1million dollars from me, for our VETERANS. Nice!
7:38 PM – 23 May 2016
7,195 7,195 Retweets 25,315 25,315 likes
Trump also claimed that he sent checks to veterans charities without even telling them who it was from—apparently to bolster his claim that he wasn’t interested in credit for the fundraising.
“They received $100,000 in the mail. They didn’t even know what it was for, it was from me,” Trump told reporters Tuesday.
One organization, Boston’s Wounded Vet Run, posted the letter that accompanied his donation. The letter is on Trump Organization letterhead, and is signed personally by the businessman himself.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/31/trump-i-m-making-vets-great-again-so-stfu-about-the-money-i-promised.html
Trump did not do this for the vets. He did it for himself. He does everything for himself. If you saw even two seconds of his press conference today, you know it was all about “Me, me, me.” It was about him playing the victim of media bullies, not about the needs of vets. He only scrambled to make sure that vets’ groups got the money he promised after the media pressured and shamed him for not fulfilling a promise he made back in January. And you believe he just needed time to vet the vets’ groups? That’s an embarrassing level of naivete, especially from someone who has been skeptical of Obama’s promises over the past few years. You can’t just abandon all skepticism because you think a so-called Republican (I mean, talk about a RINO!) has a shot at the White House, especially when Trump has NO shot of winning a general election.
More unethical, possibly illegal campaigning from Trump. What would you say if Hilary Clinton had done this, Tina?
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Donald Trump wanted a small veterans charity to be his political prop. They said no.
Liberty House is a scrappy veterans group in New Hampshire, with a small, $300,000 annual budget—one of the 22 organizations chosen to benefit from Trump’s multimillion-dollar fundraiser for vets.
On Friday, Liberty House executive director Keith Howard received a call from a Trump campaign staffer, who conveyed that Trump would like to publicly present them with a six-figure check at a Londonderry rally on Monday, right before the Granite State primary.
It’s an enormous amount of money for a small charity. But Howard said he wouldn’t do it—risking the entire, substantial donation on a point of principle.
Howard, a 57-year-old Army vet, objected to the use of veterans for political purposes. He doesn’t believe that his charity—which clothes the homeless, feeds the needy, and provides housing to 10 formerly homeless vets—should be presented with money by a political candidate at a political rally.
“This is not directed at the Trump campaign,” Howard said. “This is about any campaign.”
Plus, Howard believed appearing at a political rally could jeopardize his group’s nonprofit status—something a call to an expert in the state attorney general’s office confirmed. And he found it strange that the call was coming from a Trump campaign staffer, rather than someone related to the foundation that raised money for veterans.
One campaign legal expert said the interaction between Trump’s campaign and the Donald J. Trump Foundation was a serious issue.
“The campaign utilizing the foundation to help support and promote campaign events is a potential legal problem for both the campaign and the Trump Foundation,” said Larry Noble, general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center.
The value of the work the foundation did to assist the campaign event could be considered an illegal campaign contribution. And the foundation is barred from getting involved in political activity, such as supporting a campaign rally, he continued. “Neither the foundation nor other charities should be working hand-in-hand with the campaign to promote Trump’s campaign events.”
Howard called the Trump staffer back Friday afternoon: “This is not the right thing to be doing,” he said. Howard suggested that someone to drop by the house for a lower-key check dropoff, or even mail the check.
Now, to be clear, Howard has no problem taking money from Trump’s fundraising.
“After we said that we would take the money, I got between 15 to 20 emails calling me a whore, a prostitute, and saying that I had sold out. I feel very comfortable with what we’re doing, with taking money to help homeless veterans.” Howard said. “But I’ll be god damned if I, in any way, support a political candidate or make a campaign appearance with any candidates. We stand for doing the right thing.”
On Saturday afternoon, the Trump campaign relented.
Trump supporter and New Hampshire State Rep. Al Baldasaro called Howard, telling him the mogul would present the check to Baldasaro, himself a vet. The state representative would then deliver the check to Liberty House after the primary in a more subdued way.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/06/nh-vets-pass-on-being-trump-s-paid-props.html
Impressive. And it supports my suppose about him not being able to keep his fiscal fingers clean if he gets into office. The man does not know the rules and would not abide by them if he did. This could be fun.
Chris you’ve gone postal. Your head is about to explode. Your desperate need to be right is sad to watch.
Desperate need to APPEAR to be right . . . . Although Chris does do an adequate job of cutting and pasting . . . .
Tina, what was I not right about above?
“flattened” criticism.
How about “caved”? And how do you suppose it would have gone if the Washington Post had not been riding his tail? Maybe thirty percent in “administrative” costs? That would be reasonable, don you think? My sister is in the business, and she’s seen organizations that fete the rich for “charity”, and take 80 percent. Indulging the rich for charity, thanks to tax laws weighted entirely in their favor, can be a very profitable business for the rich to get into.
Other people see these things, even if you won’t.
Quote from one of Chris’s sources: “One additional organization, Project for Patriots, has not yet received non-profit status approval from the IRS.”
I wonder how long they’ve been waiting, after all, their name includes the word “Patriots” so it could be on the list for “extra scrutiny” that is apparently still ongoing at the IRS.
Lets all vote for the “ethical” party…HA!
If they’ve read their Oscar Wilde, yes, such an appellation gets particular scrutiny.