While Illinois’, and the Nation’s, Veterans Suffer, Obama Campaigns
By SusanUnPC on December 20, 2007 at 2:17 PM in Clinton, Current Affairs, Obama, Soldiers/Veterans
Illinois’ disabled veterans are at “rock bottom” — “dead last” — in benefits and claims processing of applications for disability. But Illinois’ veterans take a back seat because their junior senator is running for president. And that senator, Barack Obama, has missed an astonishing number of hearings and meetings of the Senate Veterans committee.
Obama is nothing if not audacious in touting his veterans committee membership as contributing to his “foreign policy” experience for the presidency, while his own state’s veterans suffer. The Chicago Sun-Times ran a devastating investigative series in 2004-2005 (see Truthout) that showed that Illinois’ veterans rank last, or near-last (depends on the graph) in disability awards of the 50 states and Puerto Rico (Illinois average: $6,961; New Mexico average: $12,004). The New York Times’s 2007 article shows Illinois’ disabled soldiers are still waiting over two years later: “Illinois, which has deployed the sixth-highest number of soldiers of any state, has the second-largest backlog.”
Sen. Obama admitted he didn’t know anything about problems at Walter Reed before the WaPo’s shattering series. And Sen. Obama has missed KEY votes for disabled veterans — including a measure that would create “common disability ratings.”
Obama claimed that veterans committee was “one of my first priorities.” He said, “One of my first priorities was obtaining a seat on the Veterans Committee…And the thing that I pledged when I was sworn in as the Senator was that if nothing else in the first couple of years in the Senate, I could make absolutely certain that there would have been a strong advocate in the United States Senate,” at a Veterans Town Hall Meeting, May 23, 2005.
But Obama has skipped 19 of 37 VA committee meetings in the 109th congress. Obama’s attendance record was the second worst of all Democrats on the committee. He attended just 18 of the committee’s 37 meetings in Washington D.C.
On the campaign trail, Obama stresses the importance of providing “the best care” for veterans and their families: “Providing the best care for our service members, veterans and their families is one thing about this war we can still get right.”
- But Sen. Obama has continually skipped hearings on the veterans budget. Chairman Craig opened a hearing Obama missed and said, “we will consider today … legislation touching on veterans insurance, housing, burial, compensation, and employee benefits.” Obama also missed all four committee hearings in a series that focused on the President’s proposed 2007 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ranking Senator Akaka noted during the hearings that “we must learn a lesson from last year’s budget crisis and do everything we can to ensure that veterans and their family members have access to health care and benefits they have earned.” (From the GPO on 6/23/05, 2/28/06, 3/2/06, 3/7/06, March 9, 2006.)
Obama stresses the importance of veterans health care: “Long as there are wounded service members receiving substandard medical care, we have failed in our duty to honor the commitment of the brave men and women who chose to serve. We must provide our returning heroes and their families with every resource they need to rebuild their lives,” Obama said in a press release on April 10, 2007.
- But Obama skipped a hearing about expanding veterans’ health services. Craig opened, “We also have legislation before us to specifically address the demand for long-term care. As the veteran population ages, the demand for long-term care has increased accordingly.” Akaka added that the committee would consider legislation that would encourage “creative ways to help alleviate the burden on caregivers while expanding services to veterans.” (From the GPO, May 11, 2006.)
- Obama also skipped a hearing to create insurance benefits for veterans in rehabilitation. Craig announced that the committee would “hear testimony about the traumatically injured protection under service members’ group life insurance benefit.” Akaka declared that “this insurance program helps ease the financial burden” on a hospitalized service member’s family. (From the GPO on September 7, 2006.)
In another press release, in May 2007, Obama pledged to provide the “best treatment for our service members”: He said, “Providing the best treatment for our service members is one thing about this war we can still get right.”
- But Obama skipped the hearing on improving veterans’ health care access. “In many cases, VA’s facilities are located where veterans used to live, not where they now live,” noted Chairman Craig. The legislation under consideration was “designed in part to address the changes in the demographics of our veterans’ population and follows America’s medicine’s transformation from hospital-centric to patient-centric delivery of care.” (From the GPO on April 6, 2006.)
- Sen. Obama also missed an “exceedingly important” nomination hearing for the VA’s Undersecretary for Health. “Dr. Perlin [has been nominated] to serve as VA’s Under Secretary for Health,” announced Chairman Craig. “This is an exceedingly important position. The Under Secretary, in effect, serves as CEO of the VA’s entire health care system, the largest integrated health care system in the United States. Dr. Perlin, this is a big, big, big job.” (From the GPO on April 7, 2005.)
Sen. Obama Has Skipped Important Votes For Veterans in the U.S. Senate
- Sen. Obama missed the vote to eliminate requirement that severance pay be deducted from disability compensation: Obama did not vote for the Levin, D-Mich., amendment No. 2019 to the Levin substitute amendment No. 2011.
(The Levin amendment would establish a Defense Department and Veterans Affairs Interagency Program Office to implement a joint electronic health record system and eliminate the current requirement that severance pay be deducted from disability compensation for disabilities incurred in a combat zone. It would authorize $50 million for the treatment and rehabilitation of service members with traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder and create common disability ratings to determine those eligible for care. The substitute would authorize $648.3 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2008, including $127.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also would authorize $143.5 billion for operations and maintenance; $109.9 billion for procurement; $122.9 billion for military personnel and $74.7 billion for research development, testing and evaluation.
(The Senate vote results: #246, Amdt. 2019 to HR 1585, Passed 94-0: R 48-0; D 44-0 (ND 39-0, SD 5-0); I 2-0; 7/12/07; HRC voted yea while Obama did not vote.)
- Obama missed a vote to provide $109.3 billion in fiscal 2008 for the Department of Veterans Affairs: Obama did not vote for passage of the bill that would provide $109.3 billion in fiscal 2008 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, military construction and military housing. The bill would provide $87.5 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, including $37.2 billion for veterans health programs. It would provide $41.2 billion in mandatory spending for veterans’ service-connected compensation benefits and pensions. The bill would provide $9.8 billion for military construction, $2.9 billion for military family housing and $8.5 billion for the latest round of base closures. As amended, the bill would provide $100 million in emergency funding for the Homeland Security Department to reimburse state and local law enforcement entities for security and related costs associated with the 2008 presidential candidate nominating conventions. (From Vote 316, HR 2642 (Fiscal 2008 Military Construction-VA Appropriations), Passed 92-1: R 47-1; D 43-0 (ND 39-0, SD 4-0); I 2-0, 9/6/07; HRC voted yea while Obama did not vote.
Walter Reed
- Obama admitted he did not know of problems at Walter Reed hospital before story was published in Washington Post: “But when asked if he knew, as a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, about the problems at Walter Reed Hospital before the story was published in the Washington Post, Obama admitted he didn’t. He tried to explain: ‘People will acknowledge that the medical facility at Walter Reed does great work. Unfortunately, what it turned out was the outpatient facilities were disastrous.’” — in the Chicago Sun-Times, June 4, 2007
- From Washington Times editorial (Yes, it’s the Washington Times, but remember that this is exactly what the GOP would say about Obama in a general election):
Obama’s Walter Reed bill is ‘classic scandal legislation which makes the sponsor look good but does little to solve the issue’ “The remedies much discussed this week, courtesy of Democratic Sens. Claire McCaskill and Barack Obama, are laughable if they are intended to solve the systemic problems. They are a bandaid on a gaping wound. The senators’ call for simplifying paperwork, hiring more caseworkers and improving their training, requiring more oversight from inspectors general, improved reporting to Congress, establishing facility-repair timelines and increasing psychological counseling. It pains us to cry cynical politics because these measures would be worthy and welcome, but they are too small-bore and reactive to make a significant difference. This is classic scandal legislation which makes the sponsor look good but does little to solve the issue.”
By the way: What happened to that “laughable” legislation? Its useful provisions were incorporated by the Armed Services Committee, on which Sen. Hillary Clinton is a highly proactive member and works with her Republican colleagues, into better legislation that passed the Senate.
From The Buffalo News, October 29, 2007:
Besides, throughout the year, Clinton has chosen to be in Washington for big moments far more often than her rival candidates.
