• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

About that Walter Reed maintenance crew...

Cal

Well-known member
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=in_washington,_its_always_the_year_of_the_rat&ns=AnnCoulter&dt=03/14/2007&page=full&comments=true

In Washington, it's always the year of the rat
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Democrats have leapt on reports of mold, rats and bureaucratic hurdles at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as further proof of President George Bush's failed war policies.

To the contrary, the problems at Walter Reed are further proof of the Democrats' failed domestic policies -- to wit, the civil service rules that prevent government employees from ever being fired. (A policy that also may account for Robert Byrd's longevity as a U.S. senator.)



Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody, center, and Walter Reed Hospital Commander Maj. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, right, conduct a media tour of Abrams Hall, which will be used for housing wounded soldiers, Thursday, March 8, 2007, at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert) Thanks to the Democrats, government employees have the world's most complicated set of job protection rules outside of the old East Germany. Oddly enough, this has not led to a dynamic workforce in the nation's capital.

Noticeably, the problems at Walter Reed are not with the doctors or medical care. The problems are with basic maintenance at the facility.

Unless U.S. Army generals are supposed to be spraying fungicide on the walls and crawling under beds to set rattraps, the slovenly conditions at Walter Reed are not their fault. The military is nominally in charge of Walter Reed, but -- because of civil service rules put into place by Democrats -- the maintenance crew can't be fired.

If the general "in charge" can't fire the people not doing their jobs, I don't know why he is being held responsible for them not doing their jobs.

You will find the exact same problems anyplace market forces have been artificially removed by the government and there is a total absence of incentives, competition, effective oversight, cost controls and so on. It's almost like a cause-and-effect thing.

The Washington Post could have done the same report on any government facility in the Washington, D.C., area.

In a typical story from the nation's capital, last year, a 38-year-old woman died at the hospital after her blood pressure dropped and a D.C. ambulance took 90 minutes to pick her up and take her to a hospital that was five minutes away. For 90 minutes, the 911 operator repeatedly assured the woman's sister that the ambulance was on its way.

You read these stories every few months in Washington.

New York Times reporter David Rosenbaum also died in Washington last year after being treated to the famed work ethic of the average government employee. Rosenbaum was mugged near his house and hit on the head with a pipe. A neighbor found him lying on the sidewalk and immediately called 911.

First, the ambulance got lost on the way to Rosenbaum. Then, instead of taking him to the closest emergency room, the ambulance took him to Howard University Hospital, nearly 30 minutes away, because one of the "emergency medical technicians" had personal business in the area.

Once he finally arrived at the hospital, Rosenbaum was left unattended on a gurney for 90 minutes because the "emergency medical technicians" had completely missed his head injury and listed him as "drunk" and "low priority."

Months later, the deputy mayor for public safety told The Washington Post that "to the best of his knowledge, no one involved in the incident had been fired."

No one has any authority over civil service employees in the nation's capital. Bush probably lives in terror of White House janitors. The White House bathroom could be flooding and he'd be told: "I'll get to you when I get to you. Listen, fella, you're fifth on my list. I'm not making any promises, just don't flush for the next week."

It's especially adorable how Democrats and the media are acting like these are the first rats ever sighted in the Washington, D.C., area. There are rats in the Capitol building. There are rats in The Washington Post building. Bush has seen rats. But let's leave Chuck Hagel out of this for now.

On "ABC News" last year, a CBS radio reporter described a rat jumping off the camera in the White House press briefing room in the middle of a press conference. (And a shrew sits right in the front!) The Washington Post called the White House press room -- located between the residence and the Oval Office -- "a broken-down, rat-infested fire trap." During David Gregory's stand-up report on MSNBC about the damage done to Republicans by conditions at Walter Reed, rats appeared to be scurrying on the ground behind him.

Instead of an investigative report on the problems at Walter Reed, how about an investigative report on what happens when the head of janitorial services at Walter Reed is told about the dirt, mold and rats at the facility? If it's before 2:30 in the afternoon and he's still at work and he hasn't taken a "sick day," a "vacation day," a "personal day" or a "mental health day," I predict the answer will be: "I'm on my break."

