In better days: Gen. Shinseki congratulates Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday.
Well, we certainly knew this was coming this morning, didn’t we?
It was reported that Eric Shinseki had issued an apology for the mess in the V.A., after which he was headed for a meeting at the White House. You just sort of knew he’d be coming out of there without a job.
It’s a shame for Gen. Shinseki’s distinguished career to end this way. Or rather, his second career. He had risen to the top of his profession by being good at his job. He was the guy who was right about Iraq when Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush were wrong. He, like Leroy Inabinet, is a man of honor who deserves to be remembered that way.
But today, he felt compelled to do something men of honor have done since ancient times: He dutifully fell on his sword.
For his part, the president implied that he didn’t think the V.A. scandal was Gen. Shinseki’s fault:
Obama paid tribute to Shinseki, telling reporters that he arrived at his decision to accept the VA chief’s resignation because of Shinseki’s “belief that he would be a distraction from the task at hand.”
“He is a very good man,” Obama said. “He’s a good person who’s done exemplary work on our behalf.” He said Shinseki concluded that “he could not carry out the next stages of reform without being a distraction himself.”
“I think he’s deeply disappointed in the fact that bad news did not get to him,” Obama said. “His priority now is to make sure that happens, and he felt like the new leadership would serve our veterans better, and I agreed with him.”…
It’s interesting to contrast this with the way things played out with Kathleen Sebelius. She presided over a major systemic failure, probably the greatest embarrassment this administration has faced, considering how large health reform loomed in its legend. Yet she was allowed to stay until it was obvious that things had gotten better, and then quit.
The WashPost yesterday demonstrated the difference between the two cases in a graph, showing a statistical difference in terms of calls for each secretary’s resignation. The dam burst on Wednesday. And there was a qualitative as well as a quantitative difference. This time, Democrats were saying he had to go.
Related Posts
Slate has put together a list of those who brought about this resignation. Or at least, those who made sure the VA problems came to light and weren’t ignored. There’s Rep. David Scott of Georgia, Sen. John McCain, Concerned Veterans of America, “a whole bunch of Democratic congressmen,” and old-fashioned spadework by some determined journalists.
I think the VA problems are way more widespread and of much longer duration than the botched website for ACA. Plus, people have died as a result of this.
As goes the VA, so goes the rest of our healthcare system under the ACA. I’m sure we’ll all get the proper care that we require in a timely manner.
The VA is vastly underfunded, unlike our overfunded regular system
The VA’s got 99 problems but a funding deficit ain’t one.
From 2000-2012, the VA’s budget total budget has increased by 173%. Adjusting for inflation, the VA’s budget has increased over the same period by 72%.
By the way, in hard numbers, which may be a little more concrete than percentages the numbers are this: Between 2000 and 2012, the VA’s budget has gone from $45 billion to $124 billion.
Per year.
Is this the source for your Carefully Considered TM research and conclusions?
Yeah, you’re right. And I could only find a few other small time sources we can’t really trust to verify the fact that VA funding has increased quite substantially over the years.
Investor’s Business Daily “From 2000 to 2013, outlays nearly tripled, while the population of veterans declined by 4.3 million.”
Time “Those bonuses come from an annual $150 billion VA budget, triple 2001’s spending.”
The Cato Institute “Figure 1 below shows that VA spending has tripled since 2000.”
The Wall Street Journal “Since 2000, annual spending has tripled…”
I could go on, but I’m tired of typing out the html code, and it won’t matter anyway. I can’t convince you of this fact. I’m not even sure why I just linked all these sources. It’s not going to matter. You’re not going to say…”oh yeah, I guess the VA does get quite bit of pocket money every year”.
This is why talking/arguing politics is useless. No one even admits basic facts anymore. At least arguing about sports is fun.
For you, maybe. For me, arguing about sports unfortunately involves TALKING about sports, which for me is not an enjoyable exercise…
Michael,
Are you implying that the OMB, Dept. of Veteran Affairs, and the BLS are complicit in providing inaccurate information relating to funding? If you look at the bottom of the chart, all three are listed as sources. If you have something other than a comment to refute Bryan, please provide.
I am interested because my older brother is a military retiree and served two tours in Vietnam and exposed to Agent Orange. His well being is of prime interest to me and based on personal experience, the funding has not reached the soldiers it was intended for. Shinseki’s scalp may bring short term attention to the problem but again, based on personal experience with several members of my family who are and were veterans, the incompetence and inconsistent care at various medical facilities has been going on for decades, well before Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. FWIW, when he was living in Phoenix during Clinton’s administration, he absolutely refused to go back to the local VA because of horrible treatment, wait times, and in general, a go “screw yourself” attitude.