On July 12, for example, she cut short a trip to Detroit to return to D.C. to vote on an amendment boosting aid for wounded veterans — a vote all the other presidential candidates missed.
Sen. Obama hung around at the NAACP convention in Detroit.
However, Sen. Clinton rushed back to Washington, D.C. to vote on the “landmark legislation to improve care for wounded troops and veterans when they return home from battle.” (From Sen. Patty Murray’s press release, “Murray Lauds Passage Of Senate Wounded Warrior Bill.”)
See also: “Obama Talks the Talk, But Where’s the Walk?,” which reveals that Obama, as chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs for the Senate Foreign Relations committee, has not held a single hearing.
There are people who do the work. Then there are people who just talk.
Screw hope. Give me the one who gets it done.
on sale for only $16.95.
also comes with a special spatula.)
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
“The story of poker is that of risk-loving America ... a crazy ride in unparalleled detail, driven by wit, wisdom, true love, and sizzling style. As analyst, historian, devotee, and no mean player, James McManus is poker’s most eloquent advocate.”
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
Congress just voted on giving Bush another $70 billion in taxpayer money to continue the war crime in Iraq, without any demands for a withdrawal timetable. Where were our Democratic presidential candidates when this was being voted on? All of them, Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Biden, were out campaigning. They have their priorities.
SOB! I’m really ticked at all of them, even if they are better than the GOP. They just pay lip service to ending the war. Meanwhile, by skipping important votes, they all send a very clear signal that they have no intention of ending the war for the next decade or so at least. The Dems didn’t even try to filibuster the bill. Although Feingold did offer a troop withdrawal amendment.
Oh, and both Clinton and Obama skipped the FISA vote too, which would’ve granted retroactive immunity to the telecoms for violating our rights. At least Dodd fought that one.
I agree, this is not only an Obama problem. One could say that Clinton A) used her seat as a springboard as well and B) the Clintons were more concerned with Hillary being able to run in ‘08 than with the state of the country in ‘04. Seems incredibly self-serving. I expect (should she win) the political campaign equivalent of “Mission: Accomplished”, “Aren’t you glad those crooks are gone?”, etc.
Further, I am constantly asking myself just what it would take to get the Dems on the Hill to initiate impeachment proceedings. Eating live puppies and drinking the blood of virgins on live TV? Not that they’d actually ever find anything incriminating what with those naughty fires burning WH records and people clicking the delete button on email backups.
Have you tried finding Obama’s scrubbed records from Illinois Senate 8 yr stint?
Have you seen Obama’s current US Senate record [WashPo politics section[congress] online?
It isn’t good enough.
Please. how can you take the repetitive pattern of Obama not being present to vote, and voting only “present” when in Illinois? This is his legacy! The others may not have shown up in those expamles you stated, yet where is the outrage for the person with limited experience, poor voting record? Also not noted in the article, Obama didn’t show up for the most recent Iran Resolution vote, saying he was too busy on the campaign trail, yet bashed Hillary on her vote? Really. Is this the type of person you want in the White House? His past behavior sums it up, he will not be present for us.
Percy, thanks for the post. And thanks to Susan for her first rate investigative journalistic piece here on Obama and Hillary’s voting positions and records.
Obama should get no excuses for a paltry and contradictory record.
He appears more like a show biz orator rainmaker, and oh! is this the wrong time for that.
But stirring uo the Hillary hate will sink the party. If you think some of us Dems are onto him, can you imagine what the GOP will do if he’s nominated?
He does NOT have a clean record and will be vulnerable in ways we can’t imagine.
I say Bravo to anyone willing to take the time as bloggers have proved over and over that they can challenge the MSM. The internet reportage has just begun to resonate, and we can see more and more what a lousy, lazy, biased bunch of hacks the so called “Press” has become.
Here’s to brave blog journalism in all of it’s uniqueness and importance. Remember when they told us all bloggers sat in pajamas and blogged at 3 to 5 Am? I don’t.
Yes, they said the blogs comments were the worthless ramblings of “untrained?” journalists.
After reading Kristol in this weeks NY Times and his misquote of the wrong author in his debut column, accuracy for “professional” journalism went out the window.
So lets do some more investigative first rate journalism.
Susan,
Get ready for the personal attacks because the facts you present are devastating. Well done.
I’m braced. It was depressing, actually. I read somewhere yesterday — Huffington Post? — that Senate colleagues aren’t impressed by the LACK of Obama’s concentration on learning the rules and ways of the Senate. It appears he’s mostly used his Senate seat and committee chairs as a springboard, and that makes me — well — sad. (Because I like him! Who can’t like him?! And admire him? But I prefer workers and policy wonks who really get the job done.)
And thank you, Larry. From you, it means a lot.
Obama is very impressive as a speaker and a candidate, despite flaws. He’s the first black man that stands a chance at winning the presidency, running against the first woman who stands a chance at the presidency. Both Obama and Clinton are making history!
But posting about Obama’s record shouldn’t earn Susan personal attacks. Disagree on the substance, on the facts.
I agree about Senator Obama…too many are campaigning for the candidate they hope he is, not on what he’s done. Let’s give him 8 or more years in the Senate to show us leadership and competence.
One technical question…
Are the outpatients at Walter Reed technically “veterans?” Walter Reed is not a V.A. veteran’s hospital, it’s a DOD military hospital. Do the Walter Reed outpatients come under the purview of a Congressional veterans affairs committee or a military affairs committee? Blame was laid where it belonged, the DOD, not the VA in this case, now let’s blame the right Congressional committees.
Absolutely. Eight more years, and he might be an incredibly good candidate. He has brains and ability. He needs more experience and proof of work ethic … then he’d be ready.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IL21Ak03.html
i’d rather have Sen. Obama in the WH than Sen. Clinton.
i have had enough of Bush, Clinton, Bush….
time for a change, imo — fwiw.
Peg, because of your username, I’ll assume that you are a woman. I don’t know if you got a chance to read my post on Sen. Clinton’s 35 years of work for women and children … admittedly, it’s a long piece, but you can scan it fairly quickly, read the bullet points, and the bold-faced items and get a picture of her very, very hard work for women and children. It’s truly impressive. And she did this work, most of it, independently of her husband, and her husband says that he depended on her to teach him about these issues.
She is her own person. After her graduation from law school, in her first job in Washington, D.C., she came to the attention of people who saw in her a great future leader. But she was in love, and finally accepted Bill’s proposal, after turning him down many times. In other words, she was on her way to becoming a force in American politics on her own, but for love and marriage. She has the work ethic and the experience to be a great president.
yes — i read the post about Sen Clinton
but as much as i think she is qualified to be president, i am ready for someone different…
i don’t know who yet- that’s why i read posts like yours!
if she wins the Dem nomination, i will vote for her only because of the next supreme court judge.
Peg, are you aware of Hillary Clinton’s record on Iraq (she was, up until very recently when it became a political liability, a most enthusiastic supporter of Bush’s adventure)? International law and human rights? The military and war (she has stated that she plans to significantly increase the military budget over what it has been even under Bush, and significantly increase the size of the military - and she hasn’t yet met a war she didn’t like)? Foreign policy? Nuclear proliferation? The UN?
Before anyone decides that Hillary Clinton is their candidate, they ought at the very least to read the articles here: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802 , here:http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4803 . At least then you won’t be surprised at what they get.
Peg, are you aware of Hillary Clinton’s record on Iraq (she was, up until very recently when it became a political liability, a most enthusiastic supporter of Bush’s adventure)? International law and human rights? The military and war (she has stated that she plans to significantly increase the military budget over what it has been even under Bush, and significantly increase the size of the military - and she hasn’t yet met a war she didn’t like)? Foreign policy? Nuclear proliferation? The UN?
Before anyone decides that Hillary Clinton is their candidate, they ought at the very least to read the articles here: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802 , here: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4803 , and here: . At least then you won’t be surprised at what they get.
Sorry, premature post:
The third article is here: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4811
Before you vote for Hillary Clinton you owe it to yourself to know what to expect in these areas.
Susan, I do not have a great deal of sympathy on this one. “The veterans” have assumed the role of sideline whingers. I do not think that anyone should be rewarded for killing another human being. And I don’t care whose side they are on.
Why should veterans have any special rights over another in need?
