That soldier may well have attempted to make an Offer-In- Compromise to the IRS.  That agency has never been staffed well enough to answer the requests in a timely fashion, and will often change the rules midstream.  Life is dynamic. Income is not a static state.  The one time earning ability of that soldier is now compromised for life, making the offer in compromise invalid once the disability claim is processed. That soldier will frequently have no assets to speak of that will accrue to his or her benefit.

So the question is this…why in the world does the IRS place liens on our nations disabled veterans who have permanent 100% ratings for the balance of their mortal life?  They are no longer permitted to earn any monies outside the compensation that is granted them.

So they have just been punished and sent to debtors prison for having served their country and placed themselves in harms way to defend the very system from which the IRS derives its existence. They are awarded a scarlett  “L” for Lien for the balance of their life. It will follow their children to the grave.

Cruel? Inhumane? You choose the adjective you like, but I say it should be known from shore to shore and be the source of some pretty hefty moral outrage.

When you have hundreds of convoluted,conniving and outright dishonest tax schemes and strategies implemented by the uber wealthy, then this relegation of our combat veterans looks pretty damn bad. With all the paid in advance for bitching about taxes, this year will be one of the best since the 1930’s for this set of elite tax dodging Americans.  The effective tax rate for these titans of commerce will be about 17%. For the next 1.4 million people who make up the top 1% of taxpayers, the rate will be about 23%. The lowest in nearly  60 years!

The kicker! Many have made their fortunes off two wars that are now longer than the Vietnam war. The profiteering is staggering.  Yet a 100% Disabled veterans cannot by granted tax amnesty.  That is reserved for the likes of  Donald Trump, Philip Anschutz and thousands of Fortune 50o executives who have the loot to play the game of Trust Freezes and Option Options and Friendly Partner tax schemes.  Parker Brothers should patent these strategies as games, so we can teach our children how to cheat with clandestine tactics to never pay a dime in taxes.  And the vet has to worry about renting an apartment or  his or her employer seeing a lien on their credit report.

Anyone peeved yet? Well please ask your Congress person to address this before the 2o12 election.  There are 22 million of us, I think we can make a difference.

Now that we got that off our chest, here is the next one.

Did you know that a veteran of war who acquires the diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,(PTSD), cannot get a Life Insurance policy? And I do not mean a rapacious term policy that is only a capital call for the insurance industry. I mean a straight up whole life policy like the VA grants to its disabled veterans, but only for a maximum of $20,000.00.

The industry has this notion that the life span of PTSD veterans is shortened. Do they not watch those 93 year old  World War ll veterans on the History Channel?  I have asked 5 major insurers to provide me with the epidemiological studies  that corroborate this finding of their actuaries. None have responded.  Knights of Columbus declined to answer why, and a John Hancock agent just commiserated with me  and agreed that is was sad.  USAA, who do a stellar job with veterans  does have a product, but not very attractive pricing.

One thing that is missing in their decision tree, is consideration of the cohort groups that have sought and completed treatment programs that are now considered to be quite successful in ameliorating symptoms of war if caught early enough.

I had one financial maven tell me to just advise the veteran to lie. “Do not release your VA medical records,” he said.  If asked if you have an insurance policy, say no…the VA is not a policy!  I do not advise this, but it shows the gravity and injustice of a system that gives lip service to veterans but does not walk the walk.

The number of veterans with head injuries that are permanent has increased by 240% over the past 9 years.  These combatants will not be in the conventional work force ever again.  One Marine suggested, “head injuries are the weapon of mass destruction sent home.” Wow, tears.

But, do you think they may owe some taxes? I say clean the slate for them, implement some realistic patriotism, and go get the loot from Exon and General Electric.

So how is this for the “Support The Troops” movement?

This blog is titled Veteran Veritas, meaning, Truth. Sometimes it is not so comfortable.

Don’t miss the 23rd annual Nam Jam Patriotic Event at Kino Sports Complex on Saturday, March 26th.