The Democrats' response is: We must pass even more stringent rules to ensure that all government employees get every single break so that public-sector unions will continue giving massive campaign donations to the Democrats.

This was, you will recall, the precise issue that led to a partisan battle over the Homeland Security bill a few years ago: Whether employees at an emergency terrorist response agency could be fired -- as Republicans wanted -- or if they would be subject to civil service rules and unfireable -- as the Democrats wanted.

HELLO? HOMELAND SECURITY? THERE'S A BOMB IN THE WELL OF THE SENATE!

Sorry, not my job. Try the Department of Public Works.

When Republican Saxby Chambliss challenged Democrat Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia Senate race, he ran an ad attacking Cleland for demanding civil service protections for workers at the Homeland Security Department. Naturally, Republicans were accused of hating veterans for mentioning Cleland's vote on the Homeland Security bill.

Now that the Democrats are once again pretending to give a damn about the troops by wailing about conditions at Walter Reed, how about some Republican -- maybe Chambliss! -- introduce a bill to remove civil service protections from employees at Walter Reed and all veterans' hospitals? You know, a bill that would actually address the problem.

And don't worry about the useless, slothful government employees who can only hold jobs from which they cannot be fired. We'll get them jobs at the EPA and Department of Education.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
From the testimony of some of the soldiers in Walter Reed, the building wasn't the only problem.

Ann Coulter must not have heard the hearings where these soldiers testified.
 

Steve

Well-known member
And don't worry about the useless, slothful government employees who can only hold jobs from which they cannot be fired. We'll get them jobs at the EPA and Department of Education.


I just got back from the VA hospital...and as ussual I was impressed at how helpful every one is....the place was spotless as ussual..

I don't go to Phildelphia for the same reason,,,not very helpful and even though it is clean, it is not as clean as a hospital should be..

funny how fifty miles makes such a differance..there is one other differance in the staff, but to mention it would be racist.,..so I won't

I also did not notice, not one vet younger then myself.
which I felt was odd considering how over whelmed the system is supposed ot be with young vets.,..it seems to be overwhelmed with older vets...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Econ101
From the testimony of some of the soldiers in Walter Reed, the building wasn't the only problem.

Most complained about the transition process from the Military to the VA......again a process ran by government workers...

When I first transitioned I had good advice from a Marine, who was assigned as my disability counselor...and then a lawyer from the DAV...I had no problems getting through what could be a daunting process,

I would suggest that "every" vet seek out the DAV or another service organization as they Know the Congress mandated system and will guide you through the process.

One big problem with the system is the inability to overcome the bureaucratic rules imposed by congress.....

excuse spelling errors, I can barely see (eye exam) and was looking for something to do, so Ranchers.net seemed like a way to pass the day....guess not..as I can hardly see the keyboard,...darn I can't even read a book...maybe I should go for a drive? :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
While I was at the VA I read an article, it stated that there is over 400,000 existing backlogged cases pending at the VA, and of those 26,000 are current cases, from the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq...


When Clinton was President the back log was the never an issue...

or was it...

I recall that former Chairman Slattery asked us in early 1994 what it would take to return in three years to the "good old days" of 1992, when the response time was 240 days. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, that seemed a nearly unreachable goal.

In 1992—before VA really began to feel the effects of judicial review—the average processing time for final decisions was 512 days. What that means is that, on the average, a veteran could expect an allowance or denial about a year and a half after filing the substantive appeal. By 1995, that number had doubled, and today (June 10, 1998) stands at 1,032 days—close to three years.


so before Clinton it was a less then a year....after Clinton it was close to three years?

today......


Took 127 to 177 days to process an initial claim and an average of 657 days to process an appeal,

so it is hopelessly bogged down....now?

today it takes 122 to 177 days,....under Clinton it took close to three years.....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
While I was at the VA I read an article, it stated that there is over 400,000 existing backlogged cases pending at the VA, and of those 26,000 are current cases, from the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq...


When Clinton was President the back log was the never an issue...

or was it...

