Social Security and Politicians

Social Security Change for 2008




I HEREWITH FIRMLY STATE THAT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN, REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER ISSUES, IF HE DOES NOT SPONSOR AND SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING LEGISLATION. THAT INCLUDES EVERYONE STANDING FOR ELECTION IN 2008.

LET US SHOW OUR LEADERS IN WASHINGTON "PEOPLE POWER" AND THE POWER OF THE INTERNET. LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE WITH ME ON THIS BY FORWARDING TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!
KEEP IT GOING!!!!
2008 Election Issue !!

GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.

This must be an issue in "2008"

Please! Keep it going.

SOCIAL SECURITY:

This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.



Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.



You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society . They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.


For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die...

Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.

For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800, 000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275, 000.00 during the last years of their lives.


This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.


Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.


Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....! ZILCH...


This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan... The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;



" OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK "

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer). We can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.



That change would be to:


Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us.


Then sit back.....

And see how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people can you send this to?

Know What Your Kids Are Doing Online

MYSPACE: A Must Read for All

EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ ALL OF THIS and HAVE CHILDREN READ IT
TOO!

After tossing her books on the sofa, she decided to grab a
snack and get on-line. She logged on under her screen name ByAngel213. She
checked her Buddy List and saw GoTo123 was on. She sent him an instant
message:

ByAngel213:
Hi. I'm glad you are on! I thought someone was following me
home today. It was really weird!

GoTo123:
LOL You watch too much TV. Why would someone be following you?

Don't you live in a safe neighborhood?

ByAngel213:
Of course I do. LOL I guess it was my imagination cuz' I didn't
see anybody when I looked out.

GoTo123:
Unless you gave your name out on-line. You haven't done that
have you?

ByAngel213:
Of course not. I'm not stupid you know.

GoTo123:
Did you have a softball game after school today?

ByAngel213:
Yes and we won!!

GoTo123:
That's great! Who did you play?

ByAngel213:
We played the Hornets. LOL. Their uniforms are so gross! They
look like bees. LOL

GoTo123:
What is your team called?

ByAngel213:
We are the Canton Cats. We have tiger paws on our uniforms.
They are really cool.

GoTo1 23:
Did you pitch?

ByAngel213:
No I play second base. I got to go. My homework has to be done
before my parents get home. I don't want them mad at me. Bye!

GoTo123:
Catch you later. Bye

Meanwhile.......GoTo123 went to the member menu and began to
search for her profile. When it came up, he highlighted it and printed it
out. He took out a pen and began to write down what he knew about
Angel so far.

Her name: Shannon
Birthday: Jan. 3, 1985
Age: 13
State where she lived: North Carolina

Hobbies: softball, chorus, skating and going to the mall.
Besides this information, he knew she lived in Canton because she had just
told him. He knew she stayed by herself until 6:30 p.m. every afternoon
until her parents came home from work. He knew she played softball on
Thursday afternoons on the school team, and the team was named the
Canton Cats. Her favorite number 7 was printed on her jersey. He knew she
was in the eighth grade at the Canton Junior High School . She had told
him all this in the conversations they had on- line. He had enough
information to find her now.

Shannon didn't tell her parents about the incident on the way
home from the ballpark that day. She didn't want them to make a scene
and stop her from walking home from the softball games. Parents were
always overreacting and hers were the worst. It made her wish she was not
an only child. Maybe if she had brothers and sisters, her parents
wouldn't be so overprotective.

By Thursday, Shannon had forgotten about the footsteps
following her.

Her game was in full swing when suddenly she felt someone
staring at her. It was then that the memory came back. She glanced up from
her second base position to see a man watching her closely.

He was leaning against the fence behind first base and he
smiled when she looked at him. He didn't look scary and she quickly
dismissed the sudden fear she had felt.

After the game, he sat on a bleacher while she talked to the
coach. She noticed his smile once again as she walked past him. He nodded
and she smiled back. He noticed her name on the back of her shirt. He
knew he had found her.

Quietly, he walked a safe distance behind her. It was only a
few blocks to Shannon's home, and once he saw where she lived he quickly
returned to the park to get his car.

Now he had to wait. He decided to get a bite to eat until the
time came to go to Shannon's house. He drove to a fast food restaurant
and sat there until time to make his move.

Shannon was in her room later that evening when she heard
voices in the living room.

"Shannon, come here," her father called. He sounded upset and
she couldn't imagine why. She went into the room to see the man from the
ballpark sitting on the sofa.

"Sit down," her father began, "this man has just told us a most
interesting story about you."

Shannon sat back. How could he tell her parents anything? She
had never seen him before today!

"Do you know who I am, Shannon ?" the man asked.

"No," Shannon answered.

"I am a police officer and your online friend, GoTo123."

Shannon was stunned. "That's impossible! GoTo is a kid my age!
He's 14. And he lives in Michigan !"

The man smiled. "I know I told you all that, but it wasn't
true. You see, Shannon , there are people on-line who pretend to be kids; I
was one of them. But while others do it to injure kids and hurt them,
I belong to a group of parents who do it to protect kids from
predators. I came here to find you to teach you how dangerous it is to talk to
people on-line. You told me enough about yourself to make it easy for me
to find you.. You named the school you went to, the name of your ball
team and the position you played. The number and name on your jersey
just made finding you a breeze."

Shannon was stunned. "You mean you don't live in Michigan?"

He laughed. "No, I live in Raleigh It made you feel safe to
think I was so far away, didn't it?"

She nodded.

"I had a friend whose daughter was like you. Only she wasn't as
lucky. The guy found her and murdered her while she was home alone.
Kids are taught not to tell anyone when they are alone, yet they do it
all the time on-line. The wrong people trick you into giving out
information a little here and there on-line.. Before you know it, you have told
them enough for them to find you without even realizing you have done
it. I hope you've learned a lesson from this and won't do it again.
Tell others about this so they will be safe too?"

"It's a promise!"

That night Shannon and her Dad and Mom all knelt down together
and thanked God for protecting Shannon from what could have been a
tragic situation.

*****NOW****

EVEN FORWARD THIS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT KIDS SO THEY CAN SEND IT TO
FRIENDS THAT DO HAVE CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN

Another Wannabe

Man Guilty of Lying About Service
The Columbian December 28, 2007

A 64-year-old Vancouver man pleaded guilty Dec. 27 to using an altered military discharge certificate to secure pension and medical benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Merrick Hersey never served in the military and never received medals as he claimed, according to a news release from Emily Langlie, spokeswoman for the Western Washington U.S. District Attorney's Office.

Hersey used his false application to secure benefits totaling $2,687, Langlie said. Hersey is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom on March 21.

He was charged as part of "Operation Stolen Valor," an investigation into fraudulent claims of military service.

According to the plea agreement, Hersey filed a falsified military service discharge certificate and application with VA in February 2005 to qualify for benefits. He claimed he was unable to work due to post-traumatic stress disorder sustained during military service.

The falsified military discharge certificate claimed he was on active duty with the U.S. Marine Corps from June 1967 through April 1968, that he had been awarded two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star Medal and that he had received an honorable discharge.

The Bronze Star is awarded to service members for valor or for meritorious service. The Purple Heart is awarded to Soldiers, Sailors, Marines or Airmen wounded or killed in combat.

Use of an altered military discharge certificate to obtain benefits is punishable by up to one year in prison and up to a $100,000 fine. As part of his plea agreement, Hersey agreed to pay restitution, Langlie said.
______________________________

Rocky's comments: This is why it is so hard and takes so long for real vets to be granted a claim for disability. This man stole from all of us and even after he is forgotten he will continue to make things hard for real veterans.

Meds From China

Tim Johnson | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: December 06, 2007 06:24:16 PM

BEIJING — The medicine cabinet in the average U.S. home is filling with drugs made in China, and some experts say that could be a prescription for trouble.

China's booming pharmaceutical industry has doubled exports to the United States in the past five years, undercutting competitors and making American consumers reliant on the safety of Chinese factories and captive to any disruptions in Sino-U.S. commerce.