The funding is going somewhere and Shinseki had more than enough time to rectify some of the problems and find out why some of our veterans are not receiving the care and treatment they need.
Bryan and Bart, you are inferring all kinds of things not there in my question. Bryan you picked selected parts of someone else’s piece, presented them nearly verbatim as facts and opinions you gathered and developed, and failed to cite your source. The term for your behavior in this instance is partisan hack. I did not suggest that the source was biased. I did not suggest that the facts were wrong. I did suggest that these facts don’t tell the whole story.
Glass houses and all that Michael. Careful about calling others partisan hacks.
Yes and thank you Bart. It’s an easy trap to fall into.
“Bryan you picked selected parts of someone else’s piece, presented them nearly verbatim as facts and opinions you gathered and developed, and failed to cite your source. The term for your behavior in this instance is partisan hack.”
Respectfully, that’s a load of crap. Kathryn commented that the VA was “vastly underfunded”. It kind of made me wonder what the VA’s funding was over the last several years, as I can’t reel off historical budgetary numbers from memory. I can do that with some baseball statistics, but not with federal budgets.
So…I looked around to find some information on what the VA’s funding actually was over the recent years. After looking at a few pieces, I then presented a statistic (a fact) as a factual rebuttal to Kathryn’s opinion. that the VA was “vastly underfunded”.
Now, It may be the case that you still believe the VA is still ‘underfunded” or maybe even “vastly underfunded”, but the simple fact is that the VA’s funding has almost tripled in the last 13 years. So if you want to make the case as to why the VA is still underfunded, you’re going to have to do so in light of its budgetary increases over the last 13 or so years.
I pointed out facts, not opinions. All opinions are my own. Facts kind of belong to everyone, and they are stubborn things. (See, Stuff John Adams Said, Vol. IV)
Now don’t accuse me of not citing to John Adams on that, OK?
So, it seems that after I provided you with multiple sources in response to your question, you’re upset I didn’t provide you with a footnote or something in my original comment. This isn’t a term paper, Michael – it’s a comment.
If you don’t feel like a fact “tells the whole story” about something, please feel free to respond and tell us all why. You still haven’t done that, by the way.
As for your belief that my pointing out a fact making me a “partisan hack”, that’s ridiculous, and it says more about you than it does about me. Again, I pointed out a fact. if the world you live in makes factual statements into partisan ones, well. I would define “partisan hack” as someone who argues in spite of facts, not with them. It seems you define the term differently.
If you think the tone of this comment is a little too strong – that’s because your comment got me riled up, and I don’t respond well to that. I get paid to argue with people, so bring your facts, and stop with the name-calling. You’ll find I’m much more receptive that you might think. I’m always open to a well-reasoned argument.
For instance, I don’t think we pay the doctors and nurses in the VA system enough. The money is wasted in administration. Doctors and nurses make more in the private sector than they do in the VA system, and they don’t have to do as much paperwork. So, you could make the argument that we aren’t paying the people who actually deliver the service – medicine – enough, and I would agree with you. But we also need to cut the administration at the VA. The amount of paperwork that Vets have to go through is mind-boggling.
Normally I’m a fair guy, but…
OK, I think Michael regrets having used ad hominem language, and we can put this behind us now…
Determining whether or not something is over or under funded necessarily requires looking at both the level of funding and the size of the obligation.
Both have increased. See the blog post at Bloomberg: “The Graphic Reality of the VA’s Funding Woes” and this good overview in WSJ: “VA’s Budget, and Rolls, Have Boomed.”
The WSJ article, which Bryan also cited, starts a paragraph with “To be sure,” meaning “To be fair,” as in I’ve talked about the rising funding levels, now I’m going to talk about the rising obligation levels. This is what one does to avoid having their opinions characterized as Carefully Considered ™ (thank you Bryan) or worse (which yes Brad I do regret).
I apologize Bryan for “partisan hack.” I appreciate your reasoned arguments and also stories from your experience. I was surprised and disappointed when you talked only about the funding levels. As you said though it’s only an internet comment. Of course I know you know that the obligation levels are also important and that you are interested in and willing to talk about both.
