This week Congress started the 'marking up' session on the Health Care and Insurance Reform. It is crucial we keep the pressure on them pass the bill.
The Daily Kos has an excellent article about the amendments we should push to support, and those we should push against.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/21/10112/5602
You might want to sit down to read this one .......
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-dorlester/guaranteed-health-care-in_b_280528.html
Some small, random things:
As Medicaid, Medicare, VA health care, and CHIP are already in place, why are Republicans opposing a type of government program that has already been otherwise implemented in multiple areas? What are they achieving by opposing the public option? They achieve nothing. They are spinning their wheels. Not news, but I'm still mystified by it. Also still waiting for conservatives to produce some viable alternatives. >:-/
I still think it would really help forge bipartisan support to include medical malpractice reform, let alone the cost-reduction benefits.
Also, I see no reason not to split up the bill into more politically managable/palatable chunks to ensure meaningful reform actually occurs.
Last, I'm a fan of progressive consumption tax. They also have 401(k) funds that adjust themselves as one ages and comes closer to retirement age. Can this concept be applied to health care coverage??
Thoughts??
AMERICANS UNITED FOR HEALTH CARE AND INSURANCE REFORM
http://www.americansunitedhcr.wordpress.com
Phone/Fax (712) 239-0992
Direct Questions to:
americansunitedhcr@cableone.net
Press Release
9 A.M. CDT, August 31, 2009
AMERICANS UNITED FOR HEALTH CARE & INSURANCE REFORM RALLY & March in Washington, D.C. Sept. 13, 2009
Sioux City, August 31, 2009: A rally/march will be held in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 13, 2009 between 12N – 5pm in support of the administrations health care and health insurance reform goals. It is the goal of Americans United for Health Care and Insurance Reform to let congress know that all Americans need health care and insurance. Over 47 million Americans are uninsured and millions more are underinsured or at risk of losing their health insurance
The rally/march will begin at the Lincoln Memorial and march to the steps of the Capitol Building via the National Mall. This rally/march will be peaceful.
Robert Reich has given his support to this rally and march, “….I just want Congress to know how many Americans want universal health care and will settle for no less than complete coverage and no less than a public insurance option, to keep private insurers honest. So I’m happy to lend my support to whatever you are doing.”
Americans have enjoyed the freedom of movement, speech and employment. It is time that American citizens have the freedom that comes from knowing they have affordable health care for themselves and their families. Health care is not just for the privileged but it is a fundamental right.
Other groups marching on September 13, 2009 for health care reform are Congressman Fattah’s “March for Healthcare”, “Medicare for All”, and “March on Washington for Health Care.”
We invite all those who wish to participate visit our web blog at http://www.americansunitedhcr.wordpress.com and register to rally.
For more information please see our web blog (address above)Please direct all questions to our committee at americansunitedhcr@cableone.net.
1) patient/consumer protections
2) cost reduction
3) public option
4) minimal red tape for small business owners and allowing them to pool
5) addressing egregious malpractice suits in some manner
6) [this may fall under cost reduction] bulk-buying of drugs and medical supplies for all current programs/entities as well as competitive bidding for said provisions
7) this done before it can be turned into a 2010 campaign wedge issue
Seems simple enough to me, but I have a feeling that's asking a lot. That being said, 1, 2, 4, 6, and possibly 5 should ostensibly be things everyone can agree on, but I'm not holding my breath.
What do you want to see in health care reform?
That town hall where they had people raise their hands if they opposed government-run health care and then next had them raise their hands if they were on Medicaid or Medicare--brilliant idea. Brilliant way to counter the opposition's "socialized medicine" cries by driving the point home right to the individual while not being snarky or accusatory about those who are trying to play on people's residual Cold War fears and fear of death.
"Our children are going to pay for this!" Then cover all children first. This can be rolled out in phases.
"The government is trying to force your hand regarding your health care choices!" I personally would like to see my choices EXPANDED by creation of a public option. I'd like to consider my health care provided by an entity that is not based on profit. Furthermore, I really feel the need to have a balance between public and private so they can babysit one another as well as compete and drive improvements in care and coverage. (As far as the government making health care choices for people, I have this to say: 1) Terry Schiavo, and 2) the abortion debate.)
I am glad to see Obama stepping it up. Yes, it is the role of Congress to make law. Unfortunately, they're screwing it up. Completely diluting the potency of any meaningful reform. They need some serious guidance/leadership. A flashlight, a compass, what have you. The Democratic majority should make every effort to be cooperative. They should also use their power to best serve the people; specifically, this is one of the few times they should use it to make sure a feasible and beneficial bill is passed, not a big fat piece of convoluted junk.