It might seem like merely a trade issue. But industry experts in Europe and the United States say national-security concerns are edging into the debate.

Consider this scenario:

If a major anthrax attack were to occur in the United States — larger than the one in 2001, when five people died — pharmaceutical companies that make the two antibiotics most suitable for treatment, Cipro and doxycycline, would have no choice but to rely on China or India for key ingredients once American stockpiles were exhausted. Those ingredients no longer are made in the West.

A Portuguese company that ramped up doxycycline production in 2001 at Washington's request said China now controlled the flow of its crucial drug component.

"If we were asked to do this again, we would be dependent on China providing us with key starting materials that are unavailable in the rest of the world," said Guy Villax, the chief executive of Hovione, a Lisbon-based fine chemicals company.

The spectacular growth of China's pharmaceutical industry coincides with some equally huge problems. A kickback scandal ensnared China's State Food and Drug Administration and its chief in charges that they gave approval for bogus drugs, including a counterfeit antibiotic that left 13 people dead. Wary of rising public anger, the state issued a Draconian sanction: It executed the agency chief in July.

Cases of tainted toothpaste, toys and pet food that have made global consumers wary of the "Made in China" label added urgency to a high-profile drug agency purge.

Even so, China's $65 billion pharmaceutical industry is galloping at an annual growth rate of 24 percent in the first eight months of this year. Competitors say China's drug companies not only have low-cost advantages but also get a nearly free pass from U.S. drug regulators, who hold the screws to American companies — raising their costs significantly — but rarely inspect in China.

China says it's a reliable source of safe medicine for its own citizens and export markets. At a news conference this week, the deputy drug agency chief, Wu Zhen, called on countries to work together to ensure a safe global supply chain of medicines.

"To solve the drug safety problems, we need international cooperation, " Wu said. "We hope to have . . . more cooperation, and less finger-pointing. "

China dominates more than just antibiotics. U.S. regulators license 714 plants in China to produce ingredients for over-the-counter, generic and prescription drugs for Americans. China has snagged a major share of the global sales of many vitamins, antibiotics, enzymes and painkillers. It makes a third of the world's acetaminophen, an over-the-counter pain medication. Acetaminophen is sold under many brand names, the best known of which is Tylenol, though Tylenol itself isn't made in China.

This brings up another possible scenario:

"Just suppose you are taking some cholesterol drug, and its intermediates or active ingredients are made in China. Then there's some conflict with Taiwan. Will your drug still be available?" asked Joe Acker, the president of the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers' Association, a trade group in Washington. "The whole drug supply could be in jeopardy in these kinds of situations."

Acker noted that he thinks that the United States could rebound from disruptions in the increasingly globalized supply chain for drug components, in which materials are bought from a number of low-cost countries.

"I'm not a Chicken Little type of person," Acker said. "However, if there were to be a major problem, and we could not source material from China, we would have to gear up production very quickly."

The anthrax scare jolted the United States just a week after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to news organizations in Florida and New York and to the offices of two U.S. senators. Authorities don't know the source of the letters, and no arrests have been made.

Because of the attacks, the Health and Human Services Department increased stockpiles of antibiotics and vaccines against anthrax.

"We have enough antibiotics . . . to treat 40 million Americans," Bill Hall, a spokesman for the department, said in an e-mail, adding that the government also has 28.75 million doses of anthrax vaccine.

Bayer, the German health-care giant, held patent protection until 2004 over the antibiotic known as ciprofloxacin, which it marketed as Cipro. That antibiotic now is mass-produced by generic firms, which get a key ingredient, dichloro fluorobenzene, from one of four Chinese companies or two Indian firms.

The Chinese and Indian companies are all but exempt from oversight by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

"Only 13 inspections were conducted in China in 2007," Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said at a hearing Nov. 1. "At this rate, it would take the FDA 55 years just to clear this backlog."

By giving China a virtual pass on FDA inspections, Acker said, Chinese firms get a cost savings of about 25 percent above American companies, which face unannounced on-site inspections at any time.

Since European pharmaceutical companies also face tougher standards, they too have stopped producing some basic drug ingredients, ceding production to Chinese and Indian companies that face less scrutiny and have lower costs.

On both sides of the Atlantic, manufacturers say they fret over the national-security implications of the massive off-shoring of production to Asia.

"If there is a peak in demand triggered by a pandemic or a terrorist event, there will be little domestic production capacity to meet public health needs," said an August 2006 white paper by the U.S. chemicals trade group in conjunction with the European Fine Chemicals Group, its counterpart.

Chinese chemical companies that sell ingredients used by foreign pharmaceutical firms also shield themselves from the news media.

Sun Dongliang, the deputy chief of the chemical industry chamber under the powerful China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, refused a request for an interview.

"He thinks that your interview has nothing to do with the chemical industry. It's about pharmaceutical things," said an assistant who gave only her surname as Guo.

All four Chinese companies that manufacture the key ingredient for ciprofloxacin declined requests for interviews.

China offered foreign journalists a tour of two model pharmaceutical plants in Hangzhou on Nov. 23. The plants were spotless. Workers in face masks toiled in jumpsuits on assembly lines. Polished machinery gleamed. One factory made Chinese medicines to treat prostate ailments. The other made herbal remedies.

Outsiders say Chinese drug plants run the gamut from First to Third World.

"You will see some companies where you can eat off the floor. They are state of the art," said Acker, the U.S. trade group chief. "I hear other stories of places where people are making chemicals while wearing flip-flops."

Despite multiple requests over a two-week period, McClatchy was unable to gain access to any drug ingredient-manufact uring facilities other than the model firms presented by the Chinese government.

Although Chinese authorities warn against foreign finger-pointing, the government's own reaction to the scandal over bogus and substandard drugs earlier this year was extremely harsh.

After drug chief Zheng Xiaoyu's execution, the state began a vast housecleaning. This week, it said it had shut down 300 drug and medical-device makers, convicted 279 people of irregularities and prompted drug companies to withdraw 7,300 applications for drug approval, indicating more rigor in the approval process.

Such actions left doubt whether consumers ought to be reassured by the factories shut down or alarmed at the state of the industry. Wu, the deputy drug chief, said he hoped to restore faith in Chinese drugs after the kickback scandal.

"The corruption case . . . has tarnished our image," he said. "One of the targets of this campaign is to clean up the legacy caused by this corruption case."

Still unclear is whether increased self-policing is sufficient given the magnitude of China's production and its rising share of global medicine chests.

Villax, the Portuguese executive who's a board member of the European Fine Chemicals Group, said some Chinese pharmaceutical manufacturers were cutting corners and that unless enforcement tightened "people will die."

"It's not low-cost labor that concerns us," Villax said. "What we're saying is there are a lot of people not playing by the rules, and not getting caught."

A sign of the troubles that can occur in the pharmaceutical industry came at a plant that was manufacturing a key ingredient used in ciprofloxacin.

A deafening blast ripped through the Fuyuan Chemical Co. plant in Jiangsu province on July 28, 2006. Once the smoke cleared, 22 people lay dead and another 29 were injured. China's State Administration of Work Safety later issued a report charging the plant with ignoring safety rules, adopting low construction standards and operating without permits.

(McClatchy special correspondent Fan Di contributed to this article.)

McClatchy Newspapers 2007

Jim Strickland Speaks

By Jim Strickland, Vets Advocate, VAwatchdog.org

As the year 2007 comes to it's end, I thought I'd take a moment to
reflect on a few of the Veterans I've been honored to know in the past
12 months. It's a privilege and a great joy that I'm able to connect
to so many fine people and sometimes lend a hand.


Although I'm a grouchy and curmudgeonly sort by my nature, I wanted to
end the year on a high note. My intent was to dig deep into the cellar
of my inbox and root out the success stories.


It seemed to me it would be a kind and gentle thing to do; sharing
with you the happy days of winning deserved benefits for those who
have had the courage to don the uniform, accept the harsh duty of
serving in the military of our great nation and in the process,
sustaining lasting physical and mental wounds.