Car Show, Chili Cook-Off 10am-3pm

CONCERT:  12-6 pm      $5 admission, kids under 12 FREE

60’s Garage Band; Running Hot; Chuck Wagon & The Wheels; Borboletta; 2011 Battle of the Band Winner

Kids Play Area; Military Displays; Cold Drinks; Prizes; Food

Tickets available at Tucson area Catalina Marts or at the gate.

www.TucsonNamVets.org

The study states that doctors should offer as much preventive treatment for heart disease for clients with PTSD. The researchers, are Naser Ahmadi, MD, and Ramin Ebrahimi, MD.

The research studied the electronic medicals records of 286, 194 veterans, with an average age of 63, who are being treated at hospitals in Southern California and Nevada. The cohort group includes veterans of the Korean War.

The conclusion of the study indicated that veterans diagnosed with PTSD had 2.41 times the rate of death from all causes compared to veterans who have not experienced PTSD. Or at least not diagnosed with the symptoms. They then surmise that PTSD alone is an independent predictor of death from all causes.

Now, let Veteran Veritas  enter the picture. I cannot use the the adjective that first comes to mind for this study. So let your veteran imaginations take you there.

What I will say is that I first distrust this study because it smells of the subterranean influence of the Insurance industry that does not want to provide life insurance for the young soldiers returning from war, as a result of their pre-existing conditions —which is War!   A soldier who is diagnosed with PTSD cannot currently get life insurance. Truth.

Man is this a hard pill to swallow.

So, the citizen soldier who just defended the United States of America and our system of capitalism, the insurance industry being the very DNA of that system, can in turn not be defended by the very system they just defended.  There will  be an outcry beyond belief when this becomes known nationwide. Johnny can come marching home with ribbons of valor galore, but he cannot get life insurance if he seeks a little help for his nightmares of horific events, because he  is normal. All of the literature on PTSD indicates that, “it is a normal reaction to aberrant events.”  So, where am I going here? I believe studies like this should be scrutinized way beyond their practical value, for the core intent. I suspect that some of that intent is to have on record, medical data, to support the decline for life insurance.  Not unlike the bogus studies of a Psychiatrist named Sally Satel, who was on the payroll of the American Enterprise institute to conduct their dirty work in attempting to alter the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Psychiatry, DSM, so as to not have to award do many disability claims for PTSD, this study is akin to that effort that was suspended as a result of the incredible feedback from veterans, like this writer, who are up at night combing the net.  I will have more to say about this in future postings.

I would like to see what our readers have to say about this study and why from its initial reading it is laced with errors of science.  I will be revisiting this subject frequently over the next several months.

Next week I will be visiting with some high command at Camp Pendleton, and this topic is on the agenda.

As a footnote, many seasoned journalists have a bit of disdain for medical journalism as so much of it has hidden agendas of promotion of self and product, or is bent toward the pharmaceutical industry, meaning stockholders.

Contact:
Mokie Porter
301-585-4000, Ext. 146

North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, the leading Republican on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said yesterday, as reported by the Associated Press, that he has “concerns about a proposal to spend billions of dollars on disability compensation for Vietnam veterans who get heart disease and wants to make sure that science supports the expansion of benefits.”

The “proposal” Burr is referring to is a decision by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, based on the recent National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine committee report, “Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2008.”

A little history is in order: From 1962 to 1971, the U.S. military used Agent Orange and other herbicides in Vietnam and elsewhere to defoliate the jungle canopy, to destroy crops, and to clear the perimeters of U.S. bases. These herbicides were sprayed from fixed-wing and rotary aircraft, trucks, and backpack sprayers. The drums that stored these chemicals were often recycled and put to various other uses, sometimes to collect rain water, to serve as barbecue grill, etc. Nearly three million veterans served in Southeast Asia.

Contained in these herbicides was dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-paradioxin—one of the most dangerous chemicals known to man.

On August 31, 2010, in the Federal Register, the Department of Veterans Affairs published the final rules amending the adjudication regulations concerning presumptive service connection, concluding that there was a positive association between exposure in Vietnam to certain herbicides and the subsequent development of three diseases: hairy cell leukemia & B-cell leukemias; Parkinson’s disease; and ischemic heart disease.

