Larry Scott's VAwatchdogdotorg has the latest bu$h plan on helping our returning Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan:
Asking VA Secretary Jim Nicholson to fix the Seamless Transition program for returning vets is like asking Col. Sanders to watch your chickens. Not a good idea!
Today, the Task Force On Returning Global War On Terror Heroes issued their hurry-up report.
It is unrealistic.
Not because the ideas aren't good...but, because there is no way to properly implement the recommendations...for FOUR reasons...
1. This report actually recommends creating more daunting bureaucracies for returning veterans...there will be red tape wrapped around the red tape.
2. No additional funds have been allocated.
3. No additional staff has been hired.
4. The report forces unrealistic timelines for implementation.
This report is asking the few to do more with what little they already have.
"Then bu$h orders implementation of task force plan. VA Secretary Nicholson must report on progress in 45 days."
bu$h'$ word "progress" = delay until I'm out of office!
Posted by Seven of Six at April 28, 2007 11:06 PMIt sounds like the same kind of help Bush gave our kids with No Child Left Behind.
Bigger government with more rules and restrictions for schools and teachers but no money to support it.
Posted by mparker at April 29, 2007 02:19 AMI have noticed that the once plentiful and proud Bush-Cheny bumper stickers have become a rare site in the Phoenix area.
Do they sleep with the dinos in your hood also?
Posted by TIKI AL at April 29, 2007 04:57 AMyh, t ws rlly th frst dy f sprng, ystrdy, n th SF r. t ws ht n, by r stndrds, 81 dgrs.
[Editor: ignore=off]Gonzo got heckled yesterday when he returned to Harvard Law to pose for his 25th year class picture.
Lots of chants of "I don't recall" and "Abu Gonzales" and "resign."
Good to see people's memories are long.
Posted by Christopher at April 29, 2007 06:52 AMI see that the right is gearing up to trash Social Security again. How do I know this? I saw two different talking bobbleheads asking two different presidential candidates if they would support changes in Social Security, such as changing the age, or reducing benefits. Before, the right was trying to privatize Social Security, now they're trying to change the benefits. What's up?
Posted by Julie at April 29, 2007 10:00 AMJulie,
Let me say that I am 100% pro Social Security and defended the current program both here and elsewhere back in 2005 when Bush was peddiling his snake oil. However, because of the numbers of boomers who are prepairing to become eligable for benefits, some moderate reforms of Social Security are needed long term. Raising the cap so that those making over 90k pay on their full income is a good first step. It is also likely that we will need to raise the rate a bit and maybe phaise in a raising of the retirement age to 70.
Too many Republicans have always hated Social Security and they will not change. They will try to use the demographic problem that the system currently faces against it. I'm thankful that Bush was discredited by Katrina right after he failed to destroy Social Security. But, whoever the Republicans run in the future will be as bad as Bush, it's just how they are. Fortunately, the Democrats should have total control of the government after the 2008 election. We must defend Social Security from them and the best way is to increase its revenue stream by doing what was mentioned above. I'd prefer never to see another Republican president in my lifetime, but just in case, as soon as we get the chance, we must protect Social Security from those who would destroy it.
Posted by herbal tee at April 29, 2007 11:06 AMNot sure if you're still reading this one, herbal tee, but I'd like to say that it's my understanding that Social Security actually isn't in much trouble at all, that all the assumptions are a bunch of bullshit to promote a reicher agenda, and only some fine tuning is even necessary, so long as the Bushidiots keep their hands off of the fund.
One appropriate and fair change, I think, is one that I've never seen mentioned. The way things stand now, a person (usually wife) can collect 50% of the spouse's SS even though s/he has not contributed a penney to the fund. In the old days when wives didn't work, that may have been ok, but in this day and age when so many poor single women have to contribute, I think it's time to require that a person qualifies on their own contributions, not on their spouse's. Not working is a luxury today, and it's time to change an archaic situtation.
I'd also be interested in checking what the qualifications are for multiple marriages that last for more than 10 years each.
Posted by Julie at May 1, 2007 07:42 AM