I've failed.


I don't have any big success stories in dealing with the VBA. I'll end
the year knowing that my brothers and sisters who served so bravely
are continuing to struggle with a government that views them as so
much cannon fodder, a disposable piece of broken equipment to be used
up and thrown away.


No matter the eloquence of slick politicians as they address us, the
stark reality is that our government's obligation "To care for him who
shall have borne the battle and for his widow and orphan" has not been
met. It was 1959 when President Lincoln's words became the motto of
what is now the Department of Veterans Affairs. Each year since then,
the DVA has fallen farther behind in its duty to serve.


The DVA presents a tightly closed door to the neediest of Veterans.
The wounded, sick or injured Veteran who seeks help must go to the
division of the DVA that deals with disability compensation benefits,
the Veterans Benefits Administration.


Before any monetary help is parceled out, the Veteran must stand up to
that most adversarial agency of our government, the VBA. The Veteran
seeking assistance is guilty until proven innocent at VBA. He or she
is seen as guilty of overstating pain, injury, conditions of battle,
time of service and even the status of discharge. More than anything,
the Veteran is looked down on by VBA as if we were wanting something
for nothing...we're beggars looking for a handout.


The arrogance of the organization is steeped in its tradition and runs
to its very core. The BVA doesn't have any requirements to serve the
Veteran in a timely fashion. If deserved benefits are delayed by one
or two years, it's routine. There are countless examples of benefits
delayed for 5 and more years, mired in bureaucratic red tape. There
are no negative consequences to any VBA employee, manager or director
in any instance that this occurs. VA Regional Office managers
routinely receive year end bonuses of $15,000.00 or more no matter
that the Veterans in their service area are suffering dehumanizing,
degrading personal financial losses because of VBA delays. As the GAO
was reporting that benefits claims fell behind for the 3rd year in a
row, VBA management was busy back slapping and celebrating hefty
bonuses.


If a Veteran doesn't timely respond to a notice from VBA however, the
consequences are immediate and near impossible to reverse. If you fail
to return a questionnaire within 60 days or you can't make it to a C &
P exam, your benefits will be suspended with little notice and you'll
spend months, maybe years to reinstate them.


VBA doesn't have to answer your questions. If you call to ask the
status of your appeal, you're most likely to hear no more than a rude
reply that it's being worked on. If you write to your VARO, it's most
often the case that you won't ever receive a reply. If you've called
your Congressman's office and they inquire, they will receive a
soothing form letter telling them that "all is well, these things just
take time".


If the VBA queries you and you don't respond, the game ends. You lose.


I'll close 2007 thinking of the stunningly poor service given by VBA
to Veterans like these following;


In North Carolina, early in the year, the Veteran Marine was diagnosed
with lung cancer. He was a Vietnam Vet and it's established that his
crippling, fatal disease is service connected because of exposure to
Agent Orange. His cancer soon invaded his brain and he was quickly
becoming paralyzed and unable to care for himself. He lost bowel and
bladder control and frequently fell to the floor.


The letters came from the VARO to assure him that his condition was
only temporary and that he was not permanently and totally disabled.
His spouse was not allowed to receive any additional benefits as the
VBA was sure that on his calendared reexamination in 2009, there would
be measurable improvements. Some 10 months after his diagnosis, he was
dead.


In Florida, the Veteran soldier suffers from PTSD and severe psychoses
that are connected to his service. He's often housebound and bedridden
due to side effects of his anti-psychotic medicines. He's been rated
as 100% IU for over 3 years and was told that in October 2007 he would
be notified to report for reexamination to assess his "temporary"
condition. These reexaminations are conducted with the express intent
of looking for a way to reduce your benefit.


The notice for reexamination never came. In November he received a
letter from his VARO that his family was now eligible for CHAMPVA
benefits and that they were welcome to apply. As CHAMPVA benefits are
reserved for dependents of Veterans who are 100% permanently and
totally disabled, it was apparent that his file had been reviewed and
no exam was necessary to award him this deserved benefit. When he
started the process of application to CHAMPVA, he was suddenly
notified that a mistake had been made and he was given a one week
notice to report for reexamination or he would lose his benefits.


His fragile mental health was sent spiraling down and when we last
spoke, he was terrified and in tears for fear of losing everything.


In Illinois, the young wife of the Iraq war Marine Veteran wrote me in
an attempt to understand why her Veteran husband was rated at only 30%
disabled. After 2 grueling combat tours, he was a shell of his former
self and afflicted with nightmares, unbridled anger, an inability to
face the daily challenges of life and speech that was slurred from his
powerful medications.


Unable to hold a job, he had crawled into a hole and often refused to
shave, bathe, change clothes, groom himself or even play with his
young children. Although he had confessed to random thoughts of
suicide, he wasn't being scheduled for any particular aggressive
therapy and no proactive services were being offered to him by VBA or
his clinic. With 2 young children at home, she was unable to work and
had to take care of her Veteran too.


All she asked was that the VBA help them with a little more money
before they become homeless. Some treatment for the Marine would be
fine too but their first thoughts are to simply survive.


In California, the Vet had been diagnosed with an Agent Orange related
lung cancer. His wife had a good family plan health insurance from her
work and he took his treatments at a civilian facility long before he
gave the VBA any thought. After months of radiation therapy,
chemotherapy and a diagnosis of a stage 4b terminal cancer, he finally
got around to applying for his deserved benefits.


His VARO soon gave him the award of a service connection that ceded
that his lung cancer was related to his exposure to Agent Orange while
he served in Vietnam. Although he had lost his job, was on a
continuous doses of morphine and other narcotics for pain, couldn't
breathe without his daily nebulizer breathing treatments, had
developed diabetes and hypertension and was mostly housebound...his
VBA awarded him a 0% (Zero Percent) rating.


Their logic was that his disease, those tumors occupying that large
space in his lungs, had "stabilized" and soon he would show
improvement. Later, VBA would relent and award 100% but only as a
temporary condition. He was soon reexamined and VBA saw improvement
enough to attempt to lower his rating from 100% to 60%. That he had
become dependent on tanks of oxygen in his home and increasing doses
of narcotics to control his pain didn't have much effect on the VARO
decision makers. He's appealed and has waited months for any final
word.


In Missouri is the female Veteran who injured her back in training.
She wrote to me to ask why she had been denied a raise in her benefits
to the level of 100% IU. There was a lot of evidence to support her
injury and the VBA had granted her 30% years ago. She'd had spine
surgery by the VHA that was well documented to have been only
partially successful. After years of work and dealing with her
worsening pain, she'd been fired from her job as she couldn't perform
the tasks required to keep up. Attempts to find employment were
futile...she was on a lot of pain medicine and couldn't pass the sorts
of employment drug screening that so many employers require today. She
remains unemployed.


She went to civilian doctors and obtained MRI exams that VA wouldn't
provide. The MRI reports were clear that she has suffered progressive
worsening of her condition. Her VA doctor recommended to her that she
apply for IU.


After 3 years of waiting, innumerable visits to physicians and
physical therapy, now wearing a back brace and in intractable pain and
dependent on narcotics, she's been notified that her condition doesn't
warrant any increase, there will be no unemployability award and she
is now scheduled for reexamination in 2009 as the VBA anticipates that
there will be improvement in her condition.


According to her VARO, she's fine and needs to get up and go to work.


Across America I've received dozens of letters from Navy Veterans who
served off the coast of Vietnam. They recall the days when clouds of
misting Agent Orange drifted across their deck as they provided
support for the fighting on shore. They remember going ashore with
mail and other supplies to deliver those goods to troops on the
ground. Both air and water craft that had been used in the delivery of
that deadly herbicide were stored above and below decks and today,
these proud sailors are dying of prostate cancer, lung cancer and
diabetes...all diseases presumed to have a connection to exposure to
Agent Orange.