And for the first time in history, on September 23, Burr and his colleagues will call into question the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as outlined in the Agent Orange Act of 1991.

Recognizing that Burr was voted into the House of Representatives in 1994, it is obvious that he was not involved with the passage of the Agent Orange Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-4), which passed the House and the Senate without a single nay vote. In fact, today, 19 years later, there are only 36 members of Congress still serving who voted for passage of this act in 1991.

The Agent Orange Act of 1991 acknowledges the culpability of toxic exposures in health conditions that manifested years after a veteran’s service. Included in the law is the authority for the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to, on a biannual basis, provide a review of all scientific studies and research on the association between dioxin and specific diseases; and include recommendations for future research.

The act further grants the Secretary of the VA the authority to determine if a presumption of service connection is warranted for any of the health conditions addressed in the report.

If Sen. Burr is uncomfortable with the Secretary’s determinations based on the National Academy of Sciences recommendations, perhaps he would be more comfortable with the finding of the U.S. Air Force Ranch Hand Study, conducted by the U.S. Air Force on those who participated in the aerial spraying program, as sited in the 1992 testimony of Dr. Barry L. Johnson, Assistant Surgeon General, before the House Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations:

A recent study on the health status of Vietnam veterans who participated in Operation Ranch Hand did not find any signs of liver disease, but did report increased levels of triglycerides and cholesterol in the blood (a second report does not support these increases). In addition, an increase in body fat, diabetes, and blood pressure were also noted. These effects were strongly associated with TCDD levels in the serum. Ranch Hand veterans also had changes in blood (increased white blood cells, platelet, IgA, and sedimentation rates) which suggest a chronic inflammatory response, although no immunologic system diseases were identified. These immune system changes were also strongly associated with serum TCDD levels. These results differ from those reported in previous analyses of the Ranch Hand group in 1982 and 1985. The earlier analyses did not include an assessment of serum TCDD levels. A physical examination of Ranch Hand veterans is currently under way.

There is no doubt, that Burr, though too young to have faced conscription during the Vietnam Conflict, views himself as a supporter of those who served.

In fact, seven months ago, it was Sen. Burr who introduced a resolution recognizing March 30 as “Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day.” Proclaimed Burr, “There’s no question that our troops served our country bravely and faithfully during the Vietnam War, and these veterans deserve our recognition and gratitude.  Unfortunately, when these service members returned home, they were caught in the crossfire of public debate about our nation’s involvement in the war.”

Today, Vietnam veterans are again caught in the “crossfire of public debate,” as Burr and others balk at the price of providing for the continuing cost of care for those whom he and others recognize “served our country bravely and faithfully during the Vietnam War.”

Words of praise and gratitude do not cost anything. Veterans’ compensation for service-related health conditions do. Sen. Burr, which is it? Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) is the nation’s only congressionally chartered veterans service organization dedicated to the needs of Vietnam-era veterans and their families.  VVA’s founding principle is “Never again will one generation of veterans abandon another.” ]]> http://veteranveritas.com/?feed=rss2&p=366 11 http://veteranveritas.com/?p=364 http://veteranveritas.com/?p=364#comments Thu, 23 Sep 2010 04:18:52 +0000 http://tucsoncitizen.com/veteranveritas/?p=364 Continue reading Thank You American Legion For Dogging Those Enviromental Exposures →]]> The following is a portion of the testimony presented by American Legion National Commander Jimmie L Foster and addresses Veteran disabilities due to environmental exposures.
The full testimony can be found at the following weblink:
http://veterans.house.gov/Media/file/111/9-22-10/AmericanLegionCommandersTestimony.pdf
Please distribute to your members.

American Legion National Commander Fiscal Year 2012 Testimony For the Department of Veteran’s Affairs

By Jimmie L Foster, National Commander

Excerpt: Veterans Disabilities due to Environmental Exposures:

AGENT ORANGE AND TACTICAL HERBICIDES

The American Legion believes that major epidemiological studies of Vietnam veterans who were exposed to the herbicide Agent Orange are long overdue. In the early 1980s, Congress held hearings on the need for such epidemiological studies.  When VA was unable to accomplish the task, the responsibility was passed to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).  In 1986, CDC also abandoned the project, asserting that a study could not be conducted based on available records.

