Thursday, July 19, 2012

THIS JUST IN! DIVERSITY IN MEDIA?

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O KEEPS GETTING MORE BAD NEWS.  IN NEW MEXICO, THEY JUST AREN'T INTO A FADED CELEBRITY.  BUT IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE REALITY, DON'T WORRY OR FRET, THE NEW REPUBLIC LET'S A JEWISH MAN WHO DOESN'T LIVE IN NEW MEXICO 'EXPLAIN' NEW MEXICO TO YOU.  IT'S A 'DIVERSE' STATE, THE NEW REPUBLIC INSISTS.  UNLIKE THE NEW REPUBLIC WHERE NYC AND DC RESIDENTS -- OFTEN JEWISH -- SPEAK FOR THE WHOLE DAMN COUNTRY.  WELL WHY SHOULD THE NEW REPUBLIC BE ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE NATION, OR DEMOCRACY NOW, OR ZNET OR THE PROGRESSIVE OR . . .  

SOME GROUPS GET PLENTY OF REPRESENTATION IN 'INDEPENDENT' MEDIA.  SADLY THOSE GROUPS DON'T INCLUDE LATINOS.  OR BLACKS.  OR ASIANS. 

"DIVERSITY IN SO-CALLED INDEPENDENT MEDIA?" ASKED RUTH OF RUTH'S REPORT THIS MORNING.  "I BELIEVE ALL THE DIVERSITY YOU WILL EVER FIND IN PANHANDLE MEDIA IS THE 'DIVERSITY' OF SECULAR HUMANIST JUDAISM, RECONSTRUCTIONIST JUDAISM, REFORM JUDAISM AND CHASIDIC JUDAISM WITH ERIC ALTERMAN OFFERING UP HIS OWN HYBRID OF CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM PASSED OFF AS LIBERAL JUADISM."


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



"It's unacceptable the federal government is doing nothing but continuing to promise what they promised before," declare House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa this morning.  He was attending the House Oversight's Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations.  US House Rep Jason Chaffetz is the Subcomittee Chair. Appearing before the Subcommittee were VA's Undersecretary for Benefits Allison Hickey, the VFW's Gerald Manar and Disabled American Veterans' Joseph Violante. 

Darrell Issa:  42 years ago this November, I raised my right hand and became a soldier.   I have no claim today before the Veterans Administration.  But for those 42 years, soldiers, sailors and Marines have served  and need our support.  It's unacceptable the federal government is doing nothing but continuing to promise what they promised before. 183 days the average processing time for a claim.  It's unacceptable.  More unacceptable is that the fact that the error rate is 16%and perhaps higher in some regions.  Veterans who appeal the system face multiple years 883 days, three years in order to be adjudicated.  The system was broken during the Vietnam war when I enlisted.  The system has never been fixed so today we're going to concentrate in this Committee on hearing what you're going to do.  But understand, we've heard it before.  Today, you will be judged by what you say and what you do.  You will no longer be allowed to come back again with promises of reform a year away. Today, I understand, you will be talking about getting better over the next year -- perhaps talking about ways in which you have improved recently.  In 1970, the system was paper and the system failed veterans miserably.  Today the system is computerized but not harmonized.  Today the Veterans Administration continues to claim that they will get better be but they have not. 


Jason Chaffetz:  Madam Under Secretary,  Mr. Manar,  I think accurately points out in his testimony that in order to solve the problem, you need to know exactly what the problem is.  And I see a major discrepancy in some of the numbers and I want to help clarfiy that.  In youre testimony in talking about the integrated disability evaluation system, you say, "We went from 240 day average in the legacy system to 56 days" and it goes on.  And there's a definition of the backlog.  The House Armed Services Committee staff and the House Veterans Affairs Committee staff on July 13 of this year which was not too long ago gave a briefing to these two Committees.  It says in here that the current monthly average completion time is 408 days.  You say it's 56 days -- 54 days -- yeah, 56 days -- and they say it's 408 days.   Can you help clarify that for me please?