But, your VBA has drawn a line in the sand. No matter what the federal
courts have ruled, no matter what common sense and reasonable judgment
would tell us, these vets aren't going to get what they earned because
of an arbitrary decision by VBA that they didn't have boots on the
Vietnamese soil thus there was no exposure to Agent Orange.


I've failed today. Out of the hundreds, maybe a thousand or more
emails I've received in 2007, I can't bring you any good news from
your Department of Veterans Affairs.


We had a single moment of hope in 2007 as Secretary Nicholson resigned
after a disastrous tenure blighted by computer data theft. His brief
reign at DVA may go down in the books as one of the worst ever. He
accomplished nothing while the VBA got ever more behind in
adjudication of benefits claims. We had a brief hope that finally a
secretary might be appointed who would make the change called for by
GAO, The Veterans Disability Benefits Commission and many others.


That hope was quickly dashed however. There will be no sweeping
reform. The swift confirmation of another favored insider, Dr. James
Peake, was one of those backhanded slaps to our faces we've learned to
expect from our VA.


Peake was the chief medical director and chief operating officer of
QTC Management Inc., providing Compensation and Pension examination
services for the VBA. Former VA Secretary Anthony Principi is Chairman
of the QTC board.


The VBA pays untold millions of dollars to QTC and even the VBA is
often forced to admit that many of the exams are worthless, full of
error, inadequate, rushed by poorly trained and unsupervised examiners
who provide a great disservice to the injured Veteran.


In any other arena, these sorts of back and forth ties would have the
popular press screaming for RICO indictments. In our world, the world
of the Veteran and the DVA, it goes unnoticed. Another day, another
slap to all Veterans.


Thank you sir, may I have another?


After all that though, we did win one. We won a single momentous,
historic battle in 2007.


This victory gives us hope that we will watch as VBA experiences the
shock and awe of a legal onslaught, a tsunami of actions by the only
friends a Veteran will have while facing the VBA.


On June 20th 2007 Veterans won the right to approach the Veterans
Benefits Administration with an attorney advocate at their side. Prior
to June Veterans were only allowed to use the services of a Veterans
Service Officer as they faced off on a battlefield with the VBA. No
matter how well meaning some VSO's may have been, they were largely
untrained and had few skills beyond helping you to complete some
forms. Many were volunteers and only worked a few hours each week,
eagerly accepting the glory of their positions and basking in the
light of self importance.


It was disheartening to watch the process of legislation of the act
that would allow Vets to retain a licensed, skilled, motivated
attorney. Most of the Veterans Service Organizations, those very
people who say they represent our interests, sided with the DVA and
worked against their own Veteran membership.


Led by the 800 pound gorilla that is the Disabled American Veterans
(DAV) group, the VFW and many others fell into lock step and marched
along, beating a loud drum to announce that we Veterans didn't need
lawyers. They were nearly successful in knocking the legislation off
the tracks with back room lobbying and expensive marketing to our
elected lawmakers.


We won.


Today hundreds of lawyers across America are jumping into the fray.
These are good lawyers. These are men and women, licensed and
certified professionals who have been advocating for Americans with
disabilities in other courtrooms for years. Their practices are often
limited strictly to people with disabilities. Their paycheck depends
on their success in representing their clients.


Unlike the DAV or VFW Veterans Service Officer, these lawyers aren't
on a salary that pays them for losing. If you don't win, these lawyers
don't get paid. Unlike the DAV, you won't be encouraged by your lawyer
to fork over money for a "lifetime membership" or buy a colorful hat
with a cute little pin on it. All your attorney wants to do is win,
it's not a game to them.


The lawyer won't accept your case if it's not justified. Attorneys are
strictly held to canons of ethics by their governing bodies. If a
lawyer is known to file a frivolous claim that has no merit, they may
be harshly punished. The VSO isn't held to those rules or any rules at
all. There is no standard across America that defines a qualified
VSO...take a short quiz and you're in.


I've already set up a pattern of referring to attorneys who I've
concluded are going to work hard for us. I've surprised myself in
making a referral sooner in the process than I thought I would. It's
paying off. I'm hearing of decisions that are being won by lawyers
soon after they've taken the case. I expect that in 2008 I'll refer
many more than I'd anticipated.


I also know that your VARO is in for a surprise. As I write this these
lawyers are in meetings training themselves and each other in the
intricacies of VBA law. They're networking and talking to each other
and to me. Law schools are beginning to design curricula to train
lawyers in VBA law. The machine is rolling.


At your VARO there will be the shock and awe of 10, then 20 and then
40 lawyers who won't accept being turned away by the gatekeepers at
VBA. Unlike your local good ol' boy VSO, the lawyer who advocates for
you will be quick to discover how to use the courts to force that door
open.


I've said it before; these lawyers aren't used to being treated
discourteously. They won't accept delaying and stalling tactics. The
dynamic of the process at VBA will change at your VARO as 2008 marches
along and that's a huge win for veterans, one of the best ever.


There is hope. If we won that one, we can win more. Maybe my 2008
won't be quite as gloomy and filled with the stories I told you of
earlier.


I'll be here in '08, fighting by your side, covering your back and
cheering for those lawyers who want to stand up for America's heroes.


Merry Christmas and a joyous New Year to all my Brothers and Sisters.


May God bless every one of you.

NOVA Statement per VAwatchdog

STATEMENT OF RICHARD PAUL COHEN, PAST PRESIDENT AND FUTURE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF VETERANS ADVOCATES BEFORE THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

DECEMBER 13, 2007



MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. (“NOVA”) on the President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors (Dole-Shalala Commission) and the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission Reports.

NOVA is a not-for-profit § 501(c)(6) educational organization incorporated in 1993 and dedicated to train and assist attorneys and non-attorney practitioners who represent veterans, surviving spouses, and dependents before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“CAVC”) and on remand before the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). NOVA has written many amicus briefs on behalf of claimants before the CAVC and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). The CAVC recognized NOVA’s work on behalf of veterans when it awarded the Hart T. Mankin Distinguished Service Award to NOVA in 2000.

The positions stated in this testimony have been approved by NOVA’s Board of Directors and represent the shared experiences of NOVA’s members as well as my own fifteen-year experience representing claimants at all stages of the veteran’s benefits system from the VA regional offices to the Board of Veterans Appeals to the CAVC as well as before the Federal Circuit.



DOLE-SHALALA COMMISSION REPORT

The President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors (commonly referred to as the Dole-Shalala Commission) issued a report in July 2007 in which it promoted six recommendations. Generally speaking, these six recommendations sought to improve the services offered to injured service members and their families, to support them in their recovery and return to military duty or to their communities, and to simplify the delivery of medical care and disability programs. Although well-intended, many of these recommendations are needlessly cumbersome and complex, unfair, and un-workable.

At a time when the VA is plagued with a flood of new cases as well as mammoth delays and backlogs, it is a mistake to create a more complex system with multiple classes of veterans. Thus, requiring the VA to distinguish between providing services to veterans who were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan as opposed to those who fought during WWII, Korea or Vietnam (PCCARWW 9) is unworkable, and more importantly, unfair to older veterans. This is so because a wartime-based class system would in fact result in preferential treatment for our younger veterans, thereby creating needless tension among veterans’ groups at a time when support and unity is paramount to a veteran’s successful reintegration into his or her community. What’s more, such a wartime-service-based class system would only worsen the feelings of abandonment and being forgotten held by many older veterans still waiting for the VA to develop and, or adjudicate their claims for benefits.