Now that he has garnered more media attention for himself with his recent antics, the mysterious disapperance, the fake "mountain hike", the tearful revealation of his adultery, Gov. Mark Sanford has focused our minds on his legacy to South Carolina, and to the American people.
For years Sanford has claimed that he is a "true Conservative". He has powerful convictions, exemplified by his statement "What I believe I truly believe. I can't do the flavor-of-the-month approach." Sanford believed government should be small, spend little, even if that means allowing the poor and their children to suffer. Even if that means turning down 700 Million dollars in federal stimulus money for his state because he is afraid of "creeping Socialism". Even if that means rejecting money that could rebuild crumbling schools, forcing teenage girls to take him to court to make him take stimulus funds by court order.
Sanford has been true to conservative ideology. Let the schools fall to pieces, let the unemployed and their children starve, just as long as the brave and heroic individualists like Sanford can hold onto their low tax rates for the wealthy, no matter what the cost to society. According to Sanford, taxpayers should not be burdened with helping the sick, the poor, or the jobless.
But when it comes to using taxpayer dollars to finance a trip to Argentina to have sex with your mistress, that is a perfectly justified use of public funds. Helping those in need is socialism. Helping yourself to the contents of taxpayer wallets in order to fly to another hemisphere to indulge in illicit sex while pretending you are in a "Governor's Conference" is good, old fashioned conservatism.
Mark Sanford is not an isolated example of Conservative hypocrisy. He is the rule. The belief that everyone in America can go to hell as long as you as an individual have everything, and can indulge your every whim, is commonplace among the "Conservative movement". Public needs and civic duties, service to others, is all just evil socialism. But taking armfuls of cash from the public coffers to jet around the world and leap into the warm bed of a starstruck groupie is Republican conservatism at its finest.
Over the past week the filth has intensified from the Conservative movement. First, after years of badgering from Bill O'Reilly and others, a psycho finally follows their lead and slays Doctor Tiller during a church service.
Next, Alan Keyes vice Presidential running mate Wiley Drake publically prays for the death of President Obama. In reference to Doctor Tiller, Drake claims that God has answered his prayers for the death of Doctor Tiller and he hopes the President is next.
Then to show they are equally irresponsible and also praying for death, the republicans in the house and Senate join in. Minority leader John Boehner screeches, "President Obama is importing terrorists into the United States!!" Many other republicans join in agreement.
The point of stirring up this kind of hysteria is to create a climate of hatred and violence which will lead to more politically motivated killings.
This is the sewer that Conservatives have sunk to. They have over the last 8 years destroyed our economy, wiped out Millions of jobs, killed thousands senselessly in Iraq, and allowed 3000 to die on 9/11. They have no ideas for governing the country, in fact they never did. The only thing left is to pray that some sort of monstrous "god" will kill our President and return the republicans to power in the next election.
I thank God, the true God of love and compassion, that our President is being protected by the best security ever devised by man, and despite their racist hatred and prayers to a false god of hate to kill him, our President will live to a ripe old age, untouched by their sickening, murderous bile.
It seems the Rev. Wiley Drake, a well-known media hound, has recently been lurking on Fox News Radio, adding more than just AU Executive Director Barry W. Lynn & Co. to his death wish list.
The Rev. Wiley Drake is on the warpath again — and this time, he has really gone too far.
As you may recall, Drake is the pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif. He urged supporters to offer “imprecatory prayers” (curses) against Americans United and specific staff members in August 2007.
It seems Drake, a well-known media hound, has recently been lurking on Fox News Radio, adding more than just AU Executive Director Barry W. Lynn & Co. to his death wish list.
Before appearing on Alan Colmes’ radio show June 2, Drake had issued a statement that his imprecatory prayers for the death of slain Kansas Dr. George Tiller had been answered. He said that he “absolutely” believed that God wanted Dr. Tiller dead.
But Drake announced on Fox News Radio something that even Colmes could not wrap his head around. Apparently, in addition to AU’s Lynn and Dr. Tiller, Drake has been praying for the death of – wait for it –President Barack Obama!
“So you’re praying for the death of the president of the United States?” host Colmes asked in disbelief.
“Yes,” Drake responded.
Drake said he didn’t fear that these statements would maybe place him on a Secret Service or FBI watch list.