How the understanding of what it means to be a good Samaritan has changed. A homeless drug addict deserves as much care as the highest decorated soldier.
How about a homeless drug addict who happens to be a decorated soldier?
How about a decorated soldier who became a homeless drug addict thanks to his wounds or PTSD making gainful employment impossible? There are an astounding number of soldiers returning from Iraq with head injuries. They received those injuries serving their country. I don’t see why we should turn our backs on them.
While there are certainly going to be whiners in a group that large, I see no reason to let that change my opinion about our obligations to these people. They risked their lives for their country and came back injured. Most did this for very little pay, under conditions that most of us would be whining about if we were there.
I don’t mind if they get some preference when it comes to medical care.
Cart before the horse. My bad. I was thinking of friend who was a tunnel rat in Veitnam.
“They received those injuries serving their country.”
Sorry, but I have a big problem with this “serving their country” designation when it comes to the Iraq crime. They may be fooled into thinking they are serving their country there, but let us not be fooled. They are for sure serving George Bush, Dick Cheney, the neocon cabal behind this horror, and the corporations that are profiting from it, but their country? Sorry, but no way!
That doesn’t mean they should not have the help and treatment they need, but let’s not fall into the “serving their country” myth.
PS The ones in this situation who are serving their country are the Iraqi resistance fighters who are defending their country against foreign invaders.
And I also think the American troops who refuse to take part in Bush’s crime against humanity are also serving their country, and very courageously too.
“I do not think that anyone should be rewarded for killing another human being.”
I agree with you 150%.
On the other hand, I do not think it is rewarding someone to fulfill the obligation of the State to take care of the medical needs of members of its military, particularly for medical needs that result from following orders.
Got your back susan if anyone attacks you personally.
The Hoopster owns the paint..
My only thing about the votes is this..
The Dems don’t have the votes in Congress to stop the war or the funding..It’s a fact of life..Symbolism means nothing at this point.. 4 1/2 years into this disaster a symbolic vote is just that..If the Democratic Candidates need to be stumping in order for us to take over this Government then I say go for it..Keep your eye on the ball.. I can promise you this and you can’t deny it, If HRC or Obama’s vote could change anything there would have been a private jet waiting to rush them to DC for the vote.
HoosierHoops: It is not always the cold medicine;
“Increasing Café by 35 miles an hour” shrubs pressers this morning…
“If Greenhouse gases are problem, we need more nuclear power.” (The omnibus bill had 25 billion in loan guarantees in it for the nuke industry.)
teakwood:
“Increasing Café by 35 miles an hour” shrubs pressers this morning…
what does that mean??
I think he he was trying to say “per gallon” but I took it to mean he wanted to slow walk the implementation of the legislation….hope your feeling better.
Obama claimed that veterans committee was “one of my first priorities.”
I agree, this is not only an Obama problem.
For Obama, it’s about looking good, but this is true for HRC too. The whole thing is image-management. The only questions that matter are image questions - do the voters like you, are you made of teflon, do you have a million dollar smile? It’s about posing with Oprah, making grand statements in front of thousands, getting on Saturday Night Live.
It’s about rock-star status.
The campaign staff has done the math: how many people are going to see Mr. Million-Dollar smile loudly proclaiming that the veteran’s committee is his highest priority, versus how many people are actually going to check the record and see if there’s anything behind the glam?
Big rallies of grand pronouncements by stars get ratings.
Fact checking doesn’t.
We are told vote for Obama because:
- he’s black
- he’s young
- he gives great “speech”
- he’s “ethnic”, which is cool these days
- he has rock star status
Curiously missing from this list is “because of what he’s accomplished while in office.”
Those of us who want to wait a few more years and see if Obama can build a broad political coalition and get things done are scoffed at for our caution.
But I think, as you have pointed out here, actually looking at what Obama does besides campaigning, gives reason for caution.
We are told vote for Obama because:
- he’s black
- he’s young
- he gives great “speech”
- he’s “ethnic”, which is cool these days
- he has rock star status
You forgot to add that Oprah told you to vote for him..
In an article discussing the (former) Clinton advisor’s strategy of suggesting that Obama was politically vulnerable because of his use of drugs as a teenager, I wrote:
[emphasis added]
This is that sort of question. Susan’s done a good job of showing how Obama is living up to his responibilities, even on matters that he seems to feel are important.
Perhaps he’ll get better at this over time, but right now I’d say if he were my Senator I’d be very disappointed with his performance.
Here’s the challenge I have made to the Obama supporters on other posts: If Mr. Obama has the stuff of getting people of differing positions to come together and work for the good of the country, if he is the chosen one and has the ability to cross party lines and work with the opposition, if he can transcend partisan politics and is such a great deal maker, then I say please, please Mr. Obama go back to Washington and walk across the aisle and get the couple of Republicans necessary to override the SCHIP veto. I don’t want to hear about your proposal for health care if you become president, right now I want health care for Americans and with your super powers, I’m sure you can get it done. Oh that’s right Mr. Obama never goes to Washington.
This should be the easiest thing for him to do and show us he’s the real deal. I even read that he got liberals and conservatives together when he was the Editor of the Harvard Law Review. I mean if he can do that, why not now as a US Senator. As someone who served on law review (alas but not as editor)I know it is a difficult job trying to get law students to agree on what arcane piece of legal reasoning to print about some obscure legal topic by people trying to get jobs after they leave school or some professor trying to get tenure. It’s a tough job.
i just saw this………..(he says playfully, “don’t tell susan. sushhh. ;-))
this from firedoglake.
link for reference purposes only.
http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/20/ok-i-give-secretary-of-what/
This is not news, it’s just that no one reads. Thank you for your post.
The Illinois State legislature was Republican run during Obama’s term there. He made many deals with the Republicans FOR the Republicans. He failed miserably to offer a public housing effort, and his voting record which he’s scrubbed was lackluster at best. His weekly card playing buddies wer Republicans and well known lobbyist.
Friend Oprah is [closeted] Republican, and Obama was the guy who played ball and took orders, and made thos “present” votes on dicey right wing Democratic district issues.
He’s getting us ready for a failed Hawkish Secretary Of State….Brezinsky. Now we can expect a “mixed” cabinet of Republicans and he’s getting us ready for what’s to come.
What’s next??
Lets start our engines and Google Obama’s backstory.
for the record. i do not like obama as the dem. nominee. everytime he blathers about bipartisanship it infuriates me and i want to grab him by his blazer lapels, shake vigorously, and say, “listen numbnuts, just what fucking planet have you been on for the last 16 years? and just how exactly do you have bipartisanship with people who believe to the marrow of their bones that — actual quote — ‘bipartisanship is date rape.’” quote from kkkarl rove’s bff grover norquist.
as for hillary. she leaves me “severely underwhelmed.” and mah momma taught me, if ah can’t say anything nice, don’t say anyting at all. so, i’ll stop here.
i am disgusted with a system that vomits forth candidates like these; we are about to have a second pres. election where the antiwar folks are totally shut out; and not just antiwar folks, but the overwhelming percentage of dems and independents. to borrow from the immortal words of phyllis schafly & barry goldwater, i want “a choice, not an echo.”
i have been politically active at the highest levels since the ‘92 election, and imho, the gothugs feed their base red meat and the dims shit all over theirs.
we don’t have elections in this country, we have SElections (by the ptb, powers that be).
said in a most snarky tone….
personally, i’m waiting with bated breath, bated breath that i’ll hold for two decades, for the 2028 election. yes ladies and germs, 2028, when jeb’s kid squares off against chelsea.
……
(adopts t.v. announcer voice) we now resume our regularly scheduled programming.
Susan, in your piece above you say something misleading. You mention that Illinois vets were near last in disability benefits in 2005, then quote the NYT: “The New York Times’s 2007 article shows Illinois’ disabled soldiers are still waiting over two years later: ‘Illinois, which has deployed the sixth-highest number of soldiers of any state, has the second-largest backlog.’” You left out the very next sentence,which says: “…according to 2005 V.A. data.”
“2005 data” means this is not evidence of “veterans waiting”.
Also Barack Obama had only been in the senate for 4 1/2 months at that time. The NYT does give the impression that things haven’t improved…do we know that? I’d like to hear what Barack Obama and Dick Durbin have to say.