I recall that former Chairman Slattery asked us in early 1994 what it would take to return in three years to the "good old days" of 1992, when the response time was 240 days. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, that seemed a nearly unreachable goal.

In 1992—before VA really began to feel the effects of judicial review—the average processing time for final decisions was 512 days. What that means is that, on the average, a veteran could expect an allowance or denial about a year and a half after filing the substantive appeal. By 1995, that number had doubled, and today (June 10, 1998) stands at 1,032 days—close to three years.


so before Clinton it was a less then a year....after Clinton it was close to three years?

today......


Took 127 to 177 days to process an initial claim and an average of 657 days to process an appeal,

so it is hopelessly bogged down....now?

today it takes 122 to 177 days,....under Clinton it took close to three years.....

Steve, BOTH are unacceptable for the men and women in the armed services who are serving our country. The Bush and Clinton administrations have failed our servicemen and women in this regard.

Both administrations were probably more focused on the wars they were involved in rather than the needs of our servicemen who were carrying out the wars.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Econ101
Both administrations were probably more focused on the wars they were involved in rather than the needs of our servicemen who were carrying out the wars.

Can you actually back that up with facts? Nope...neither can the Media...so they make a accusation and like you ignore the facts.

I presented Facts....not accusations....

Econ101
BOTH are unacceptable for the men and women in the armed services who are serving our country.

quite true...the Military could "decide" the amount of disability and compensation level "before" a person is retired,..or discharged....the service member could appeal...all the while still serving and drawing pay....then there would be no transition delay....BUT it is not that way...and Congress and the Senate are the only ones that could change it....them and our out-rage.

Econ101
The Bush and Clinton administrations have failed our servicemen and women in this regard.

BUT it is not that way it is done ...and Congress and the Senate are the only ones that could change it....them and our out-rage .add in that every president Failed because it is not up to them to "make Laws...but of the last 20 years Bush and the republican controlled congress and Senate actually reduced the wait time to way below what it was before Clinton...


Now since you can't refute my facts...instead of the me wasting time soothing your ego, and reading your opinions....you may go right to insulting and calling names.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
Econ101
Both administrations were probably more focused on the wars they were involved in rather than the needs of our servicemen who were carrying out the wars.

Can you actually back that up with facts? Nope...neither can the Media...so they make a accusation and like you ignore the facts.

I presented Facts....not accusations....

Econ: Steve, just look at both instances. It is a question of opinion. I made mine. It isn't about accusations. It can't really be "proven" either way. In both instances we had wars that our servicemen were in. In both instances we had these problems. If you can't add things up, that is your problem not mine. You would make a great fbi agent--you know, the ones under the Bush administration who wouldn't listen to the agents at the bottom telling them things, not connecting the dots, and allowing the terrorists to get away with the trade center acts. You seem to want to be more polarized into the republican vs. democrat debate that you can't see both of them are incompetent in areas. Keep up that debate while the problems don't get solved. Isn't that what you are good for?

Econ101
BOTH are unacceptable for the men and women in the armed services who are serving our country.

quite true...the Military could "decide" the amount of disability and compensation level "before" a person is retired,..or discharged....the service member could appeal...all the while still serving and drawing pay....then there would be no transition delay....BUT it is not that way...and Congress and the Senate are the only ones that could change it....them and our out-rage.

Econ: It can be changed. The republicans were the majority and didn't get the changes made and the democrats haven't either, although I have been watching the democrats actually holding hearings on the matter--which is more than you can say for republicans.

Econ101
The Bush and Clinton administrations have failed our servicemen and women in this regard.

BUT it is not that way it is done ...and Congress and the Senate are the only ones that could change it....them and our out-rage .add in that every president Failed because it is not up to them to "make Laws...but of the last 20 years Bush and the republican controlled congress and Senate actually reduced the wait time to way below what it was before Clinton...

Econ: You seem to want to grade everyone on a sliding scale. They both failed. Admit it. You are so keen on your stupid and incompetent republican garbage that you don't want to admit failure. The current hearings show the republican administration failed. Bush has been at it for how long? He was busy planning a war he didn't plan enough for. Maybe we need standards like they impose on the educational system on our government. It would sure clear out a lot of those who have failed.