“I think it’s appropriate to pray the Word of God,” Drake said. “I’m not saying anything. What I am doing is repeating what God is saying, and if that puts me on somebody’s list, then I’ll just have to be on their list.”
Later, still stunned, Colmes restated the question, “You would like the president of the United States to die?”
Answered Drake, “If he does not turn to God and does not turn his life around, I am asking God to enforce imprecatory prayers that are throughout the Scripture that would cause him death, that’s correct.”
It was one thing (though still wrong) for Drake to lash out Americans United back in 2007. After all, he was angry that AU reported his church to the IRS for partisan electioneering. We alleged that Drake violated the law by using church resources to endorse Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.
But it’s a completely different story to wish for the death of the president of the United States. It’s just plain evil, and it serves as another example of the fanatical thinking of some members of the Religious Right.
“This whole concept that we’re always to pray little, nice, soft, fluffy prayers – that we’re not to pray imprecatory prayer – has been something that just, in all honesty, that Southern Baptists have lost, and we need to regain imprecatory prayer,” Drake said.
“It is in the Bible,” Drake continued, “and we are proud to say as Southern Baptists that we believe the Book. You’ve got to believe the whole Book, brother, or you don’t believe any of it.”
But it’s important to note that while Drake’s statements are scary and outrageous, not all Southern Baptists agree with him.
The Rev. Dwight McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, personally denounced Drake’s comments and said he would ask Southern Baptist Convention President Johnny Hunt to do the same.
“They need to be repudiated by Southern Baptist leaders,” said McKissic, former president of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention pastors’ conference and speaker at the group’s evangelism conference.
McKissic said Drake’s views “are in the same ballpark” as Rush Limbaugh saying he hopes that President Obama’s administration will fail.
“Southern Baptists,” he said, “don’t need to line up with the Rush Limbaughs and Wiley Drakes in attacking Barack Obama.”
By Sandhya Bathija
In spite of all the rants coming from extremists on the right, the same people who tried and failed to bring down President Obama last year with false accusations that he was a 'racist', Judge Sotomayor is going to be on the Supreme Court. There is nothing that Senate Republicans can do to stop her.
She is incredibly well qualified. She has both brilliance and common sense. Hearing her talk on C-Span last week helped me to see that she speaks with a quiet confidence that comes from knowing exactly what she is talking about at all times, just like President Obama.
I am extremely pleased with this pick, and forever grateful to the President for making this beautiful choice.
I draw no judgments or conclusions, but am nervous about this idea.
For background, here is Obama's speech.
For discussion, here is Glenn Greenwald's blog and another, both of which have useful links to more discussion and opinion.
Feingold's letter on the issue.
While the idea of preventive detention makes me uneasy, potential solutions are not forthcoming either.
Some things I ponder:
1) Can the ICC be of any help? [preventive detention and/or military commisions cases]
2) Have we requested info from the intelligence agencies of other countries? I mean anything and everything. And then pursue any charge. Convict on lesser, unrelated charges. Any crime, any country. We collared Capone that way after all.
3) What do the WWII internment of Japanese Americans and the Alien and Sedition Act tell us about what NOT to do?
4) Setting aside the words "system" and "program," there was a time when law enforcement could not prosecute rape, stalking, cyber crimes, hate crimes, etc., but can do so now because laws have been passed addressing those categories of crime.
5) Can't law enforcement collar someone for verbally threatening the life of the President? Can and should that be applied here?
6) Terrorism is not confined within U.S. borders, but a worldwide threat. Should we not solicit the input of foreign nations? Hawks and doves alike. We can use all the help we can get in terms of solutions.
What do you think about these items? Do you have any potential solutions to offer?
The former VP "Dick" Cheney keeps repeating the same tired refrain, as if he is stuttering badly from drunkeness, that he "kept the country safe" by using torture. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Upon taking office, George W Bush and Dick Cheney were warned by the CIA and Clinton intelligence officials about the dire threat from Bin Laden and Al Queda. Bush and Cheney paid no attention to the warnings. In the spring of 2001, Condolezza Rice, the new National Security Advisor appointed by W Bush, published an article in Foreign Affairs magazine in which she stated that the threat from terrorists was overblown, a relic from a paranoid Clinton administration which was trying to divert attention away from scandals. The real threat to America came from Russia and China.