As for Hillary, of all the Democratic candidates she is near the bottom of my preference list. Whatever her reasons for voting to authorize the Iraq war, that vote was inexcusable in my opinion; this is just one of a number of reasons I have no enthusiasm for her candidacy. Hillary may be the Party’s anointed one… I just don’t know if I can drag myself to the polls to vote for her.
In polling, her negatives are high, which means that if she has to face someone like John McCain, some Dems may well vote Republican or just stay home. Big problem for her and for us. By contrast, I’m running into Republicans who want to vote for Obama.
Susan, your piece illustrates perfectly why senators so rarely win the presidency. There are always ways to make a voting record look bad, and candidate-senators miss lots of votes. On top of his own presidential campaign, Obama’s ability to draw crowds meant that he was in big demand on the trail for other candidates in ‘06.
So much campaigning for a brand new senator… it will be a problem for Obama. On the other hand, I know that he was advised: the more time in the senate, the more they’ll have to use against you. So 8 more years? It might help him in some ways, but he will be unlikely become president after 8 more years in the senate.
Hillary is a hard worker but she will not be immune to attacks from Republicans on her senate record. She has been there long enough to give them plenty to use against her, and they have an abundance from the White House years to go back to. And Bill is already slipping up… making untrue statements. If Hillary is the nominee we will have no peace.
I do believe that this is a good time for an inspirational leader like Obama. The Rekha Basu column in The Des Moines Register (Tues.?) made a good case for him, as did David Brooks in the NYT. I wish Hillary had not run this time. The Clintons put us through a lot last time. The pain of those Clinton years is still too fresh.
Susan,
The apology and cop out I’ve just read about Obama is disheartening. There is no reason than absolute bias to ignore all the red lights we see when we look at Obama’s scrubbed Illinois lackluster performance. Forget the US Senate where nothing happened.
The ignorance surrounding the Republican dominated
Illinois senate and Obama’s tepid votes are more than just alarming. His backyard home property was enlarged to his advantage from a nice price reduction to $165,000 from the $300,00 it was worth. All accomplished with the corrupt Rezko.his pal and neighbor.
Even after Obama knew Fitzgerald [yes,that one] was onto Rezko, Obama continued to close the deal at the same time Rita Rezko closed her real estate deal].
He accomplished little in his senate part time job, and the Pritzker and Crown family that run the Chicago machine are his biggie backers.
In fact, Penny Pritzker is his Fianance Campaign Manager. His donors are heavy corporate, Medical.Healthcare,etc. Some bundled, some not. The NOT part he absolutely refuses to divulge when asked who would be on his list for the 3 coming fundraisers. He will not divulge his donors.
Obama supporters either don’t want their bubble to burst, or hate Hillary with such blindness that they refuse to properly look at their choices.
The latest disturbing news…..Zibegnew as his choice as foreign policy advisor [and if Pres. Sec'y of State]. Is Yesterday’s news. Belonged to Carter and failed seriously in handling hostage
crisis, and a HAWK. Saw him past year on Charlie Rose and he was as arrogant and bellicose as ever. This guy is a burnt out loser and definitely was the Hawk in Carter’s administration.
Of course, no one older than 45 or 50 may ever have heard of him unless they’re political junkies.
Obama has a very disturbing backstory and now has just added the race card to the NC primary and denies the enormous legacy the Clintons created and contributed for racial equality.
The Democrats will go down with this stuff.
You know, Lincoln waited until the Civil War was almost over and the Union secured to start talking about malice toward none and charity for all. The next President will have to focus on any number of urgent matters for which no feasible solution will be the favorite of some, or any, of us. Those are things I ‘d rather see candidates address.
You are making a lot of sense. Both Hillary’s and Obama’s advisors should be vetted and heard.
Hillary has the top tier advisors but they all need to be heard and vetted, and Obama’s choice of Brezinsky is alarming, and anyone vetting this leftover Hawk from the Carter administration needs to look into his record of total failure.
Obama’s advisors are basically 2nd tier and seem a combo of Brezinsky, - a hawk in sheeps clothing, and some left over Clintonite liberal and moderate Foreign policy wonks.
Hearing from all of them is most important. Their advice will be our future. Learning about their past positions will help us make our decisions.
FYI
Fighting for America’s Veterans
“A grateful nation needs to always, always, always honor and celebrate our veterans. And we must fulfill our solemn obligation to as Lincoln said, ‘care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan.’” – Senator Joe Biden
1. Improve Health Care For Those Injured In Service
Our wounded veterans deserve the best medical care our country can offer. Joe Biden believes our nation has the highest obligation to provide proper medical care for the hundreds of thousands of brave men and women who bear the physical and emotional scars of serving their country at war.
Ensure Veterans and Soldiers Are Treated In the Best Facilities: Unfortunately, a series of articles in the Washington Post exposed delays in care that soldiers face and highlighted horrible living conditions that many endure while they are receiving treatment for their wounds. Joe Biden would ensure a Walter Reed situation won’t happen again and that our hospitals and military medical facilities are ready for the new, special needs of our troops for decades to come by:
Prohibiting private contracting of maintenance services at military medical complexes while the nation is at war to prevent the kind of backlog of maintenance orders and maintenance breakdown that occurred at Walter Reed.
Stopping budget cuts to military medical facilities while the nation is at war.
Requiring the Secretary of Defense to establish uniform standards for military medical treatment facilities, specialty medical care facilities, and military quarters housing patients, and requiring robust inspections.
Requiring the Department of Veterans Affairs to report on long-term care needs for the next 50 years. Hundreds of thousands of additional veterans with multiple care needs will be coming into the system and the VA must have a plan in place to ensure they receive adequate care.
Secure Family Involvement and Stability For Injured Soldiers: Joe Biden knows that the emotional support that family members give their loved ones, along with the personal, medical and convalescent care they provide, is invaluable and goes a long way in a wounded soldier’s recovery. To ensure that family members of our wounded warriors are not forced to choose between providing care for their loved ones or keeping their jobs, Joe Biden would:
Guarantee 12-months of Family and Medical Leave coverage for families of injured soldiers.
Extend medical care to family members while they are living at military treatment facilities.
Extend employment services to care-giving family members.
Strengthen existing anonymous crisis counseling and respite services.
Adequately Screen For and Treat TBI and PTSD: Soldiers returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom are suffering traumatic brain injuries (TBI) at much higher rates than past wars and many also suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). To address the growing demand for TBI and PTSD services and other needs of our Armed Forces and veterans, Joe Biden would:
Establish a protocol for pre-deployment assessment and documentation of cognitive function of members that can be used for comparison after deployment to assist in the diagnosis of TBI.
Require the Secretary of Defense to establish two centers of excellence - one for TBI and one for PTSD – to develop the best treatment and screening practices.
Authorize the use of non-VA facilities for the implementation of rehabilitation and community reintegration plans for veterans with TBI, allowing veterans to get the care they need, wherever they live.
Establish a pilot program for assisted living services for veterans with TBI.
Improve Care: We owe our troops and veterans the highest quality care. To ensure that they receive it Joe Biden would:
Direct the DOD/VA Interagency Program Office to develop and implement a joint electronic health record keeping system.
Increase the number of caseworkers and prevent the ratio of case managers to patients from exceeding 1 to 20.
Require that case managers be property trained in assisting their patients in navigating the VA system.
Authorize medically retired service members to receive the active duty health care benefit for 3 years.
Streamline and revise the Physical Disability Evaluation System by bringing it all under one command, creating injury specific PDES procedures, making it accessible entirely online.
Require the creation of a single manual for outpatient care services, including PDES, family support, personnel processing and finance requirement, which is available online.
Establish a board to review disability determinations of service members separated between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2009, with a disability rating of 20% or less.
2. Reform Handling of Disability Claims
The backlog of pending claims and the delays in the appeals process is simply unacceptable: at the end of the 2006 fiscal year, rating-related compensation claims were pending an average of 127 days and appeals resolutions took an average of 657 days to resolve. In order to reduce these backlogs and the hardship they impose on veterans and their families Joe Biden would:
Update and simplify the disability determination and claims processing system. Building on the recommendations of the President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors, periodic reviews of veterans’ disability status should be undertaken to ensure proper compensation.