Moreover, the Dole-Shalala report’s recommendation to distinguish combat-related injuries from non-combat-related injuries (PCCARWW 10) is misguided because to do so would likely place additional hurdles on veterans who served in a non-combat MOS (military occupation specialty) roles during their military service. Creating a distinction between combat related injuries as opposed to non-combat related injuries is akin to the quagmire Vietnam veterans who served with a non-combat MOS currently face when seeking entitlement to certain benefits automatically granted to combat veterans, e.g. benefits related to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Indeed, just the opposite principle was advanced by the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission which concluded after 2 years of study that “[b]enefits should be uniformly based on severity of service-connected disability without regard to the circumstances of the disability... .” and that “[s]etting different rates of compensation for the same degree of severity would be both impractical and inequitable.” (VDBC 3,98)

Likewise, the recommendation of the Dole-Shalala Commission’s recommendation to restructure VA disability benefits to pay for actual loss of earning capacity instead of average loss of wages (PCCARWW 8,25) is at direct odds with the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission’s principle number 4 which states that the average impairment of earnings capacity should be an element of compensation for the consequences of a service–connected disability (VDBC 3,230). The Dole-Shalala recommendation fails to recognize the VA’s time honored understanding “that impairment is not specifically linked to an individual veteran, his or her skill set, and the ways a particular injury or disease affects that individual’s ability to maintain gainful employment”. (VDBC 203) Moreover, if implemented, this restructuring would require the already overworked VA to embark on a burdensome program of income record collection and analysis, and in many cases, would require the VA to speculate how much a veteran is able to earn in the absence of actual earnings. Similarly, the Dole-Shalala Commission’s criticism of income replacement as a disincentive ( PCCARWW 23) ignores the VA’s decades-long experience of providing financial assistance to veterans who receive income replacement while they work.

Finally, instituting a mandatory three year review of disability ratings (PCCARWW 7) is unjustified and eliminates the concepts of Total and Permanent disability ratings (see, 38 C.F.R. §§ 6.18, 3.340(b)) and protected ratings (see 38 U.S.C.S. § 110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.951(b)). Neither the increased cost of the periodic reviews nor the expected saving by reductions of some ratings justify this change.
VETERANS’ DISABILITY BENEFITS COMMISSION REPORT
In October 2007, the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission (VDBC) issued a comprehensive report after a two-and-a-half-year study of the benefits and services currently provided to our country’s veterans. Contrary to the suggestions of the Dole-Shalala Commission, many of the VDBC’s recommendations make sense and would provide helpful, meaningful assistance to veterans. However, as explained in more detail herein, some of the VDBC’s recommendations would prove detrimental to veterans seeking disability benefits from the VA.



VDBC Recommendations Supported by NOVA:

1. Compensation for loss of usual life activities and loss of quality of life-R 4.1,7.6

As envisioned by the VDBC, quality-of-life includes non-work aspects of disability, such as how well someone can function in everyday life and how they feel about their situation. The VDBC accepts the finding of the CNAC that the quality of life of service-connected veterans is, on average, significantly lower than the quality of life of the general population. (VDBC 250) In view of the difficulty and time required to adequately research how to measure end rate loss of quality of life, the Commission’s recommendation of utilizing an interim approach to increase compensation rates 25% as a baseline benefit for loss of quality of life is reasonable. ( VDBC 253-254)

2. Elimination of three key obstacles facing veterans and or their families.

The VDBC recommends eliminating the current ban on concurrent receipt of benefits for all military retirees. (VDBC 199; R 6.14) The Survivor Benefit Plan/Dependency and Indemnity Compensation offset for survivors of retirees and in-service deaths ( R 8.2) and the current ban which prohibits surviving spouses and, or dependents from continuing a claim begun by a veteran who has passed away while his or her claim was pending. ( R 8.3) The VBDC’s recommendation to do away with all three of these bans is equitable and long overdo. Eliminating these bans would go a long way in relieving the financial burden facing veterans and their families. (VDBC 300) Also, allowing severely injured veterans to receive Social Security Disability Benefits without meeting the requirements of quarters of coverage (VDBC 9,279; R.10.16) would correct an inequity and provide these worthy veterans desperately needed income. Additionally, it is wholly fair and sensible to eliminate Tricare deductibles and co-pays for the severely injured (VDBC 365, R.10.17) and to provide TSGLI coverage without cost to service members (VDBC 180, R 6.6) as a cost of war and national defense.

3. Increased compensation for Special Monthly Compensation, Aid and Attendance, Auto and House Adaptation and ancillary benefits and providing care giver allowance. ( R 6.1,6.2,6.4,6.5,7.8,7.9,7.13, 8.1)

These are necessary to more accurately reflect the realities of the difficulties veterans and their care givers face in living with their disabilities. Moreover, increasing funding for fee based VA medical care is long overdo. (VDBC 178)

4. Regular and Consistent Training for All VA Personnel

Training for VA raters ( R 4.8,4.9,4.14), training for Regional Office staff ( R 9.5) and training for clinicians who conduct psychological evaluations ( R 5.32,5.33) are essential for better decisions for veterans’ claims, especially with respect to those claims based on complicated or less-understood medical conditions. As acknowledged by the Commission, ( R 9.1,9.3,9.5), without increased resources to hire and train more employees to develop and rate claims, as well as to process the actual grant of benefits, the VA will only fall further behind in its attempts to adjudicate claims in a timely manner and the claim backlog will simply increase exponentially.

5. Provide claim specific information to the veteran

Another pervasive problem highlighted in the VDBC’s report is the VA’s failure to provide meaningful and helpful information to veterans (VDBC 336-338). In recognition of that problem, NOVA fully endorses detailed attention and, where necessary, complete changes to the requirements of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) so veterans will know what is necessary to support their claims. As a result, the VA would be required to provide claim-specific information to each veteran concerning the evidence necessary to support their particular claim. (VDBC 336-338) This would greatly assist veterans proceeding pro se who oftentimes are ill-informed as to what evidence is needed to support a claim.

6. A Simplified and Expedited VA Claims Process

A simplified and expedited process for fully-developed and documented claims could likely reduce the VA claims backlog by 50 percent within 2 years ( R 9.1) should go a long way to remedy the unjustified delays in the system. However, when a veteran submits a claim which requires additional VA assistance in its evidentiary development, that veteran should not be penalized in any way. The Commission’s recommendation in this area seems somewhat misinformed because, in many cases, a veteran is not able to file a well-documented claim at the outset. Yet, by submitting a claim a veteran preserves the earliest effective date thereby providing essential past due benefits to the veteran once his claim is finally granted. For example, in a claim for service-connected benefits based on PTSD, a veteran may need to locate and obtain buddy statements, unit records, Morning Reports and Lessons Learned documents and, or evidence that can be very hard to track down and virtually impossible for a veteran to submit along with his or her initial claim for benefits.

7. Re-Alignment of the Disability Evaluation Process Employed by DoD and the VA

Currently, situation abound where the Department of Defense finds service members unfit for duty, assigns a zero-percent disability rating, and discharges them from service. Then, immediately thereafter, as a veteran, the service member is evaluated by the VA and assigned a different and higher rating. Recognizing this incredible disparity, the Commission has wisely recommended that the disability evaluation process be realigned so that when an active duty member is found unfit for duty, he or she is then automatically referred to the VA for a disability rating. (VDBC 259, 260, 265 267; R 7.13). Note, however that the success of this recommendation depends upon effective file sharing and increased resources to allow the VA to deal with in increased demand for ratings.

8. Revising and Updating the VA’s Schedule of Ratings

Updating the Schedule of Ratings to use a classification system based on the International Classification of Diseases and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) ( R 4.19,4.20, 4.23, 5.28), and updating the exam worksheet ( R 4.4) will make it easier for physicians, psychologist and other health care professionals to provide meaningful evaluations for use by raters. Further, recognizing that veterans who are unable to work as a result of their service connected impairments should be accommodated within the rating system without the need for unemployability ( R 7.5) should reduce claims backlogs by encouraging realistic ratings end eliminated the need for many applications for unemployability. This is consistent with the recognition that the increase in grants of awards for unemployability is not due to veteran manipulation. (VDBC 238) Indeed, the Commission approved CNAC”s finding that statistics that show that 28% of veterans who are rated unemployable have musculoskeletal disorders and 29% have PTSD. These statistics highlight an implicit failure of the rating schedule to address the true severity of the veteran’s disability. (VDBC 238) That veterans receiving unemployability benefits from the VA are truly disabled is also demonstrated by the fact that 61% of them receive Social Security disability benefits. ( Figure 7.16;VDBC 240)

VDBC Recommendations Opposed by NOVA:

1. The Elimination of the GAF Scale Scores in re PTSD Claims
It is fundamentally illogical and impractical for the Commission to recommend abandonment of the Global Assessment of Functioning scale in evaluating the severity of PTSD ( R 5.31) because that scale is inherent in the diagnostic criteria contained in the DSM-IV and is essential for treatment. For example the DSM-IV TR states at page 32 regarding the GAF which is listed in Axis V that “Axis V is for reporting the clinician’s judgment of the individual’s overall level of functioning. This information is useful in planning treatment and measuring its impact, and predicting outcome. ...The GAF scale may be particularly useful in tracking the clinical progress of individuals in global terms, using a single measure.”