Over the summer of 2001, numerous American intelligence agencies were reporting alarming amounts of "chatter" being intercepted over the internet and telephone indicating a huge attack on America was coming. The NSA, CIA, FBI, and Defense Intelligence all were warning of an imminent attack. In August, W Bush, Cheney, and other top officials were given a Daily Briefing titled, "Bin Laden determined to attack the U.S." W Bush, and most importantly, Dick Cheney, did NOTHING, in spite of the seriousness of the warnings.
On September 11th, 2001, the most horrific terrorist attack ever by foreign nationals was perpetrated against the American people. Almost 3000 innocent Americans lost their lives. In spite of repeated warnings from multiple sources, W and Cheney did NOTHING to stop the attack.
Now, after this failure to protect America from the worst terrorist attack ever, Dick Cheney has the gall to claim that he kept America safe through torture. How is allowing 3000 people to die after you were warned for almost 9 months straight, "keeping us safe"???
Bush and Cheney were the most incompetent Pres and V. Pres we have ever had. They did NOT keep us safe from anything. Look again at the twin towers collapsing on video. I ASK ONCE MORE, HOW IS ALLOWING THAT HORRIFIC ACT OF MASS MURDER, "KEEPING US SAFE"?????
Since seeing his party booted from power in November, Dick Cheney has been plagueing Americans with his repulsive grimaces and outrageous lies almost every day in speeches and interviews on T.V. The gist of his ramblings are that he is a profoundly courageous mastermind who used torture sparingly but to great effect, saving us from the horror of dozens of September 11ths.
But every time memos are released, the opposite turns out to be true. No major attacks were averted. Certainly none that could even remotely compare to 9/11. Recent testimony from CIA officials suggest that torture was used on Abu Zabaydeh and Khalid Sheik Mohammed to establish a link between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein, NOT to uncover terrorist plots.
So, let's get this straight. The real reason for torturing these men was NOT, as Cheney has been saying, to uncover terror plots, but to cover his own behind by trying, after the fact, to link the Iraq War with 9/11. This was the real reason for the torture, NOT to protect America, but to justify the illegal and immoral Iraq War.
Cheney has made a career of cowardice. A few highlights:
1. Received 5 seperate deferments to stay out of Vietnam. To Cheney, only poor and minority kids should fight the wars his kind start.
2. Served in the criminal Nixon administration. His only lesson learned? The executive branch should have even more power, and be less transparent.
3. For 25 years played the revolving door game between government and the private sector, approving lucrative contracts, then going to work for the same company, culminating in his lobbying efforts as Vice President to award Billions in no-bid contracts to his former company, Halliburton.
4. While President of Halliburton in the 90's, raped the taxpayers by helping Halliburton to relocate its headquarters offshore to save Millions in taxes. Again, only ordinary Americans should pay taxes, not Gods of War like Cheney and Halliburton.
5. Cheney's now tax cheating company Halliburton, has been forced to repay Millions of dollars in fines by the Pentagon for scores of scams and fraudulent overcharges in Iraq. It is not enough to profit from the blood of our soldiers, Halliburton and its subsidiary Kellog, Brown, and Root also delight in breaking the law and commiting acts of fraud so outrageous they are easily discovered by the normally blind Pentagon auditors.
The record is clear. This vicious loudmouth Cheney who has the audacity to criticize President Obama has never done a thing for his country but bring it down, or rip it off. He has lined his own pockets with Millions of dollars in blood money. While VP his greed and lies sent our troops to die in an unnecessary War, and his behind the scenes fraud and deception led to convincing a puppet President Bush to make torture the official policy of the United States, going against every moral and ethical standard we have ever believed in.
We can only hope that before he leaves the earth, this sickening coward will pay for his lies which resulted in the deaths of so many thousands of innocent Americans.
The chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, yesterday made clear the Republican Party is going to go on the attack against the Gay community (B,L,G,T). Steele said that a winning talking point for conservatives is to claim that gay marriage costs straights money and jobs. Steele said that the proper response to any gay couple that gets married from a straight person should be, "Hey! You're costing me money!"
Healthcare and other benefits provided to gay spouses will come out of the pockets of straights. This is the hateful, and stupid, "Master strategy" to lead Republicans out of the wilderness. Incite hatred against gays, with the customary violence and murders which always accompany "gay bashing", and ride on a wave of intolerance and bloodshed all the way to victory at the polls.
It does not matter that Steele's "policy statement" is a complete lie. Anyone who works for a company deserves benefits for themselves and their spouse, regardless of their sexual orientation. The work done by gays is just as valuable as work done by straights. You should not be discriminated against, or receive lesser benefits, just because you are gay.