Establish a lawyer corps that represents veterans free-of-charge during the adjudications process. Based on a JAG model, these lawyers would receive loan forgiveness and be paid a monthly stipend while agreeing to guide veterans and their families through the adjudication process.
Allow survivors to step in and pursue undecided claims or those under appeal that were pending at the time of a veteran’s death. This would prevent claims from having to start over again and delaying benefits for the surviving family members.
Require the VA to review educational and training requirements for claims adjudicators. With an increasing number of veterans citing more disabilities in their claims, the claims are becoming more complex and the claims processors may need more training to complete the claims process in a timely fashion.
Require the VA to publish the number of claims that are rejected each year in each region. This could help bring transparency to the claims process and explain variations in disability ratings in different areas of the country.
3. Assist With Job Placement and Educational Services
Many veterans come home from Iraq and Afghanistan and find it difficult to find civilian work. Reservists who have been deployed often return home to find their employer has gone out of business. Sadly, the national unemployment rate for young veterans is three times the national average. We also need to help older veterans who are coping with a changing global economy and may need job training for new careers. To help with job placement and educational services for veterans Joe Biden would:
Increase funding and resources for the Helmets to Hardhats program to allow more veterans to take advantage of this program that helps them find jobs in skilled trades ranging from construction to transportation.
Provide grants to non-profit organizations and veterans service organizations that provide job training and job placement services.
Allow Reservists and National Guard members who have been deployed while enrolled in college to return to school with the same academic standing that they had before they were called up. In addition, if after returning home they decide they do not want to continue their schooling and instead find employment, they would have at least 12 months to begin paying student loans to help overcome the strain of deployment to a combat zone.
Joe Biden’s Record: Three Decades of Keeping the Promise
Guaranteeing Funding for Health Care: A top priority of veterans groups, and one Joe Biden has consistently supported, is to change the budget for the Veterans Administration, so funding for veterans is guaranteed. He would have a mandatory formula for allocating money to the VA, instead of having their budget be a discretionary item that can be cut. The Administration grossly underestimated the number of Iraq veterans requiring care, but Joe Biden helped to pass a double-digit funding increase, as recommended by several veterans’ service organizations.
Helping Veterans With Agent Orange Related Illness: For three decades Joe Biden has worked to get veterans of Vietnam who were exposed to Agent Orange and other toxins access to the care and benefits they deserve. He has pressured the VA to resolve claims, expanded compensation for veterans injured by exposure, extended eligibility for inpatient and outpatient care and worked to make sure that children suffering from Spina Bifida because of parent exposure to Agent Orange are eligible for disability benefits. He will continue to fight to make sure our Vietnam veterans receive adequate care and benefits and ensure that the best available medical and scientific evidence is used by the VA when determining disability claims.
Cutting the Backlog of Veterans Claims: Joe Biden has fought to reduce the unacceptably large backlog of veterans’ claims that continue to cause undue hardships for veterans and their families by co-sponsoring legislation that would add resources and staff to more effectively process claims.
Advocating for Concurrent Receipt: Joe Biden believes there is no reason for one payment to reduce the other. He has repeatedly co-sponsored legislation to authorize full concurrent receipt, allowing disabled military retirees to receive full military retirement pay in addition to VA disability compensation.
Helping Military Retirees, Reservists With TRICARE: Joe Biden has supported numerous measures to allow federal civilian and military retirees to pay TRICARE health insurance on a pre-tax basis; and has supported extending TRICARE coverage to Reservists who have no other source of health insurance.
Improving Job Opportunities for Veterans: When our service men and women return from assignments they need jobs, Joe Biden has always championed efforts to increase job opportunities for members after they leave the service. He co-sponsored legislation to establish the Troops to Nurse Teachers program, encouraging veterans to become faculty members at nursing schools.
Celebrating Veterans: Too many American children lack family ties to the military. Joe Biden wants to better educate America’s youth on the accomplishments of our veterans. So every year he has introduced a resolution designating National Veterans Awareness Week, the week of Veteran’s Day.
Honoring Our World War II, Korean, and Vietnam War Veterans: Joe Biden co-sponsored the legislation to build the World War II, Korean, and Vietnam War Memorials, and throughout his career has supported numerous measures to honor the service and dedication of the country’s soldiers and veterans. He also co-sponsored legislation several times to grant a federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association
Phil Carter, at Intel Dump, has some comments:
http://www.intel-dump.com/posts/1198681812.shtml
December 2007, I received an email from Senator Durbin asking for my help requesting a contribution for his 2008 re-election campaign. As he was asking for my help, this was a good time to ask for his help. So, on behalf of all veterans’, I sent a $25 check along with the letter asking for his help regarding the various issues outlined in my letter to his Chicago office. With whom I have previously dealt with receiving responses from the Senator.
In mail received 1/15/2008, I received back my original letter and my check with no explanation what-so-ever. Nada! It is apparent by this response, he is not interested in problems his veteran constituents have. He handles only the easy stuff. Where he goes to Congress and asks for money, not on behalf of veterans’, but on behalf of his image. How can anybody turn down money to be appropriated for veterans’ issues, at a time like this? The easy stuff!
As suggested, as for “quid pro quo”, A Senator who solicits for a campaign contribution, as it may suggest to some , but it is not a promise of “quid pro quo”. And as well, just as one who responds with a $25 contribution to his solicitation for a campaign contribution, by including a request for help, on a very complicated veterans’ issue, cannot be considered as such. This is something that happens in campaign contributions handed out in the thousands of dollars? Look in today’s daily newspaper!
On this issue alone, veterans’ have been trying to do something for many, many years. Writing everybody and anybody. As for lawyers, and those we send to Congress, as veterans’ have found out all they want is your money. You name the lawyer, Congress person, or agency, they had been emailed, and written to, and nothing, absolutely nothing gets done. As a constituent this was a veterans’ only avenue left.
For a $25 contribution, what can veterans’ do for the Senator? Nothing, except go fight their battles. A Senator who solicits for a campaign contribution, it may suggest to some , but it is not a promise of “quid pro quo”. And as well, just as one who responds with a $25 contribution to his solicitation by including a request for help, on a very complicated veterans’ issue, cannot be considered as such.
I am extremely disappointed by his snub of veterans, and saddened by his unresponsiveness to serious veterans issues. You would think he, or his office, would have replied to me with something. Anything! Because we veterans’ have all heard it before. Perhaps my letter was asking for too much? His request was for a simple campaign donation, just send the money, with no strings attached. If the interest was there, perhaps, the better way to have handled this was to accept my letter, return my check?
Just wait until all our men and women return from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Walter Reed. You have not seen anything yet. This is just an example of the caring, and limitations of these elected representatives.
The original letter follows.
United States Senator Dick Durbin 12/27/07
230 S. Dearborn St. Suite 3892
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Senator Durbin;
Because you have shown your interest and concern in support of disabled veterans, supporting our troops, those returning from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Walter Reed, and those from past wars, what follows should be of interest to you, and as well to our returning veterans. Because many will experience what I am about to tell you, will most likely happen to them. Because of this, disabled veterans’ once again need your help. Please allow me a few minutes of your time, about a very important subject.
You will notice, from Illinois law that follows, police disability pension benefits are protected from attachment. As it should be. However, this contrasts greatly with what’s happening to our,… your Illinois disabled veterans. I’ll give you an example.
(40 ILCS 5/Art. 3 heading)
ARTICLE 3. POLICE PENSION FUND - MUNICIPALITIES
500,000 and UNDER
“(40 ILCS 5/3-144.1) (from Ch. 108 1/2, par. 3-144.1)
Sec. 3-144.1. All pensions, refunds or disability pension benefits granted under this Article, and every portion thereof, shall be exempt from attachment or garnishment process and shall not be seized, taken, subjected to, detained or levied upon by virtue of any judgment, or any process or proceedings whatsoever issued out of or by any court for the payment and satisfaction in whole or in part of any debt, damage, claim, demand or judgment against a pensioner, refund applicant or other beneficiary hereunder. (Source: P.A. 84-546.)”