The American Legion did not give up.  Three separate panels of the National Academy of Sciences have agreed with The American Legion and concluded that CDC was wrong and that epidemiological studies based on DoD records are possible.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, Characterizing Exposure of Veterans to Agent Orange and Other Herbicides Used in Vietnam, is based on the research conducted by a Columbia University team.  The team has developed a powerful method for characterizing exposure to herbicides in Vietnam.  The American Legion is proud to have collaborated in this research effort.  In its final report on the study, the IOM urgently recommends that epidemiological studies be undertaken now that an accepted exposure methodology is available.  The American Legion strongly endorses this IOM report.

PRESUMPTIVE SERVICE CONNECTION FOR EXPOSURE

The American Legion strongly supports the extension of presumption of exposure to Agent Orange for veterans who served on naval vessels located in the territorial waters of Vietnam (known as Blue Water Navy veterans) but did not set foot on land in Vietnam.

The IOM, in Update 2008, specifically stated that the evidence it reviewed makes the current definition of Vietnam service, for the purpose of presumption of exposure to Agent Orange, limited to those who actually set foot on land in Vietnam “seem inappropriate.”  Citing an Australian study on the fate of the contaminant TCDD when sea water is distilled to produce drinking water, the IOM committee stated that it was convinced that such a process would produce a feasible route of exposure for Blue Water veterans, “which might have been supplemented by drift from herbicide spraying.”  (See IOM, Veterans and Agent Orange, Update 2008, p. 564; July 24, 2009)  The IOM also noted that a 1990 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a classic Agent Orange cancer, was more prevalent and significant among Blue Water Navy veterans. The IOM subsequently recommended that, given all of the available evidence, Blue Water Navy veterans should not be excluded from the group of Vietnam-era veterans presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange/herbicides.

The American Legion submits that not only does this latest IOM report fully support the extension of presumption of Agent Orange exposure to Blue Water Navy veterans, it provides scientific justification to the legislation currently pending in Congress that seeks to correct this grave injustice faced by Blue Water Navy veterans. The American

Legion at its 2010 National Convention approved Resolution 88 identifying service in the Republic of Vietnam includes “those who served in the territorial waters offshore.”

EXPOSURE IN AREAS OTHER THAN THE REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM

The American Legion is also extremely concerned about the timely disclosure and release of all information by DoD on the use and testing of herbicides in locations other than Vietnam during the war.  Over the years, The American Legion has represented veterans who claim to have been exposed to herbicides in places other than Vietnam.  Without official acknowledgement by the Federal government of the use of herbicides, proving such exposure is virtually impossible.  Information has come to light in the last few years leaving no doubt that Agent Orange, and other herbicides contaminated with dioxin, were released in locations other than Vietnam.  This information is slowly being disclosed by DoD and provided to VA. In April 2001, officials from DoD briefed VA on the use of Agent Orange along the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ) from April 1968 through July 1969.  It was applied through hand spraying and by hand distribution of pelletized herbicides to defoliate the fields of fire between the front line defensive positions and the south barrier fence.  The size of the treated area was a strip 151 miles long and up to 350 yards from the fence to north of the civilian control line.  According to available records, the effects of the spraying were sometimes observed as far as 200 meters downwind. DoD identified the units that were stationed along the DMZ during the period in which the spraying took place.  This information was given to VA’s Compensation and Pension Service, which provided it to all of the regional offices.  VA Central Office has instructed its Regional Offices to concede exposure for veterans who served in the identified units during the period the spraying took place.

In January 2003, DoD provided VA with an inventory of documents containing brief descriptions of records of herbicides used at specific times and locations outside of Vietnam.  The information, unlike the information on the Korean DMZ, does not contain units’ involved or individual identifying information.  Also, according to VA, this information is incomplete, reflecting only 70 to 85 percent of herbicide use, testing and disposal locations outside of Vietnam.  VA requested that DoD provide it with information regarding the units involved with herbicide operations or other information that may be useful to place veterans at sites where herbicide operations or testing was conducted. Unfortunately, as of this date, additional information has not been provided by DoD.