Steele is engaging in the same kind of despicable hate mongering we have witnessed before in history. Jews caused the Depression and must be exterminated. Blacks will take jobs away from whites if we dismantle Jim Crow. Now the Republicans are saying "the gays" will cost us money and take away our jobs. We have heard this filth before.
Even going beyond the obvious racism and greed of Rush and Hannity, this new emphasis on a pogrom against gays is so disgusting and cowardly that it merits prosecution. Hate speech is deadly, and if anyone gets hurt as a result of this sewage spewing out of Michael Steele's mouth he should be put in prison.
Remember the Rule of Law? In the late 1990s, it was all the rage in conservative circles. Having maneuvered Bill Clinton into a position where he could either lie under oath or suffer massive personal and political embarrassment, conservatives reasoned that Clinton must be held accountable for perjury or the basic underpinnings of democracy would be shattered. The Republican sensibility was best reflected by the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which not only crusaded for impeachment but demanded, in 2001, that Bill Clinton be indicted even after leaving office. The Journal rejected the logic of promoting healing and insisted that a post-presidency indictment would uphold "the principle that even Presidents and ex-Presidents are not above the law".
Over the last decade, though, the right's thinking on this question has evolved. Today, the administration malfeasance consists of illegal torture, a crime I'd argue is no less serious than lying under oath about fellatio. Yet Republicans now believe that the Rule of Law is not only consistent with letting administration crimes go unpunished but actually requires it. To prosecute the departed administration would make us (to use their new catchphrase) a "banana republic"--the premise being that banana republics are defined not by their use of torture but by their overly zealous enforcement of anti-torture laws.
The GOP line is once again reflected by the Journal editorial page, which now thunders against "a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements." The editorial notably fails to even address the question of whether the previous administration complied with the law, which is apparently no longer an important element of the Rule of Law.
The right's newfound outrage is a more hysterical manifestation of the mainstream sentiment that it would be an unseemly form of vengeance or "looking backward" to hold the previous administration legally accountable for torture. It's a bizarre sentiment. The prosecution of any crime is inherently backward-looking. We prosecute law-breakers to keep them or others from breaking the law.
Now, exceptions can be made, and the question of whom to prosecute is tricky. It seems unfair to prosecute CIA agents who tortured, as they had been specifically advised that techniques like waterboarding were legal. It's likewise tricky to prosecute the Bush administration lawyers who wrote torture-authorizing memos. Administration defenders assert that those lawyers were "acting in good faith." And, yes, they were making a good-faith effort to stop terrorism, but to suggest that they were making a good-faith effort to interpret the law insults their intelligence and ours. A recent Washington Post story leaves the impression that torture-memo author Jay Bybee, now a federal judge, realized the tendentiousness of his memos, which said waterboarding isn't torture (and therefore is legal) because it does not inflict "severe physical or mental pain or suffering".
The best defense against holding Bush officials accountable for torture is that September 11 freaked out the entire country and that we can't judge their actions by the standards of how they look "on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009," as Obama's intelligence director puts it. This argument would carry more weight if Republicans had changed their thinking on torture and could be expected to follow the law the next time they won the presidency. Alas, they show little sign of intellectual progress.
Even after the release of the torture memos, Republicans persist in denying that techniques like waterboarding or chaining a prisoner in a standing position for hours constitute torture. The most common defense of waterboarding is that we subjected our own soldiers to it. That's true--as a way of training them to withstand enemy torture. When you reverse engineer a torture-resistance program, you're almost by definition engaging in torture.
In reality, Bush's waterboarding methods did differ from the U.S. military's torture-resistance training, in that our soldiers knew how far we'd go and could stop the exercise if they couldn't bear it. Conservatives have inadvertently confirmed this point. Numerous Republicans object that the release of the torture memos will render waterboarding and other techniques useless--"terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them," complain former Bush officials Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey.
It's true. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, or torture methods devised thereby. Our chief weapon is surprise. (Surprise and fear. ... Amongst our weaponry are such elements as surprise and fear, as Michael Palin might put it.) That's exactly why training soldiers to withstand waterboarding is different than actually waterboarding.
The worst part is that conservatives continue to view torture through the stylized prism of the Fox drama "24." They discuss the practice as if the subjects are always terrorists, the interrogators always know just what information to ask for, and the answer can prevent imminent destruction. All of these premises are shaky.
First, there's no such thing as a government policy of "torturing terrorists. " There's only a policy of torturing people the government thinks are terrorists. Many of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, subjected to agonizing stress positions, turned out not to be terrorists--not because the soldiers who captured them were venal, but because they were human.