Re: State of Illinois, Iroquois County, Bette Ehlers v Ronald Ehlers, Case No. 97 D 73 Oct 13, 2000, Order: “A. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $400 per month commencing forthwith and terminating when Defendant has satisfied the following obligations under the orders of this court:
1. The obligation to make sixty (60) monthly payments of 50% of Defendant’s veteran’s disability check in lieu of maintenance to Plaintiff as set forth in.. the Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage.”
What this is saying to all Illinois veterans’ especially to Vietnam veteran, former Watseka resident, Ronald Ehler, and for their honorable service, Illinois does not think a benefit exemption to veterans‘ as provided to police officers is warranted. Colorado courts, for example, have recognized the issue veterans face, by providing that, “The Colorado Court of Appeals …took this view in In re Marriage of Peterson , 870 P.2d 630 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994), holding that a disabled police officer’s disability pension payments were not marital property.. To the extent that the husband’s disability payments compensated for lost future earnings, they were analogous to Social Security, Veterans Administration, and workers’ compensation benefits, which are not treated as marital property..”
Contrast that Ehler v. Ehler ruling with the Appellate Court of Illinois ruling re: Wojcik v. Wojcik case No. 03-D-2709. Justice Hutchinson delivered the opinion of the court. “…we agree with the parties that the supremacy clause of the federal constitution precludes Illinois trial courts from dividing present or anticipated VA disability benefits as a marital asset or using those benefits as a basis for an offsetting award of the marital property…clearly did not characterize Paul’s present and anticipated VA disability benefits as martial property and did not award Karen a disproportionate share of martial estate as an offset.
Confused? From these two Illinois cases, you now have see the problem. But this is only one part. To further highlight court inconsistencies rendered on disabled veterans’, allow me to illustrate another case, that of Fisher v. Fisher. After this court exempts VA disability as alimony, the court goes after this veteran’s Social Security disability compensation as alimony. Unlike United States Supreme Court, Tennessee Appeal re: Rose v. Rose, this case does not involve child support.
In Re: Fisher v Fisher, the courts, ‘ORDER DETERMINING THAT FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT PRECLUDE AN AWARD OF ALIMONY AGAINST THE HUSBAND AND SETTING CONTINUED TRIAL’, address’ the subject citing the rational used in Rose v. Rose, “On this basis, the Supreme Court held that 38 USC section 3101(a) did not preclude state enforcement proceedings for non-payment of child support…. To be clear, the court is not treating the Husband’s disability benefits as divisible property, Rather, the court finds that it is consistent with federal and state law to consider the Husband’s disability income…Therefore, the Husband’s disability income may be considered in determining whether alimony should be awarded to the Wife.”
Florida State law Definitions. “(7) ‘Income’ means any form of payment to an individual, regardless of source,….United States Department of Veterans Affairs disability benefits and unemployment compensation…..are excluded from this definition of income except for purposes of establishing an amount of support. ”
“..Except for purposes of establishing an amount of support. ” Meaning, income may be considered, thus a basis for establishing support and the ability to pay. Fisher v. Fisher the judge citing, “… Allen is on point and binding precedent on this court…Therefore, the Husband’s disability income may be considered in determining whether alimony should be awarded to the Wife.” Allen v Allen 650 So, 2d 1019(Fla.2d DCA)
In the ‘Memorandum of Law’, the Wife’s reliance on forum shopping, argues for the taking of Social Security disability, citing Bahr v. Bahr, Kansas. the court’s reference explains the meaning of the word ‘consider’ “…held it could consider VA disability….acknowledging federal law does not bar from considering….the trial court merely considered having disability benefits in determining…Kansas law grants district courts to consider all property…district court does not abuse it’s discretion in considering Social Security benefits…..even though the benefits were the exclusive property of one spouse due to a federal anti-assignment statute…there appears to be no rational reason that the district court cannot consider the petitioner’s receipt of veteran’s benefits in calculating the need for support to be taken from the veteran’s other property…..”
Bahr goes on to cite Clausen v. Clausen (Alaska). “In arriving at an equitable distribution of marital assets, courts should only consider a party’s military disability benefits as they affect the financial circumstances of both parties. Disability benefits should not, either in form or substance, be treated as marital property subject to division upon the dissolution of marriage.” 831 P.2d at 1264. ”
Definition of “consider”; to think, ponder, heed, regard. Consider, does not mean, to take! But take they did! In Fisher, Judge Steinbeck did not just “consider” Social Security, she liked the idea of “considering” Social Security so much, she seized Joseph Fisher’s Social Security disability benefits. Exactly, what happened in the United States Supreme Court! Rose v. Rose, “Therefore, the Husband’s disability income may be considered ….”
“Consider” as used by the court, as “Consideration”: This word is one of the lawyer’s basic TERMS OF ART, but even lawyers misconceive the word: “One must be careful not to think of consideration as if it was synonymous with ‘recompense‘; rather the word [at common law] connoted some sound reason for the conveyance,…” A.W. B. Simpson. A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Second Edition. Bryan A. Garner Oxford University Press.
The court, frustrated, being unable to award Veterans’ Administration disability as alimony, the seizure of Joseph Fisher’s Social Security disability compensation was accomplished through the court’s reliance, order, and application of Title 10 USC 1408, Computation of Retired Pay. “Payment of retired or retainer pay in compliance with court orders. …. (B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the total amount of the disposable retired pay of a member payable…under all court orders pursuant to this section and all legal processes pursuant to section 459 of the Social Security Act (42 USC 659)….”
The court’s reliance on Rose v. Rose, “…discussed at length..” , and 10 USC 1408; 42 USC 659, ….the Fisher court order stipulates, “Does not preclude an award of alimony against the spouse receiving disability pay and, once awarded, does not relieve the paying spouse from applying such alimony obligations….”
The Fisher court ruling erroneously, ties in 1408 Computation of Retired pay, having absolutely nothing to do with Social Security disability. Thus, the court’s ‘may be considered’ , (lawyers’ basic terms of art) attachment to a veterans’ Social Security disability. Title 42 USC 659 is purely, an administrative law. “Consent by the United States to Income Withholding, Garnishment, and Similar Proceedings for Enforcement of Child Support and Alimony Obligations….shall be subject….to withholding in accordance with State law…and regulations of the Secretary under such subsections, and to any other legal process brought, by the State agency administering…”
As explained in Title 5 Sec. 581.102, and as well, the first step is to determine the legal authority and validity of the action. “Burden is placed on the plaintiff to show why the attachment [of Social Security disability] justified.” The State law “…recoverable as such pursuant to a decree, order, or judgment issued in accordance with applicable State law by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
Florida State law provides; Title VI CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
76.08 Procurement of attachment; generally.–Upon motion by plaintiff, a writ of attachment may issue when the grounds relied on for the issuance of the writ clearly appear from specific facts shown by a verified complaint or a separate affidavit of the plaintiff, ….” The burden,…. the specific facts for securing attachment, according to Court documents as being, Title 10 USC 1408 Computation of Retired Pay and it’s reference to administrative law 42 USC 659, and reliance on Allen v. Allen, the rational used in Rose v Rose, as basis for seizing Joseph Fisher’s Social Security disability compensation.
Exemption is explained further in “TITLE 42–THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 7–SOCIAL SECURITY SUBCHAPTER II–FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, AND DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS
Sec. 407. Assignment of benefits (a) In general The right of any person to any future payment under this subchapter shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this subchapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law. ”
The time line of events, as it relates to, “Any other factor necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.” After Vietnam veteran Joseph Fisher spent 3 years in military hospitals, exactly where, in this time line does it suggest ex-spouse is entitled to this veteran’s Social Security disability compensation?
1968-1971 Joseph Fisher’s U.S. Army service and hospitalization.
Sept. 1972, marries (ex-spouse).
Feb. 2004 filed for divorce.
Compensation; VA disability compensation. Rated at 100%. Having been injured in Vietnam, the loss of one leg, with other permanent injuries. Social Security disability compensation.
Florida State statutes
“61.075 Equitable distribution of martial assets and liabilities.
(5) As used in this section.
(b) “nonmartial assets and liabilities” include:
(1). Assets acquired and liabilities incurred by either party prior to the marriage, and assets acquired and liabilities incurred in exchange for such assets and liabilities;
(3) All income derived from nonmartial assets during marriage unless the income was treated, used, or relied upon by the parties as a martial asset, ..”