Obtaining the most accurate information available concerning possible exposure is extremely important for the adjudication of herbicide-related disability claims of veterans claiming exposure outside of Vietnam.  For herbicide-related disability claims, veterans who served in Vietnam during the period of January 9, 1962 to May 7, 1975 are presumed by law to have been exposed to Agent Orange.  Veterans claiming exposure to herbicides outside of Vietnam are required to submit proof of exposure.  This is why it is crucial that all information pertaining to herbicide use, testing, and disposal in locations other than Vietnam be released to VA in a timely manner.

The IOM subsequently recommended that, given all of the available evidence, Blue Water Navy veterans should not be excluded from the group of Vietnam-era veterans presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange/herbicides.

Congressional oversight is needed to ensure that additional information identifying involved personnel or units for the locations already known by VA is released by DoD, as well as all relevant information pertaining to other locations that have yet to be identified.  Locating this information and providing it to VA must be a national priority.  The American Legion endorses both the 2006 and 2008 IOM reports and strongly urges VA to make a timely decision on its recommendations and provide timely notification of the decision to add or not add to the presumptive list. The ongoing and lengthy process witnessed during the addition of the three new presumptive conditions associated with Agent Orange, ischemic heart disease, Parkinson’s

disease, and b-cell leukemias such as “hairy cell leukemia” has illustrated the need for better coordination between VA, the veterans’ community and Congress.  There is an excellent system already in place by law to provide for the addition of new presumptive conditions.  The science evaluation performed by the IOM has been proven to be

sound and thorough.  Where VA evaluates this information and chooses to add new presumptive conditions, the process should not reflect endless months of delays and debate, but should move forward swiftly.

In order to facilitate a better understanding of this process, more clarity and transparency may be required.  Why, for example, does VA determine one portion of an IOM report to be valid for finding of a presumption of service connection, yet disregard other portions of the IOM findings, such as the analysis of the Australian Naval Study which

recognized the link between Blue Water Naval Service and the exposure to Agent Orange?  When questions are raised as to why VA has determined that the IOM findings suggest a connection, there should be clear guidance as to what standard is being objectively used, so that no questions as to the integrity of the process can arise. The process, when supported by sound science, should not consist of a yearlong cycle of bickering.  The law clearly states a period of deadlines for the publication of new regulations.  These regulations must be adhered to, and the criteria by which the Department of Veterans’ Affairs determines the necessity to add a new presumptive condition must be clear, so that future delays to veterans can be avoided.

The American Legion has long fought for the veterans of Vietnam to be justly treated for the after effects of their exposure to Agent Orange. Congress and VA must discover a way to more efficiently execute the process of the addition of new presumptive conditions, so that years of long delays no longer plague veterans in their quest for benefits.

GULF WAR ILLNESS

In the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illness (RACGWI) initial report released in November 2004, it was found that, for a large majority of affected Gulf War veterans, their illnesses could not be explained by stress or psychiatric illness and concluded that current scientific evidence supports a probable link between neurotoxin exposure and subsequent development of Gulf War veterans’ illnesses.  Earlier government panels concluded that deployment-related stress, not the numerous environmental and other exposures troops were exposed to during the war, was likely responsible for the numerous unexplained symptoms reported by thousands of Gulf War veterans. The Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses released their most recent report November 2008.  In the report, the committee concluded that Gulf War Illness is a physical condition.  The report indicates that Gulf War Illness is a serious condition that affects at least one fourth of the 697,000 U.S. veterans who served in the 1990-1991 Gulf War.  The panel also determined that Gulf War Illness fundamentally differs from trauma and stress-related syndromes described after other wars.

Studies have indicated that Gulf War veterans have a lower rate of Post-Traumatic Stress (PTS) than veterans of other wars.  Upon review of extensive scientific evidence, the committee determined that two neurotoxin exposures are causally associated with Gulf War Illness: a drug given to service members to protect them from nerve gas known as pyridostigmine bromide (PB) pills and pesticides used during deployment.