2. PTSD-Related Recovery Incentives

Similar to eliminating the used of the GAF Scale as part of the evaluation of PTSD, the Commission’s recommendations for utilizing healthcare benefits as an incentive for recovery from PTSD, and a 2-3 year reevaluation ( R.5.29,5.30,VDBC 154) demonstrates the Commission’s lack of understanding of and empathy for the frustration experienced by those veterans who suffer from the symptoms of intractable, and chronic PTSD. Moreover, the recommendations carry a significant risk of creating disincentives for veterans suffering from PTSD to seek medical treatment or rehabilitation services. (VDBC 151) Recommendations regarding vocational rehabilitation ( R 6.9,6.10,6.13) are meritorious provided that they are not implemented with a lack of understanding that severely disabled veterans, like severely disabled Social Security Disability recipients, may never be able to return to work and that their rehabilitation should be confined to enabling them to live as independently as possible. ( VDBC 194)

3. Age-Based disability Benefits Scale

Revising the existing payment scale based on the veteran’s age at the date of the initial claim ( R 7.1) appears to conflict with a the Commission’s statement that it “does not concur with the recommendation” to investigate whether to including factors such as the veteran’s age would improve the ability of the rating schedule to predict earnings losses. ( VDBC 235) Review of Tables 7.2, 7.3 (VDBC 226,227) support the conclusion that veterans who enter the VA disability system up to age 55 do not present a problem in terms of income parity. Moreover, 54.6% of veterans receiving initial VA disability awards are 55 years old or younger. ( VDBC 101, Table 5.2) A policy of considering age or other vocational factors in payments for individual rating determinations is unjustified and unfair to our WWII, Korean War and Vietnam veterans and to officers who are generally older than the enlisted troops under their supervision. Indeed, the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission specifically stated that it “does not support a policy of considering age or other vocational factors in individual rating determinations” and does not believe that including factors such as age would improve the ability of the Rating Schedule to protect earnings losses. (VDBC 235)

4. Military Discharge-Related Recommendations

The Commission’s recommendation to change the character-of-discharge standard to bar a veteran from all benefits where the veteran’s discharge from the last period of active service is a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge ( R 5.1) is unduly harsh and is contrary to the time-honored policy of liberalization instituted by Congress. (VDBC 96) Similarly, the recommendation to change the time honored standard of “association” for determining presumptive service connected conditions to proof of causation ( R. 5.12, 5.14) is unjustified. Thus, not only did the Commission fail to recognize that the Nehmer case and the Agent Orange Act of 1991's utilization of the positive association test (VDBC120), but the Commission, while rejecting the association test, approved of using the attributable fraction and relative risk criteria both of which utilize association between the persons exposed and the risk to make calculations. (VDBC 125). Because of the benefit of the doubt and the difficulty of timely determining the cause of a disease, the association test must be retained if veterans are to receive timely compensation for service connected diseases.

-------------------------

Larry Scott --

Badmouthing Our Troops

Veterans Outraged Congressman Moran calls our soldiers War Criminals

Eagles! This is intolerable! Please take the time to write, fax or phone Congressman Moran and express your outrage at his remarks.

~NEVER AGAIN!~

''Sure there's less violence, but that's because we've ethnically cleansed most of Baghdad'' -- Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA)

Today, Vets for Freedom issued this statement regarding the atrocious comments made by Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA):

Vets for Freedom condemns the recent comments by Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) on the floor of the House of Representatives in which he stated that American troops ''ethnically cleansed Baghdad.'' The United Nations, along with the rest of the civilized world, commonly refers to ethnic cleansing as genocide.

''Once again, Congressman Moran demonstrates how far from reality he has fallen'', said Executive Director for Vets for Freedom and Iraq Army Veteran, Pete Hegseth. ''Jim Moran has a long history of putting his foot in his mouth, but this time he has gone to far. The men and women who make up our nations military are decent and honorable citizens who bravely serve to fight our enemies who threaten our national security. Insinuating that they are war criminals is despicable.'' He continued, ''I call on all Members of Congress to follow Vets for Freedom in our condemnation of these irresponsible accusations, as well as on the constituents of the 8th District of Virginia to stand up to such nonsense and support the men and women whose very sacrifice allows Moran to run his mouth.''

Megan L. Ortagus
Iraq Project Manager, Freedom's Watch
The video:
See the video:
http://www.freedomswatch.org/tabid/83/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/62/Default.aspx

And here's where you can send your letters, faxes and make your phone calls:

333 N Fairfax St Suite 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: (703) 971-4700
Fax: (703) 922-9436
Washington, DC
2239 Rayburn Building

Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4376
Fax: (202) 225-0017

Reston Office1900 Campus Commons Dr., Suite 100
Reston, VA 20191

Phone: (703) 971-4700
Fax: (703) 922-943

URL: http://gatheringofeagles.org/2007/12/20/veterans-outraged-congressman-moran-calls-our-soldiers-war-criminals/

VA Cpmpensation Varies by State

by Col. Dan

also see where your VARO/State stands at:

http://www.mcclatch ydc.com/reports/ veterans/ story/23433. html

Posted on Thu, Dec. 20, 2007

http://www.mcclatch ydc.com/227/ story/23430. html

Payments vary greatly for new veterans with mental illness
Chris Adams | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: December 19, 2007 06:28:21 PM

WASHINGTON — Veterans coming home from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with debilitating mental ailments are discovering that their disability payments from the government vary widely depending on where they live, an exclusive McClatchy analysis has found.

As a result, many of the recent veterans who're getting monthly payments for post-traumatic stress disorder from the Department of Veterans Affairs could lose tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits over their lifetimes.

The Bush administration has sought to reassure soldiers that they'll be treated fairly, but veterans in some parts of the country are far more likely to be well compensated than their compatriots elsewhere are, the analysis found.

McClatchy's analysis is based on 3 million disability compensation- claims records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, as well as separate documents that the VA provided. The analysis is the first to examine the issue of state-to-state variations in compensation for those young veterans who've left the military since the war in Afghanistan began in 2001.

For veterans, their families and their advocates, the issue of disability compensation is hugely important. Disability checks are now worth up to $2,527 a month for a single veteran with no children. Because they last a lifetime, low payments set now — when veterans are young — have a dramatic impact.

So far, more than 43,000 recent veterans are on the disability compensation rolls for a range of mental conditions from post-traumatic stress disorder to depression and anxiety. Of those, more than 31,000 have PTSD, which has emerged as one of the signature injuries from the war on terrorism. Given the number of soldiers who've served in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's a fraction of what the total will be.

The VA's assessments of those injuries, however, are all over the map.

Of the recent veterans processed by the VA office in Albuquerque, N.M., 56 percent have high ratings for PTSD. Of those handled by the office in Fort Harrison, Mont., only 18 percent do, the McClatchy analysis found.

"There's no reason in the world that a veteran from Ohio should be shortchanged on benefits simply because he is from Ohio," said U.S. Rep. Zack Space, a Democrat from Ohio, where veterans had among the lowest compensation rates in the nation. "And there's no reason a veteran from New Mexico should be getting more benefits simply because he lives in New Mexico."

A VA benefits official, Michael Walcoff, said the VA was working to minimize unwarranted variations across the country. Judging a condition such as PTSD, however, can be difficult.