In compliance to exemption of Social security disability……..
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 99-1422 ___ S.W.3d ___
Supreme Court of Arkansas. Opinion delivered May 18, 2000
“8. Family law — SSI not subject to state court jurisdiction –child-support payments cannot be based upon income from federal SSI disability benefits. — Although SSI comes within the definition of income for child-support purposes as found in Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order Number 10, it is not subject to state court jurisdiction; Congress has madeno sovereign-immunity exception for nonremunerative federal benefits such as SSI; hence, those benefits remain free from execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process; Arkansas courts cannot order child-support payments based upon income from federal SSI disability benefits; reversed and remanded. [cme] ”
To Joseph Fisher, the court added insult to injury, as well to all disabled veterans’, in ruling, “Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, 5.3 “The Husband receives all of his medical treatment, prescription drugs and medical supplies free of charge.” How dare the court! Throwing this in the face of all disabled veterans’ to justify the seizing of Social Security disability compensation. Is this what it is all about, veterans’ free medical care? Apparently so!
Senator Durbin, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Rose v Rose, and what you have read thus far, and what follows summarizes, exemplifies exactly what is wrong. This is brought out while researching the word “consider” used frequently by the courts as it relates to what is to be considered a veterans alimony obligations. The search led me to Tennessee’s Dee Gallaher v. Elam child support ruling. Which involved Dr. Elam’s 4 children, 3 previous while married. The key to understanding the interpretation of Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion, is in the first line of the guidelines, (2) “…determining the amount..”
Tennessee Supreme Court Opinions (2003) Dee Gallaher v. Curtis Elam - E2000-02719-SC-R11-CV. Knox County - In this appeal, the appellant challenges the constitutionality of the Tennessee Department of Human Services Child Support Guidelines (”the Guidelines”). The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s determination that chapter 1240-2-4-.03(4) of the Guidelines violates the equal protection provisions of the federal and state constitutions. We granted permission to appeal. After careful consideration, we conclude that: (1) chapter 1240-2-4-.03(4) of the Guidelines, which prohibits consideration of non-court-ordered child support in calculating child support, and chapter 1240-2-4-.03(2) of the Guidelines, which requires consideration only of the obligor’s income in calculating child support, do not violate the equal protection and due process provisions of either the United States or Tennessee Constitutions; and (2) the promulgation of the Guidelines does not constitute an impermissible delegation of rulemaking authority by the General Assembly to the Department of Human Services. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
RULES OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION CHAPTER 1240-2-4
CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES
CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES CHAPTER 1240-2-4
(Rule 1240-2-4-.03, continued)
June, 2006 (Revised) 9
(2) The Income Shares model for determining the amount of child support is predicated on the concept that the child should receive support at the same level that the child would receive if the parents were living together. While expenditures of two-household divorced, separated, or single parent families are different from intact family households, it is very important that the children of this State, to the extent possible, not be forced to live in poverty because of family disruption, and that they be afforded the same opportunities available to children in intact families consisting of parents with similar
financial means to those of their own parents.
(4) The Income Shares model, which is used by over thirty (30) other states, is generally based on economic studies of child-rearing costs, including those of David Betson, Erwin Rothbarth, and Ernst Engel, and studies conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics involving expenditures for the care of children.
United States Supreme Court. Appeal from Tennessee re:
ROSE v. ROSE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
No. 85-1206.
Argued March 4, 1987
Decided May 18, 1987
“Appellant, a totally disabled veteran whose main source of income is federal veterans’ benefits, was held in contempt by the state trial court for failure to pay child support, the amount of which had been fixed by the court after considering appellant’s benefits to be income under a Tennessee statute. The State Court of Appeals affirmed,…”
And as all have learned, Charlie Wayne Rose, in his alimony/child support case, lost his fight against awarding both VA and Social Security disability. However, in Tennessee Supreme Court Opinions re: Gallaher v Elam, and it’s reference to Tennessee law stated, “…chapter 1240-2-4-.03(2) of the Guidelines, which requires consideration only of the obligor’s income in calculating child support,..”
Charlie Wayne Rose had no other income available other than portions of VA disability and Social Security awarded as child support and alimony. Follow me on this reasoning. When the support guidelines in Gallaher v. Elam as referenced by the Tennessee Supreme Court opinion, “requires consideration only of the obligor’s income in calculating child support,..”, does this mean they will take these income benefits? If that was what they wanted to do? If that is the case, why was not the opinion interpreted to read, “requires consideration only of the obligor’s income in child support.”? Leaving out the word “calculating”. Why calculate something your going to take? The referenced opinion was worded so, in the event there was other sources of income available. Then they would have to follow the support guideline where it “requires consideration only of the obligor’s income in calculating child support,..” Therefore, the support guideline statute reads and means what it says. The question now is, if they were to consider other income would they take it all or only ‘consider’ income in calculating child support? And this is how Charlie Wayne Rose had his Tennessee, and Constitutional rights violated. Joseph Fisher’s rights as well.
Veterans’, Illinois veterans’ many whether married, or planning marriage, who are, for their sacrifice, will return disabled. Enduring stress, disabilities, interruption in work, and within family life. As you can understand, this has come at a cost. One where America’s disabled veterans’ have suffered enough already, they will continue for years to suffer through state court divorce proceedings taking away a portion of disability compensation benefits. Enduring a never ending battle, an unresponsive Congress, fighting state courts, unjust laws, the ex-spouse, insults, and these activist judges, whose interpretation manipulation, and application of the law, a “lawyers basic terms of art”, as I have illustrated. Courts’ will continue to penalize disabled veterans’ by awarding unfairly disability compensation as alimony. Acknowledging the problem, judges have stated, this is something that is left up to Congress. You, Senator Durbin are a part of Congress. Veterans’, Illinois veterans’ will look to you to propose uniform changes in the law necessary to make all veterans’ feel they are welcomed home.
The above case, Fisher v. Fisher; referred to and involved one of our nations veterans in the State Florida. Divorce Case No. 04-DR-792, Lee County, Judge Margaret O. Steinbeck. A good example of how returning Illinois disabled veterans’ have and will be treated.
Of immediate concern to you Senator Durbin, is making sure, unlike Florida, when it comes to divorce, that Illinois disabled veterans, your constituents, are treated fairly, according to law. And seeing that all America’s disabled veterans’ are afforded the same considerations to disability exemptions as Illinois State police, as well as the police of other states seem to have. I realize there are “states rights”, but this is where Congress must step in. To fix these problems, as I have illustrated, that are as varied, as you can imagine, from state to state.
When it comes to our disabled veterans’, isn’t it time to make our “state right”? This is about Illinois, not just about Florida, Colorado, Tennessee, but Illinois. Can Illinois disabled veterans’ be assured this issue will be pursued with the same passion, and commitment that you have shown in pursuing other veterans’ disability issues? Veterans’ have tried to make change happen, but the way veterans are accepted, and treated in state courts, it’s just not happening. All that veterans’ want is to be treated fairly according to the law. Courts respecting 38 USC 5301, Non-assignability and exempt status of benefits; 10 USC 1408 Computation of retired pay (USFSPA); 42 USC 407 Assignment of benefits, Supremacy Clause, Article VI of the Constitution of the United States.
Veterans need your help. Can I be assured you will address these many issues?
Sincerely;
William H. Heino Sr.
cc: L. Tammy Duckworth
we need to talk general my name is guillermo fro the collition of 65 infantery plsed notfy thats my dads the soldiers rank pvt is not longer in service he die drown in river of the arkansas in the frot rely revire 200 hours thanks help becused i got a problem i got personal isused by socila securyty and vetrans affairs pelsed help my mom she dosent speack inglish but i do 178767-3897 and my phone numbre is 1787 605-9889 thanks your commited look very truthful thanks jehova blessing you captain or called vetrans affairs sanjuan officed 18008271000 thank have nicly day i got sqizphernic aparanboid and bipolar disrder and depersio serverd thanks
[...] hospital is eating a picture of a Big Mac is to eating. Is this the bill you were referring to? While Illinois’, and the Nation’s, Veterans Suffer, Obama Campaigns : NO QUARTER [...]