Allison Hickey:  Thank you, Chairman Chaffetz for your question. First of all, allow me to clarify by stating a few basic definitions so also, as I say things, you can understand what words I'm using and their context  We have, in the inventory and pending an overall number of 854000.  That's not backlog.  Those are claims that even as we've been sitting here for the last ten to fifteen minutes, more claims have come into us from veteran service members  and


Chair Jason Chaffetz:  Okay, let me stop you -- let me stop you right there. Let me stop you right there.  On July 16th, which is not very long ago, the Monday morning workload report says there are 919,461 claims.  You say that number is -- what did you say that number is?  860,000 something?

Allison Hickey:  The numbers I'm using are 854,000 --


Chair Jason Chaffetz:  Okay, so we're off by about 50 or 60 thousand.  And we're talking about something that is just  couple of days old.  Why the discrepancy on those number?


Allison Hickey:  Chairman Chaffetz, our backlog -- I mean our inventory is a dynamic inventory.


Chair Jason Chaffetz:  I know but that's less than ten days so --

Allison Hickey:  Chairman, I'm happy to answer the questions if I'm allowed an opportunity.

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  Sure I want to know.  You're saying that that number is 800 and something thousand and I'm just saying that the VA's report says it's 919,461.  That's of July 16th --

Allison Hickey:  Chairman, I'm happy to answer the question if I'm allowed an opportunity.

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  Ma'am, just answer the question.  Yes.

Allison Hickey:  Thank you very much.

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  --  That's why I asked the question.

Allison Hickey:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  The numbers that I'm using are from the endpoint of a month.  Probably the end of May.  So you probably are using the end of this week's report.  I chose not use a floating number that continues to change over time and over dates and over weeks.  So I used an end of month number to be able to to talk to you, to be able to have a solid number to hvae a discussion around.

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  If you --

Allison Hickey:  Regardless of what it is -- Regardless of what it is, I will tell you that our inventory and our pending is not our backlog.  And typically, the statistics show 61% of that backlog are supplemental claims that people -- veterans who are already receiving compensation from us are coming back with a second, third or a fourth claim in that process.  So of the number I will use 854,000, I could use your number as well.  And I could use the weekly reports number in backlog it would be exactly the same thing which is about 65 to 66% of our claims are in -- they are more than 125 days old.

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  Okay --

Allison Hickey:  That is the --

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  Okay, that's great.  More than 125 days old.  You say in your testimony -- I mean, to hear your testimony, these things are getting so much better.  We went from a 240 day average in the legacy system to 56 days?

Allison Hickey:  Chairman Chaffetz, I'd be happy to answer the question in the disparity for the briefing which you just handed out.  I have different processes that have different standards.  The process you described is our end of b -- our integrated disability evaluation system that we work with DoD for our most wounded and ill -- injured service members.

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  In your testimony --


Allison Hickey:  The numbers that you are --


Chair Jason Chaffetz:  I'm sorry --


Allison Hickey:  -- describing are the VA -- the 56 days are the VA numbers in that complete process --


Chair Jason Chaffetz:  I'm -- I'm --


Allison Hickey:  -- where VA has the responsibility for --


Chair Jason Chaffetz:  Hold on.  Hold on.  Let's tackle them one at a time.  This is your testimony, "We are closely collaborating with DoD through the Integrated Disability Evaluation System."  You say that's 56 days.  This report, this briefing that went to another Committee just last week says it's 408 days.  That's not exactly close.  Which --

Allison Hickey:  Chairman Chaffetz --

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  -- one is it?  Is it --

Allison Hickey:  The VA days for those 10,000 we have done in FY12, the VA days, the days that I have responsibility for doing them are 56 for those 10,000.

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  Are you saying this is accurate or inaccurate?

Allison Hickey:  I'm saying I do not know what's on that slide.  If you were to give me that slide and give me some time to digest that slide I'd be happy to do that, Chairman.  You have access to that information right at this moment, I do not.

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  We will make -- we will make --

Allison Hickey:  I will be happy to take that for the record and respond to you.