Second, torture is designed to force prisoners to provide an answer the interrogator already knows. The torturer relents when his subject provides the "correct" answer. Intelligence gathering, by contrast, is designed to garner answers the interrogator does not already know.
Finally, yes, we can imagine ticking-time-bomb situations where regular interrogation methods work too slowly and extreme measures might prove helpful. But this premise bears the same relationship to the question of legalizing torture as the morality of stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family does to the question of legalizing theft.
It's worth thinking about how likely the ticking-time-bomb scenario is to occur, and how our military and intelligence apparatus can be legally structured to account for it. But, first, Republicans are going to have to be disabused of their dramatic fantasies and reminded that a long war needs to be guided by the rule of law.
Jonathan Chait is a senior editor of The New Republic
Torture is evil. It is something I had thought my whole life practiced only by dictatorships and failed states. Then came the illegitimate regime of W/Cheney and we became a country with an official policy of torturing prisoners. There are indications from leaks coming out that one torture victim, Abu Zabaydeh, gave good information leading to the capture of Sheik Khalid Mohammed when he was questioned legally without torture. After this, he was waterboarded over 80 times. Nothing of any value was gained from his torture. He cooperated initially, but stopped cooperating after the torture started.
President Obama has reviewed the secret documents Cheney said would prove torture produced some results. Our President says the information could have been gained by legal means instead of torture. That is why he has banned the use of torture now. His first instinct is that it is illegal and immoral, which is true. His second reaction, after reviewing the practice, is that it is not only evil, it also is not effective.
The reason W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the 6 torture lawyers and others advocated torture is that they knew nothing about interrogating prisoners, and nothing about collecting intelligence in the first place. The CIA did not ask for permission to torture prisoners, the policy was forced upon them from the top. Cheney and others told interrogators who resisted that Americans would die if they did not follow orders and abuse prisoners. These disgusting men who were fans of torture because of movies and T.V. shows were in control, and the men and women who serve their country as soldiers and CIA operatives were forced to comply, or risk disciplinary measures that would result in the loss of their jobs, and their futures being ruined. A dishonorable discharge from the military for insubordination was the implied threat. Numerous documentaries, segments on 60 Minutes, and testimony before Congress by Iraq Veterans Against the War have confirmed this.
President Obama is correct to ban the practice, as he promised during the campaign. Now it is time for the top law enforcement officer in the land, Attorney General Eric Holder, to do what is his responsibility to do, investigate and prosecute the authors of the policy.
Starting today, veterans can apply online to receive education benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Apply now: http://www.gibill.va.gov/
04/30/2009. Tammy Duckworth Gets to Work
VA Assistant Secretary Tammy Duckworth speaks Tuesday at George Washington University. (Photo courtesy of VA)
It's Day 101 for President Obama, but it's only day four for Tammy Duckworth, one of the administration's most visible faces on veterans issues. The former Illinois director of veterans' affairs and Democratic congressional candidate won Senate confirmation last Friday to serve as assistant secretary of public and intergovernmental affairs at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Today she joins President Obama and Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki at the "White House to Light House" event with wounded service members.
Her first big project launches tomorrow, when the VA starts accepting applications for the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill, the next-generation educational assistance program for military veterans that will provide payments for tuition, fees, housing, books and supplies. Interested veterans can apply on the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill Web site, a process that should take roughly 15 minutes.
The VA will provide financial benefits to veterans based on the highest tuition at a public university in each state, meaning the benefits may not cover full costs at private universities.
The department's Yellow Ribbon Program allows private institutions to commit up to 50 percent of the difference between the maximum allotted amounts and VA will match the difference. Duckworth's alma matter, George Washington University, announced its participation in the program on Tuesday, committing funds to assist 176 veterans per year.
The VA starts distributing the funds on August 1 and Duckworth will spend the next few weeks on the road raising awareness about the program.
“It’s not just reaching the veterans. We need to reach their families, we need to reach their spouses," she said during an interview earlier this week.
The new job makes her the administration's public liaison to the veteran community, but also to state and local agencies working on veterans issues.
“I don’t see the VA as having a monopoly on serving vets," she said. "As someone who was a state director in Illinois, I was frustrated that I had resources and was on the front lines, yet I often had a difficult time accessing partnerships with the VA.” She hopes to eliminate those difficulties during her tenure.
The Eye on Twitter! | Track Obama nominees with Head Count
Posted by washingtonpost.com