The science evaluation performed by the IOM has been proven to be sound and thorough.  Where VA evaluates this information and chooses to add new presumptive conditions, the process should not reflect endless months of delays and debate, but should move forward swiftly.

The American Legion strongly supports this report and urges the VA Secretary to act quickly on the committee’s recommendations. In addition, VA must continue to fund research projects consistent with the recommendations of the RACGWI.  VA must continue to fund research projects consistent with the recommendations of the RACGWI.  It is important that VA continues to focus its research on finding medical treatments that will alleviate veterans’ suffering as well as on figuring out the causes of that suffering.  Although veterans can file claims for these ailments and possibly gain access to the health care system once a disability percentage rate is granted, those whose claims are denied cannot enroll.  Unfortunately, the denial rate for Gulf War undiagnosed illness claims is approximately 75 percent. Due to their nature, these illnesses are difficult to understand and information about individual exposures may not be available, many ill veterans are not able to present strong claims.  They are then forced to seek care from private physicians who may not have enough information about Gulf War Veterans’ illnesses to provide appropriate care. VA published its comments on the IOM’s Gulf War and Health, Volume 2: Insecticides and Solvents report, released in February 2003 in the Federal Register.

The Department decided not to establish a presumption of service connection for any diseases, illnesses or health effects considered in the report, based on exposure to insecticides or solvents during service in the Persian Gulf during the Persian Gulf War.  Many of VA’s justifications for not establishing presumption mirror the reasons why ill Gulf War veterans have problems justifying their claims.  The IOM report notes that little information is known about the use of solvents in the theater. VA notes that veterans may still be granted service connection, if evidence indicates an association between their diseases and their exposures. This places the burden of proof on Gulf War veterans to prove their exposures and that the level of exposure is sufficient enough to warrant service connection. IOM and VA have acknowledged that there is insufficient information on the use of the identified solvents and pesticides during the Gulf War.

VA’s interpretation is that Congress did not intend VA to establish presumptions for known health effects of all substances common to military and civilian life, but that it should focus on the unique exposure environment in the Persian Gulf during the war. The IOM was commissioned to ascertain long-term health effects of service in the Persian Gulf during the war, based on exposures associated with service in theater during the war as identified by Congress, not exposures unique to the Southwest Asia Theater. The determination to not grant presumption for the ailments identified should be based solely on the research findings, not on the legitimacy of the exposures identified by Congress. The IOM has a similar charge to address veterans who served in Vietnam during the war. Herbicides were not unique to the operations in the Southeast Asia theater of conflict and there had not been, until recently, a definitive idea of the amounts of herbicides to which service members had been exposed.  Peer-reviewed, occupational studies are evaluated to make recommendations on which illnesses are associated with exposure the herbicides—and their components known to be used in theater.  For ailments that demonstrate sufficient evidence of a causal relationship, sufficient evidence of an association, and limited evidence of an association, the Secretary may consider presumption. Gulf War and Health Volume 2 identifies several illnesses in these categories.  However, the VA Secretary determined that presumption is not warranted. VA needs to clearly define what type of information is required to determine possible health effects, for example, any clarification of guidance or mandate for the research.

VA also needs to ensure that its charge to the IOM is specific enough to help it make determinations about presumptive illnesses.  VA noted that neither the report, nor the studies considered for the report identified increased risk of disease based on episodic exposures o insecticides or solvents and that the report states no conclusion whether any of the diseases are associated with “less than chronic exposure,” possibly indicating a lack of data to make a determination.  If this was necessary, it should have been clearly identified.

Finally, Section 1118, title 38, United States Code  mandates how the VA Secretary should respond to the recommendations made in the IOM reports.  The VA Secretary is required to make a determination of whether or not a presumption for service connection is warranted for each illness covered in the report no later than 60 days after the date the report is received. Persian Gulf War and Health, Volume 2 was released in 2003, four years ago.  VA has yet to publish its determination on those reports as well. The American Legion urges VA to provide clarity in the charge for the IOM reports. The VA must identify what type of information is needed to make determinations of presumption of service connection for illnesses that may be associated with service in the Gulf during the war.