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  How -- In it's simplified format here, how bad do you think this problem is?  I'm trying to quantify it and I'm concerned because we're not off by a couple of 100 people here,  we're talking about hundreds of thousands of people.  And in your testimony, you would lead the American people to believe that it's getting much better.  But if you look at it over the course of time, it's getting worse.  It's --

Allison Hickey:  Chairman, I have clearly stated --

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  It's getting worse.

Allison Hickey:  -- in my testimony that two -- that -- that, uh, 65% of people in more than 125 days, from a VA perspective, is unacceptable.  I've clearly stated that.

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  And you say that this is a decade's old problem --

Allison Hickey:  It is a decade's old problem and for the first time we have an integrated plan that goes after the way we're organized and trained to do the work, the processes that we've done that we have streamlined, the technology that we're bringing in that under this administration and this Secretary [of VA Eric Shinseki], VBA has never had an emphasis on it's IT infrastructure to get from a paper bound process to a paperless system that we have right now.  We are implementing it right now.

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  Okay, my time is far expired.  The numbers and the discrepancies here are absolutely stunning. 

 I let that run through so that Hickey -- who was very defensive and very loud in the hearing -- had her say such as it was.  But there's a ton of nonsense in there.  First off, if you're using a figure, you need to know what month the figure is from.  She chose not to use the most recent numbers, that was her decision.  Having made that decision, she needs to know what period of time the number she's using are from.  But she stated, "The numbers that I'm using are from the endpoint of a month. Probably the end of May."  Probably? 

Probably's not good enough.   Chair Chaffetz was using 919,461.  He explained his numbers.  More to the point, this morning at the Washington Post's blog Federal Eye, Steve Vogel was addressing numbers noting that the 919,461 was the number "as of Tuesday."  Vogel notes that the claims stood at 903,000 in April.*  Did the numbers fluctuate in May and June?  We don't know because Hickey seems to believe she can use any numbers she wants.  Up to date numbers were available, she chose not to use them.  If she didn't want to use July because the month is still ongoing, then she should have fallen back to June.  And this wouldn't require new reports, these figures are kept weekly.  [In Vogel's report he says "backlog stood at 903,000" -- he most likely meant claims.  In the hearing, Hickey was repeatedly talking about the difference between the two.  If you use the link in Vogel's report for that number, you're taken to an earlier report he did where he refers to that number as "pending claims."  I understand what he means and would call it "backlog" myself.  It is backlog, any claim that's not been determined today is now backlog.  But since she made such a huge deal out of the terminology, I'm noting this.] 

She needs to be better prepared.  US House Rep Bob Filner has clearly put a scare and to her and good for that.  But she needs to know that the VA will be held responsible.  And she speaks about that but time and again things keep happening in hearings that if she didn't know about it, she should have.  And if she did know about it, she's playing dumb with the Committee.  At a recent hearing, Filner wisely noted that Hickey was hired to a do a job and did not need her hand held but she did need to do her job.  It would be nice if everyone could remember that.

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  Madam Undersecretary, the VA had reported that it awarded $2.8 million to 245 senior executives.  How do we justify that?  I mean, that's a very small group of people.  We've got hundreds of thousands -- close to a million -- veterans waiting in line and 245 people got $2.8 million in bonuses?  How do we justify that?

Allison Hickey: Chairman Chaffetz, thanks for the question.  First of all, I will tell you in VBA, since 2009, we have actually decreased by a full third the number of our SESs that are getting outstanding ratings. So we have done what this administration's asked us to do which is to really scrutinize the ratings that we are giving to our senior executives and bring them down. I'll tell you from a VBA perspective, I have 98 metrics, performance metrics, that I rate every one of our senior executives against.  They are performance based.

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  How --

Allison Hickey:  They are production and quality based.

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  How many --

Allison Hickey:  And in those environments where I do have outstanding leaders, I need to keep those outstanding leaders. They're making a difference for our veterans, their family members and survivors.

Chair Jason Chaffetz:  How many of them -- How many of the people that worked for you go those bonuses?