Here’s a statement from Joe Wilson:
The VA has a long history of disfunction , being run on the cheap, and lack of support from Congress who sends men and women to war. In times past, the VA has been almost adversarial to veterans trying to get medical help for for their service connected disabilities; this has gotten better. In fact many things have gotten better in delivering health care to veterans, but there is still a long way to go. In some ways, the General’s resignation reminds me of Ford’s pardon of Nixon – it’s the only way to move on and deal with the important issues. I thought the President was heartfelt in his description of Gen. Shinseki’s character. It would have been good if Gen. Shinseki had been given a chance to fix the problem.
That “long history” is why this story sort of snuck up on me. I kept hearing stuff, and thinking, “Yeah, people complaining about the VA. What’s new?” Finally, it sunk in, and I had to scramble to go back and find the roots of this particular wave of scandal.
Sorry about the mixed metaphor…
On one hand, I kind of feel bad for Shinseki. No one man could manage the VA and implement any kind of substantial change. The VA system is just too big to be changed by the Secretary. The entire civil service system needs to be changed.
On the other hand, I don’t feel like this problem “ambushed” Shinseki. He knew about the VA problems from before he was confirmed. It wasn’t a secret.
I guess I’m indifferent to whether or not Shinseki stayed or was fired/resigned. I guess Obama and the Democrats can now say, “we’ve done something, give the new guy a chance to settle in and we’ll see what happens”. Then in a few months, everyone will say “Mission Accomplished” and nothing will change.
Listening to Keven Cohen’s radio show this morning he had a guest on that was describing the issue in a somewhat conservative, but fair perspective. It is simply mind-boggling how complicated the whole system is. From the liberal side there was a good discussion last night on MSNBC about the various types of waiting lists. Again, mind-boggling. So my takeaway from these various discussions is that the system is so convaluted with different levels of treatment and different requirements depending on the duration of service, type of disease or injury, whether it’s service related and so forth. This whole mess just ties into my general view on the healthcare issue that we just simply have too many methods for paying for healthcare in this country. No one could navigate this mess.
To borrow a turn of phrase from Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make whether your lung cancer is the result of agent orange from exposure in Vietnam or from coal dust in a WV mine? We should have one system to cover everyone at any qualified hospital or treatment center. That way all you would have to prove would be American citizen status. Obviously there would have to be some type of reciprocal agreement treaty with foreign countries to pay for visitors from abroad. But otherwise all these messy complications that lead to delays and confusion would be eliminated. There should be reasonable deductibles and co-pays and that would leave a market for private insurance.
We could even give it a name by combining the letters from the VA, Medicare/caid, Tri-care and private insurance. How about VAMTRIPI? This would ensure coverage to anyone who comes in for treatment regardless of age, employment status, veteran status, pre-existing conditions or any other complications. And I’d pay for it with a tax on security trades along with existing medicare tax. In exchange most existing healthcare premiums would go away.
I pretty much remember the exact moment I decided Bush was an a-hole. He gave a speech insisting that we support our veterans, and the next day slashed their health care and GI benefits.
How did Bush “slash” their health care and GI benefits? I am a retired veteran and none of my benefits have been slashed….yet. The biggest changes to GI benefits occurred during the Carter Administration when the original GI bill was abolished. Many of us were essentially left with nothing in the way educational benefits. The other big change was implementation of the current Tricare system in which an enrollment fee was established. There have been other changes that have come and gone over the years, but it was Congress that passed legislation making the changes often with the input of the Perfumed Princes of the Joint Chiefs. Now if you want to refer to administration proposals to cut VA funding specifically, I am agree.
That late in the game? I figured you were more astute….
You guys are so right. This whole thing is totally George Bush’s fault. We should have replaced him with someone competent years ago.
There is certainly plenty of blame to go around so let’s not get all partisan here. Knowing full well that single payer is not going to happen, nor is a fully privatized “voucher” style system, can’t we all agree that the VA should be adequately funded? It would be expensive but it’s the least we should do for our over-burdened veterans.
Let’s make it efficient and competent first- and find out how much funding it needs to do that.
throwing cash at it won’t necessarily fix anything.
Today: “The Obama administration underestimated how much money it would need to deal with a continued increase in unaccompanied immigrant children from Central America trying to cross the Mexican border and is asking Congress for an extra $1.4 billion.”
How about we first find $1.4 billion to spend on American veterans? This government is simply insane. Every dime we spend on helping illegal immigrants is a slap in the face to every man and woman who has served in the military.
Every dime we spend on corporate welfare is not just insane but evil. Why we subsidize big military, big oil, big pharma, big banking is money that could be better spent on children and veterans.