The American Legion urges VA to request clarification from Congress on the intent of the phrase “known or presumed to be associated with service in the Armed Forces in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War.” Additionally to obtain clarification from the IOM committee concerning missing information as possible, and re-evaluate the findings of the IOM report with the clarification provided. The American Legion also urges Congress to provide oversight to ensure VA provides timely responses to the recommendations made in the IOM reports.
God Bless
Jose M. Garcia
Past National Commander
Catholic War Veterans,USA
josegarcia4@sbcglobal.net
Better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot.
In God We Trust

I said, I had no courage to do so. He said, “honesty is a lonely word.”  “And…. are you not suppose to be a veteran advocacy blog?”  He won. So here it is in raw honest form.  Be nice now. The comment follows.

“I like Carlos’s (Chazman1) idea. Kino Veterans Memorial Stadium is the right name and packed with the dignity and respect that needs to be returned. I say returned,as the original name of the park,the one that was sold to voters in the bond election, and the establishment of a Stadium District, was Veterans Memorial Stadium. When it was removed without input,(they could have kept the name Veterans Memorial when granting naming rights),they essentially dissed the veterans,whose name was used to get the bonds passed. Bad news, bad karma. One of the many reasons the place was star-crossed from the outset. Not to mention some shady real estate transactions that Jim Click had to step in to ameliorate. Myself and tons of veterans boycotted the park,without fan-fare, since its opening. Too bad, cuz we like the sport not the  organizational structure. Sort of like a kid having a dysfunctional Dad. Ain’t his fault. Without anyone ever knowing or drawing attention,this may well have been a reason for poor attendance. It was a thing of integrity.Something the veterans had, not the electeds.

The subterranean agenda, that was jammed through the old Pima County Sports Authority, in order to establish the new Stadium District, would now, with a new fund of knowledge, most likely result in indictments of both elected officials and some former members of the Sports Commission.

I know, as I was the Executive Director of the Pima County Sports Authority,(which has never been legally sunset-ed), from 1995-97. The other one. If I told all, I would have to be in the victim-witness program!
As the late and talented Chris Limberis once said after leaving journalism to work for the County, when asked how he liked it, stated, “I feel like I need to take a shower three times a day.”

For penance….and atonement…..say two Hail Mary’s, two Our Father’s and return the name; Veteran Memorial Stadium. It will be good for the soul of Tucson.”

Week of September 13, 2010

The current Consumer Price Index shows a negative rate of inflation for the first three quarters of 2010. The CPI is the determining factor for the annual COLA for VA Disability Compensation and pensions, Military Retirement, and Social Security. Based on the current CPI rate it appears that 2011 will mark the second year in a row without a Cost of Living Adjustment.

Do these folks never buy Gas?

At the rate that Vietnam Veterans are dying from Agent Orange related illnesses, the cynicism in the ranks of us who have those illnesses, is such, that one might say, the contract disputes will assist in reducing the cost of delivery as many more will simply be dead before their claims are completed.

If a veteran dies with a disability rating and a service connected illness, the spouse will then be eligible for benefits.  Add those costs to the treatment costs of the returning combatants, and you have an actuarial nightmare.

There have already been grave concerns about the delays in Agent Orange claims for the past 30 years. One of those speculative concerns is that the bean counters realize, the longer the delay the less the outlay. They never quite planned for the overwhelming number of veterans with AO issues to still be in the system this long.

Now in our 60’s, we are a tenacious lot, evidenced by the 1980’s movie with the late John Ritter, titled, “Unnatural Causes.” A must see for anyone familiar with the subject. It is a docu-drama based on the true story of a Veterans Benefits Counselor named, Maude DeVictor, who refused to quit.

One thing is for sure, the true cost of war,  in prolonged real time,including the Un-Declared ones is now a matter of increasing transparency.

Must we really trouble ourselves with  wondering why there is no money left over for jobs?  How sophomoric to even worry about the answer.