Allison Hickey:  Congressman, I'll have to bring you the explicit information.  I wasn't prepared to come and talk about bonus structure. 

If all 245 got approximately the same amount of bonus, they got a bit over $10,000 each.  How does anyone working for the federal government deserve that?

They did a great job?  Good.  They were supposed to.  I don't understand when the American people are being told that drastic cuts are needed how 245 employees of the VBA are getting not just their nice salaries but bonuses of $10,000 each for . . . doing their job?  Long before Senator Patty Murray and others were called for the Super Congress panel to address the deficit, the White House should have notified all cabinets that all bonuses were suspended.  I'm not joking on this.  A month ago there was a hearing that I knew nothing on -- record retention, record digitizing, etc. -- and I had to speak to a number of people who were kind enough to speak with me (that friends were kind enough to hook me up with) to get repeat walk throughs on this (because that's how I am, I have to over-saturate to feel comfortable talking about a topic) and I was speaking to government employees on all levels.  I heard about pay freezes and hiring freezes.  This is not uncommon across the country right now due to The Great Recession which continues.  And for state and municipal employees, this comes as layoffs have already demanded that they do their jobs and the jobs of two or three other people that were let go.  In some instances, they've also had pay cuts.  And yet at the federal level, senior executives, whose job it is to run the VA, are getting $10,000 bonuses?

That's disgusting.  The White House, if they understood a damn thing about the current economy, should have let senior execs know -- especially for VA -- that there were no more bonuses until the economy turned around.  Especially VA?  The backlog's not gone.  And the service isn't there.

Let's demonstrate the quality of service via statements in the hearing by two members of the Subcommittee.


US House Rep Peter Welch:  [. . .] one family that contacted our office.  And this woman, the mother of Howard Hoy, the son who had contacted us, they had a claim that just wasn't answered for years and it wasn't until after the mother died -- and this was her trying to get pension benefits from what she was entitled to as the survivor -- it wasn't until after she died that they adjudicated this.  [. . . ] After this woman died, she got a condolence letter. So one part of the system was working but the part that would have been beneficial to her while she was alive was not working.


US House Rep Jackie Speier: [In San Francisco at her "VA Fix-It meeting"] over 250 veterans showed up.  They were angry, they were hostile and they had every right to be.  I'm just going to tell you a few of these stories.   Sgt Ari Sonnenberg had multiple tours in Iraq.  He was facing eviction from his apartment while he waited for over a year for a disability ruling. He was unable to work -- a fact that took Oakland VA months and months to verify.  He needed treatment for PTSD. He was ordered by the VA actually to go to the VA Medical Center in Oakland.  The breaking point came the day before I took his wife and mother to meet with the director at Oakland. Until that meeting was set up, the Oakland Office was unaware that Mr. Sonnenberg was hospitalized at the VA facility for the next several months.  At the "VA Fix-It meeting" that we had, he told the packed room that he almost committed suicide.  Now the good news is that he will be boarding a plane for home tomorrow, he's had his surgeries, he's had treatment for PTSD and he has his disability benefits.  Had we not intervened, Mr. Sonnenberg would probably be dead today.  Another gentleman, a 92-year-old WWII vet who was confined to a wheel chair showed up at the "Fix-It meeting." He waited for over two years to have his claim adjusted, he had a service connection of 60%.  He was there, in his condition, his caregiver said, "It's been two years and now you're telling us that we've got to go back to a doctor to determine what his status is even though we've already done that.  Now the good news there is because we had that "Fix-It meeting," within a week, he was given retroactive payment of $32,000 and is now receiving $2000 a month.  He's 92-years-old.  Michael Cortez argued that his Parkinson's Disease was caused by exposure to Agent Orange.  He, again, waited two years.  As it turned out, because we had that "Fix-It meeting," his claim was recently resolved.  He's got a one-time retroactive payment of $92,000   [. . .] and now he's receiving $3,400 a month.


Does that sound like quality service?  And when the Congress funds VA, are they aware that so much money is going to bonuses?