Hai
nice day
[...] [...]
ocz platinum xtc
[url=http://vidagh.hostevo.com/card6980.html]cheap spirit airline [/url]
buy dab radios
http://vidagh.my3gb.com/card9991.html cheap ski stuff
http://vidagh.mycyberway.com/card6976.html medic alert jewelry
http://vidagh.bidsex.net/card4601.html card game fabric
Judges overstepping. A veteran’s observation.
How can state court judges waive away disability rights, and arbitrarily award as alimony a portion of a veteran’s disability rated compensation, determined on a case-by-case basis of a veteran’s whose disability rating that maybe, is factored in as critical? Judgment as if all disabilities are exactly the same? State court judges are overstepping those whose authority it belongs, in the practice of medicine, reevaluation, and rehabilitation of the veteran. And in doing so, ignorance of the law is no excuse, the law is quite clear, along with violating the canons of standard conduct for judges, violating “Authority for schedule for rating disabilities.” 38 USC 1155, “…, in no event shall such a readjustment in the rating schedule cause a veteran’s disability rating in effect on the effective date of the readjustment to be reduced unless an improvement in the veteran’s disability is shown to have occurred.” Violating as well, 38 USC 5301, 42 USC 1408.
=
As veterans’ all too well know, state court judges upon eyeing a veterans disability compensation, and as well as Social Security disability, as alimony, the standards of judicial jurisprudence, and law are totally ignored. However, the following federal judge’s ruling supports the standard for which state court judges are governed.
State can’t deny kids Medicaid services, judge says.
http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/stories/2008/06/16/medicaid_children_lawsuit.html
=
“The decision last week by U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash pertains to the case of a 13-year-old developmentally disabled girl, Anna C. Moore of Danielsville in north Georgia. Her doctor prescribed 94 hours of private duty nursing care a week for her, but the state Department of Community Health approved only 84 hours.
=
The Atlanta federal judge found the state does not have the discretion to deny funding for services prescribed by a treating physician. “The decision affirms that treating physicians, and not the state, should make those decisions,” said the girl’s attorney, Joshua Norris of the nonprofit Georgia Advocacy Office.”
=
VETERANS LAW JOURNAL
http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:se1h9j9w5GMJ:www.cavcbar.net/Fall_2004.pdf+the+statutes+in+broadly+precluding+judicial+review+of+the+contents&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us
=
A Quarterly Publication of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Bar Association
=
“Thus, the Federal Circuit found that “[t]he statutory scheme … consistently excludes from judicial review all content of the ratings schedule as well as the Secretary’s actions in adopting or revising that content.” Looking at the legislative history, the Federal Circuit pointed out that “[t]he language in the legislative history is not limited to the percentages of the disability ratings, as appellants argue, but matches the statutes in broadly precluding judicial review of the contents of the disability rating schedule in toto.”
=
What needs to be done? As explained above briefly, you know your fellow veterans’ are taking a beating from judges in state divorce court. Seizing veterans’ VA disability compensation. Being awarded as alimony. These judges, although recognizing federal law, somehow justify their interpretation of 38 USC 5301 and 10 USC 1408, and the Supremacy Clause as not being perhaps strong enough. Now comes, 38 USC 1155, “Authority for schedule for rating disabilities”, this is possibly just what the disabled veteran needs to overcome the state court’s opposition and uncertainty, with a law that leaves no room for ambiguity in it’s meaning.
=
I don’t believe 1155 argument has ever been tried, or introduced in court. Now is the time to test this. Once introduced, the court will have to deal and rule on this. If there are any upcoming veterans’ court divorce proceedings, or even possibly pending cases, the introduction of 1155 could possibly be the one thing that will remove, hopefully forever, another burden from our disabled veterans, at an unfortunate time in their lives. I hope you found this advice worthwhile. Please post this notice on your bulletin board, email, or newsletter, there may be a veteran that can benefit from this advice Thank you.
=
My husband was always an unwilling participant of my career changes of duty stations. I had to balance my time between a demanding career and dysfunctional personal life of a domineering husband and a controlling partner. Any impact my husband had on my career was negative not positive.
It is fair to ask why I stuck with it. I suppose the answer is simply because of the children and because I couldn’t see a reasonable way out.
Finally, in 1991, we started talking legal separation. This has ultimately resulted in a divorce finalized in December 1994. At no time during my 20 year career did the Navy tell me that there was a law called Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act and explained to me how it might affect my life in my retirement. The divorce court judge knew about it, however, and awarded my husband 30 percent of my retired pay, for life. I did get one break that I will not have to start paying him until our daughter, now living with me, either finishes high school or reaches the age of 19. In the meantime, he has remarried and the payments he will eventually receive will continue for life.
Boiled down to the fundamentals, what we have here is a case where a male military member who forfeited his right to retired pay by unsatisfactory conduct, but is now collecting it anyway from a female member who did qualify.
My daughter and I are now living below the poverty level in my mother’s home. I’m attending college in order to prepare myself for a future without a badly needed part of my retired pay.
Why can’t this law be changed so that it is fair to both parties to a divorce. Why should someone married to a military member be treated differently in a divorce court from other American citizens. This isn’t a male, female issue. This is an issue of fairness. It doesn’t appear that the members of Congress who voted for this law thought about enlisted military members, and certainly not female military members. It is high time this oversight is corrected.
This is just one of hundreds of thousands of stories about the injustices of USFSPA.
Do you know that while I was serving I would watch Men in Uniform deploy and wives waving goodbye with their boyfriends no more than a few hundred feet away. As soon as the Husband was out of sight the wives would take up with the men.
This fairytale existence of the oh so virtuous Military wife and the oh so philandering playboy husband is a stereotype that is hurting our men and women in uniform. No one has to give up anything for life with any other type of divorces including other Federal Employees, but our Military Men and Women are being asked to give up their meager retirements for LIFE to someone who can remarry and now the Military Man is supporting another family and while he falls apart from years of overstress on his body some other man and maybe his children can enjoy the fruits of the Military Man and Womans labor for the rest of their lives. If Congress is that ashamed of how many veterans we have living on the street today then why did they legislate USFSPA and help put more Men and Women there?
Our Retirement pay is not a pension it’s a retainer fee that says we can be called back to action. Well how many Men and Women will want to serve when Congress has legislated the breaking of that contract. The ex spouse doesn’t get called up the Military Member does.
These grown men and women who marry Military Members do so of their own free will and even if they initiate the divorce they are still entitled to benefits even if the Military Member has not even retired! Even if they leave to cohabit and remarry the non military member gets half. Even if they commit felonies they get half.
But if the Military Member commits a felony they lose all of their retirement. There are men and women out there collecting more than 100% of Military Retirements combined from Multiple Marriages and the Military members themselves aren’t even entitled to half. Some of the ex spouses aren’t even American Citizens.
So be sure to tell the taxpayers where there monies are being sent. The monies that our government is supposed to be using for Military retainers and now without sufficient retained fighters our national security is that much more at risk. And America going as broke all the while congress has legislated the looting of our Men and Women in Uniform. And still today they do not brief the new recruits of this horrible injustice. They promote marriages that would not normally take place in a civilian setting by offering better living quarters and more stuff.
Congress created this mess and they should have to clean it up. Help our Men and Women in Uniform today. They are the ones on the front lines not their spouses. Military divorces are far exceeding civilian divorces.
This isn’t fair nor is it legal. Congress has broken their treaty!
[...] At least we hope he will. [...]
And I have some more questions about this: why don’t we see Veterans protesting on the steps of CourtHouses about this issue. Get together with the retired Military Members who call themselves the GI Janes they are against USFSPA and all the Veteran Men and Women protest on the steps of Congress about these violations of our 5th and 14th Amendment rights.
Make sure to tell the American public that the money that’s supposed to be used for Military Retainer Fees is not being used for that and that there are ex spouses who aren’t citizens taking money from Veterans and “stimulating foreign economies with it”. While we sit here in the states with growing class of “the working poor”.
Be sure to ask who is governing these “for life” payments to ex spouses how many of them are dead in other countries but the American money just keeps coming supporting other family members while are Veterans are here making up 33% of our homeless population.
This is more than a disgrace it’s a down right outrage!
And most of us thought all our wars were elsewhere and our biggest ones are right here in our own backyard!