While we build and prop up nations across the globe, without the substantial financial  support of our Allies, we cannot build or prop up our own.

Tax cuts, schmax cuts! Red State, Blue State.  Second Amendment

rights and Mosque mania, are all distractions from the cost of war. And they are working!

Humpty Dumpty  never did join a political party. He is awaiting his claim to be completed from his fall.

In my view, we are in an Alice and Wonderland, upside down world, America is the disabled veteran and we are the leaders, even with our Agent Orange, Senator Simpson.

The following is for your information and distribution to your members.

John A Miterko

Veterans Advocate

VA abruptly issues second contract for Agent Orange claims system

BY BOB BREWIN 09/08/2010

The Veterans Affairs Department awarded IBM a contract in July to develop within three months a system to process claims for veterans suffering from diseases related to the Vietnam-era chemical Agent Orange. But last week officials inexplicably issued another contract searching for a second contractor to do the job in one-third the time, while the IBM contract remains in place.

VA needs the new system to process up to 240,000 claims for 15 illnesses determined to be the result of military personnel being exposed to Agent Orange, a defoliant sprayed on the jungles during the Vietnam War. VA presumes all personnel who served in Vietnam were exposed to Agent Orange, and the 15 illnesses they might have are a result of coming into contact with the chemical.

According to VA, its policy of presuming the diseases are a result of exposure to the chemical will simplify the process for veterans receiving compensation because the department will forgo the normal process of requiring veterans to prove their illnesses began, or worsened, during their military service in Vietnam. Paying Agent Orange claims will cost the United States $13.4 billion.

Department officials decided this year to process the claims separate from the other systems the Veterans Benefits Administration uses. In March, VA Secretary Eric Shinseki said he wanted to tap private sector skills to fast-track the development of the system. “This will be a new way of doing business and a major step forward in how we process the presumptive claims we expect to receive over the next two years,” he said at the time.

VA initially planned to award the contract in April, but delays pushed that move up to July. IBM eventually won the $9.1 million pact. The procurement calls for delivery of a production-ready prototype by October and full production by December.

VA asked IBM to develop a fully automated system and a machine-readable claims form that veterans can electronically download and, at their option, electronically submit.

Officials want the forms to be shorter than the current document, well-suited to an automated processing method, and they expect IBM to use commercial systems to the fullest extent possible. They also want employees and veterans to be able to access the system via the Web, with a separate data repository linked to existing departmental systems.

But on Sept. 3, officials quietly posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website a second procurement for the same processing system. The document was not accompanied by any public announcement. The new procurement includes roughly the samerequirements as the original contract, but a shortened delivery deadline.

VA wants the selected contractor to demonstrate the capability to electronically process claims within 15 days of the award and to provide a production-ready system 15 days later, a daunting task, according to one contractor who declined to be identified.

The system must be operational next month, and bidders must submit their proposals by Friday, only a week after the solicitation was issued, which are due Friday.

Harold Gracey, a consultant with Topside Consulting who served as chief of staff at VA from 1994 to 1998, said he assumed the department put out the second procurement as a backup plan in case IBM cannot deliver its system on time.

Gracey added VA could find a second contractor to meet its requirements, but bidders also have to recognize the negative publicity that would result if they fail to deliver. A source familiar with VA said he viewed the second source procurement as a poke at IBM to fulfill its requirements on time.

Veterans groups said whatever the reasons behind the second procurement they were worried the department might not be able to meet its deadlines. “VA’s unusual announcement for a second contract, without any details released to the public, raises significant concerns among veterans about VA’s transparency and VA’s ability to process Agent Orange claims in a timely and accurate manner,” said Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense. “We hope VA issues an explanation about this and puts to rest veterans’ concerns.”

VA officials did not reply to numerous requests from Nextgov to comment on the status of the IBM contract and did not respond to a query on why they issued a second procurement. IBM executives also did not reply to calls and e-mails about the status of the company’s contract.

God Bless
Jose M. Garcia
Past National Commander
Catholic War Veterans,USA
josegarcia4@sbcglobal.net
Better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot.
In God We Trust