"This has been an issue we have been concerned about for a while," he said. "We are trying to learn what we can do to minimize the variances."

So far, 1.5 million Americans have served in the global war on terrorism, and half of them have left active service and transitioned to veteran status, VA documents show.

Those discharged veterans alone already have produced more than 180,000 disability cases, in which veterans are found to have mental or physical ailments linked to their military service. Most already are receiving monthly compensation checks.

Among all the ailments that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans now have, PTSD ranks fourth, behind ringing in the ear, back strain and hearing loss. But because it tends to be far more debilitating than those other conditions — and generates far higher payments — PTSD is the most important disability to emerge from the recent wars.

After years of grumbling by some veterans that they were getting shortchanged, the regional discrepancies became a hot political issue in 2004, after reports by Knight Ridder Newspapers (which McClatchy acquired last year) and others highlighted wide state-to-state swings in the numbers of veterans on compensation rolls and the amounts of their payments.

Under prodding from Congress, the VA said it would work to make its decisions more uniform among the more than 50 regional offices that process disability claims.

This summer, a new report commissioned by the VA again detailed wide variations in disability payments from state to state. But the VA told Congress that doesn't mean that America's newest veterans are being shortchanged.

"It is important to understand that the average payments being compared in the (newest) study cover all veterans currently receiving VA disability-compensa tion benefits, and that the decisions that awarded these benefits have been made over a period of more than 50 years," a top VA benefits official, Ronald Aument, said in his prepared testimony to a congressional committee. "The average payment for compensation recipients is therefore not necessarily reflective of the experience of veterans currently applying for disability compensation benefits."

Aument went on to tell the committee that things were looking better. "You should see a narrowing band of variation on the new work coming into the system," he said.

The McClatchy analysis found that a recent veteran with PTSD on the rolls in Albuquerque is likely to have a higher payment than a new veteran with PTSD on the rolls in the Montana office.

The VA workers who decide PTSD cases determine whether a veteran's ability to function at work is limited a little, a lot or somewhere in between. They examine the frequency of panic attacks and the level of memory loss. The process is subjective, and veterans are placed on a scale that gives them scores — or "ratings" — of zero, 10, 30, 50, 70 or 100.

McClatchy's analysis found that some regional offices are far more likely to give veterans scores of 50 or 70 while others are far more likely to stick with scores of 10 or 30.

Consider the New Mexico and Montana offices, where there are big differences up and down the scale.

In Montana, more than three-quarters of veterans have ratings of zero, 10 or 30. In New Mexico, a majority of the veterans have ratings of 50 or 70.

On top of that, 6 percent of New Mexico veterans had the highest rating possible — 100, worth $2,527 a month — compared with just 1 percent of Montana veterans.

Because payments are loaded toward the highest end of the scale — the difference between the highest rating and the next highest rating is more than $1,000 a month — the huge gap in ratings has a significant impact on how much the VA is paying, on average, to veterans in different states.

Factoring in all mental and physical disabilities, the average payment for recent veterans ranges from a high of $734 a month in the Little Rock, Ark., office to a low of $435 a month in Honolulu.

Although they're supposed to follow the same rules, the reality for VA workers in different offices is far different. What generates a high rating in one location may produce a lower one somewhere else.

"Frankly, it's difficult," the VA's Walcoff said. "There is some subjectivity. It's not as simple as a below-the-knee amputation."

Part of that is due to training differences around the country, and part is due to the personalities of individual employees who are handling claims and the different doctors and psychiatrists examining veterans who've applied for compensation.

One VA-commissioned study found that local offices often develop their own training material, and that a "major influence" on how people handle cases is the on-the-job training they received from their superiors.

That study said that "rating decisions often call for subjective judgments," and "there have been insufficient efforts at the national level to promote consistency across" regional offices.

"It's generational, but it doesn't end with the old generation," said Space, the Ohio congressman. "Those who routinely and typically undervalue claims teach the new claims evaluators coming in — and they are going to be teaching those same mistakes."

The VA said it was working to train its employees to handle all cases better, particularly those involving PTSD; all workers will undergo PTSD training next year.

McClatchy Newspapers 2007

Bottom 10 states: Raise hell with your Congressman and Senator

Atlanta 26% $494
Cleveland 26% $488
Manchester, N.H. 26% $525
Wilmington, Del. 24% $462
Des Moines, Iowa 23% $530
St. Louis 22% $502
Cheyenne, Wyo. 21% $441
Pittsburgh 21% $443
Boise, Idaho 20% $502
Jackson, Miss. 20% $469
Fort Harrison, Mont. 18% $500

Gun Control Bill

Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act, House Concurs


Wednesday, December 19, 2007


After months of careful negotiation, pro-gun legislation was passed through Congress today. The National Rifle Association (NRA) worked closely with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to address his concerns regarding H.R. 2640, the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act. These changes make a good bill even better. The end product is a win for American gun owners.

Late yesterday, anti-gun Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), failed to delay progress of this pro-gun measure. The Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and other gun control and gun ban groups are opposed to the passage of this legislation because of the many pro-gun improvements contained within.

The NICS Improvement Act does the following to benefit gun owners:



Permanently prohibits the FBI from charging a “user fee” for NICS checks.


Requires all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments to provide a process for “relief from disabilities.” Extreme anti-gun groups like the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have expressed “strong concerns” over this aspect of the bill—surely a sign that it represents progress for gun ownership rights.


Prevents reporting of mental adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed.


Requires removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records. Today, totally innocent people (e.g., individuals with arrest records, who were never convicted of the crime charged) are sometimes subject to delayed or denied firearm purchases because of incomplete records in the system.


Provides a process of error correction if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency. The individual would have an opportunity to correct the error-either through the agency or in court.


Prevents use of federal “adjudications” that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent. This would ensure that purely medical records are never used in NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to themselves or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.

Improves the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records to the FBI. For instance, it would give states an incentive to report those who were adjudicated by a court to be "mentally defective," a danger to themselves, a danger to others or suicidal.


Requires a Government Accountability Office audit of past NICS improvement spending.


The bill includes significant changes from the version that previously passed the House, including:





Requires incorrect or outdated records to be purged from the system within 30 days after the Attorney General learns of the need for correction.


Requires agencies to create “relief from disabilities” programs within 120 days, to prevent bureaucratic foot-dragging.


Provides that if a person applies for relief from disabilities and the agency fails to act on the application within a year—for any reason, including lack of funds—the applicant can seek immediate review of his application in federal court.


Allows awards of attorney’s fees to applicants who successfully challenge a federal agency’s denial of relief in court.


Requires that federal agencies notify all people being subjected to a mental health “adjudication” or commitment process about the consequences to their firearm ownership rights, and the availability of future relief.


Earmarks 3-10% of federal implementation grants for use in operating state “relief from disabilities” programs.


Elimination of all references to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations defining adjudications, commitments, or determinations related to Americans’ mental health. Instead, the bill uses terms previously adopted by the Congress.
On Wednesday evening, by unanimous consent, the U.S. House accepted the Senate amendment to H.R. 2640. The legislation is headed to the President's desk for his signature into law.








Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act, House Concurs
12/19/2007

Urgent: Three Anti-Gun Bills Heading to New Jersey Senate!
12/17/2007

Sen. Crapo Requests Policy Change Regarding the Carrying and Transportation of Firearms On Public Lands
12/17/2007

Carson City, Nevada: Sheriff Furlong Removes Serial Number Requirement!
12/14/2007

MORE>>



Did you know


Crime rates and crime trends in states where "waiting periods" have been imposed have been worse than in other states. (FBI)

MORE



Copyright 2007, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Bill Passes -Good News for Retirees

Bill at: http://thomas. loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/ D?c110:9: ./temp/~c110OMtF WV::

www.TREA.org
Partial reprint... full report at:
http://www.trea. org/leginfo/ printable/ 20071214. pdf

More Detail On The NDAA-On Wednesday the full House of Representatives passed HR 1585 this year’s NDAA by a vote of 370 to 49. While I am writing this article, the Senate has not yet acted on the bill. It is expected to be passed by the Senate and sent to the President for his signature before the Christmas break. But, of course, that may still change. Last week I wrote a very quick article on the NDAA when the bill came out of conference on Friday. Now here is more detail:
· Freeze on any enrollment fee or co-pay increase-This was a huge success; and a huge fight. It applies to all retirees under the age of 65 who are enrolled in TRICARE Prime or using TRICARE Standard, and applies to everyone who uses the TRICARE Pharmacy program (active duty and their families, all retirees including those in TFL and survivors). But please remember this is only for this fiscal year. This will surely come up again next year (indeed please see the article on the Task Force on the future of Military Health Care for proposals on just that thing).