Now since you can't refute my facts...instead of the me wasting time soothing your ego, and reading your opinions....you may go right to insulting and calling names.

Econ: Don't tell me what I can and can not refute. Get rid of the big head. You are getting top heavy.
 

Steve

Well-known member
NeoCon101

Much better, now you saved every one reading pages of your opinions and me countering every one with facts and disproving every one of them,..and got right to the insults, and name calling.

and again you screwed up the quote....


*again not worth my time, cutting and pasting his insults, name calling and crap.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
NeoCon101

Much better, now you save every one reading pages of your opinions and me countering every one with facts and disproving them,..and got right to the insults, and name calling.

and again you screwed up the quote....


*again not worth my time, cutting and pasting his insults, name calling and crap.

Stevie boy, if you can't remember your own quotes, there is probably no need of you continuing.

Your continuing liberal vs. conservative paradigm will continue to keep you out of the debate.

Our country deserves more.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
NeoCon101
Our country deserves more.

yes it does

but how is liberals ignoring, and distorting facts going to help it?

and how does your insults, and name calling forward debate?

I can't speak for liberals, but I am sure you think you can. I just think you interpret the facts in liberal vs. conservative and let them both off the hook.

It comes with the territory, I guess, when you can only conceive of two choices.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
NeoCon101
Our country deserves more.

yes it does

but how is liberals ignoring, and distorting facts going to help it?

and how does your insults, and name calling forward debate?

You have it on every post, steve. This one is no exception. Since you have so much experience with it, you tell me.

liberals doing this or liberals doing that, blah blah blah....

Can't you come up with something else?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Aplusmnt:
Just trying to figure out who the male nonothing is.

I wouldn't waste to much time on that...I seldom debate with NeoCon-1, ..I was just bored and tired of her typical mis-information....and lack of any facts to back up her falsehoods.,.

and again NeoCon-1 showed her true liberal colors and went into a frenzy spewing insults and showing her general lack of understanding how the real world is...but then again if you get your facts from your forrest gump DVD collection,..what could we really expect?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
Aplusmnt:
Just trying to figure out who the male nonothing is.

I wouldn't waste to much time on that...I seldom debate with NeoCon-1, ..I was just bored and tired of her typical mis-information....and lack of any facts to back up her falsehoods.,.

and again NeoCon-1 showed her true liberal colors and went into a frenzy spewing insults and showing her general lack of understanding how the real world is...but then again if you get your facts from your forrest gump DVD collection,..what could we really expect?

Thanks, stevie girl. We really needed your explanation. I think everyone had you figured out to begin with, I just put it in words.

The Forest Gump analogy was for a simple mind to understand. Obviously you had trouble with it, so where does that put you?
 

Steve

Well-known member
NeoCon-1
The Forest Gump analogy was for a simple mind to understand.

if it gets through to your simple mind,.I guess it works for you...



But,..I have never seen Forest Gump...so your analogy from a movie was pointless.....

Try living in the real world...instead of a worn out DVD..
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
NeoCon-1
The Forest Gump analogy was for a simple mind to understand.

if it gets through to your simple mind,.I guess it works for you...



But,..I have never seen Forest Gump...so your analogy from a movie was pointless.....

Try living in the real world...instead of a worn out DVD..

You are not the only audience here, stevie girl. If I only wanted to talk to you, I would have gotten off the party line and pm ed you. I can't help you haven't as much experience or knowledge in movies or anything else than I. That is your problem, not mine.

Try being part of the real world instead of trying tell everyone they are a liberal because you don't agree with them.
 

Steve

Well-known member
NeoCon:
I can't help you haven't as much experience or knowledge in movies

if it gets through to your simple mind,.I guess it works for you...

You talk of growing up yet insult others who correct you falsehoods...you tell others to get real but your source is a worn out DVD...and the rosie...

as for the rest of your whine...please save it for your other liberal friends...I'm sure while your watching Rosie she will inform you how to live your pathetic life....
 
Top