· Improvements in the Montgomery GI Bill-The NDAA includes many changes in the MGIB. Most of the improvements are focused, (not surprising) on the Guard and Reserve MGI bill. The changes include: 1) allowing mobilized members who earn entitlement under Chapter 1607, 10 years of post-service use 2) allowing the same right to “buy-up” that the active duty now has. They can contribute $600 in $20 increments and receive up to $150 more a month in their package. 3) Permitting former reservists with Chap. 1607 benefits who rejoin the G-R to recover their Chap. 1607 entitlement and to have the new 10 years post-service access to them after finishing up their new contract. However, with these and other changes they did not recodify the Reserve’s MGIB and move it under the VA Chapters.

· Concurrent Receipt/Combat Related Special Compensation- The NDAA includes two great improvements in this area. It allows Chapter 61 (Medically Retired) military retirees to participate in the Combat Related Special Compensation program with no limits in the years served and no end date for the program. They also, after years of pushing, made IU (Individual Unemployability) 100% VA Service Disabled retirees eligible for full 100% concurrent receipt. And they made it effective January 1, 2005.

· Survivor Benefits-The NDAA provides a $50 a month to respond to our push to end the SBP/DIC offset. This allowance to replace a small part of the SBP payment will go up in small increments each year until it reaches $100 a month in 2014. However, this allowance then ends in 2016. Therefore we will need to keep working on permanently ending the full offset. While this clearly is a very small payment, it is an important “foot in the door”. It was crucial that we made some progress this year-and we did.

2) Senate VA Committee Votes on General Peake’s Nomination to be Secretary of the VA-On Thursday the Senate VA Committee unanimously approved the nomination of Dr. James Peake to be the new Secretary of the VA. They then sent their recommendation to the full Senate. It is expected that Dr. Peake will be confirmed before the end of the year.

3) Task Force On The Future Of Military Health Care Finishes Its Report-This week I attended a public meeting of the Defense Health Board where the Task Force gave a briefing where they gave a general description of what their recommendations to the Secretary of Defense and Congress are going to be. (They will not present any specific numbers etc. until they present the report to the SecDef on December 19). While they were not a surprise; they are a real disappointment and worry for the future.

· Along with many structural changes the Task Force made clear that they are going to suggest increases in enrollment fees and deductibles for retirees under 65 enrolled in TRICARE Prime

· A new “modest” yearly enrollment fee for TFL

· Changes in the incentives for everyone using the TRICARE Pharmacy program (that translates into making co-pays to direct patients to choose the mail order pharmacy plan or the MTFs)

· Automatic increases in enrollment fees, cost shares and deductibles every 5 years

We will have much more on this when we see the report on December 19. Remember these are just recommendations- nothing is final. But it is clear that there will be much more work to do on this again next year.

4) Small Business Administration puts out Public Service Announcement-



PSA ADVISORY
PRESS OFFICE
____________ _________ ___

Release Date: December 12, 2007
Contact: Dennis Byrne (202) 205-6567
Release No.: MA07-38
Internet Address: www.sba.gov/ news

SBA Releases PSA on New Vet Loan Program

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Small Business Administration today released an audio public service announcement (PSA) encouraging veterans and other members of the military community to become entrepreneurs and take advantage of SBA’s new Patriot Express Loan program to start or expand a small business.

The 30-second spot for rebroadcast by radio or internet, also tells listeners where to find more information about the program on the SBA website.

The audio PSA is available in a downloadable MP3 format on the SBA Web site at http://www.sba. gov/idc/groups/ public/documents /sba_program_ office/patriotex press_12- 10-07_video. mp3

************ ********* *********

12 Myths of 21st Century War

This is a fantastic summary of 12 misunderstandings that we have accumulated over the years as a result of poor collective education in US and Western History, and a liberal and historically uneducated media.

The American Legion Magazine November, 2007

12 Myths of 21st-Century War

(Unaware of the cost of freedom and served by leaders without military expertise, Americans have started to believe whatever's comfortable..)

By Ralph Peters
(Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer, strategist and author of 22 books, including the recent "Wars of Blood and Faith: The Conflicts That Will Shape the 21st Century.) We're in trouble. We're in danger of losing more wars. Our troops haven't forgotten how to fight. We've never had better men and women in uniform. But our leaders and many of our fellow Americans no longer grasp what war means or what it takes to win. Thanks to those who have served in uniform, we've lived in such safety and comfort for so long that for many Americans sacrifice means little more than skipping a second trip to the buffet table.

Two trends over the past four decades contributed to our national ignorance of the cost, and necessity, of victory. First, the most privileged Americans used the Vietnam War as an excuse to break their tradition of uniformed service. Ivy League universities once produced heroes. Now they resist Reserve Officer Training Corps representation on their campuses. Yet, our leading universities still produce a disproportionate number of U.S.. political leaders. The men and women destined to lead us in wartime dismiss military service as a waste of their time and talents. Delighted to pose for campaign photos with our troops, elected officials in private disdain the military. Only one serious presidential aspirant in either party is a veteran, while another presidential hopeful pays as much for a single haircut as I took home in a month as an Army private.

Second, we've stripped in-depth U.S. history classes out of our schools. Since the 1960s, one history course after another has been cut, while the content of those remaining focuses on social issues and our alleged misdeeds. Dumbed-down textbooks minimize the wars that kept us free. As a result, ignorance of the terrible price our troops had to pay for freedom in the past creates absurd expectations about our present conflicts. When the media offer flawed or biased analyses, the public lacks the knowledge to make informed judgments.

This combination of national leadership with no military expertise and a population that hasn't been taught the cost of freedom leaves us with a government that does whatever seems expedient and a citizenry that believes whatever's comfortable. Thus, myths about war thrive.

Myth No. 1: War doesn't change anything.

This campus slogan contradicts all of human history. Over thousands of years, war has been the last resort - and all too frequently the first resort - of tribes, religions, dynasties, empires, states and demagogues driven by grievance, greed or a heartless quest for glory. No one believes that war is a good thing, but it is sometimes necessary. We need not agree in our politics or on the manner in which a given war is prosecuted, but we can't pretend that if only we laid down our arms all others would do the same.

Wars, in fact, often change everything. Who would argue that the American Revolution, our Civil War or World War II changed nothing? Would the world be better today if we had been pacifists in the face of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan? Certainly, not all of the changes warfare has wrought through the centuries have been positive. Even a just war may generate undesirable results, such as Soviet tyranny over half of Europe after 1945. But of one thing we may be certain: a U.S. defeat in any war is a defeat not only for freedom, but for civilization. Our enemies believe that war can change the world. And they won't be deterred by bumper stickers.

Myth No. 2: Victory is impossible today.

Victory is always possible, if our nation is willing to do what it takes to win. But victory is, indeed, impossible if U.S. troops are placed under impossible restrictions, if their leaders refuse to act boldly, if every target must be approved by lawyers, and if the American people are disheartened by a constant barrage of negativity from the media. We don't need generals who pop up behind microphones to apologize for every mistake our soldiers make. We need generals who win. And you can't win if you won't fight. We're at the start of a violent struggle that will ebb and flow for decades, yet our current generation of leaders, in and out of uniform, worries about hurting the enemy's feelings.

One of the tragedies of our involvement in Iraq is that while we did a great thing by removing Saddam Hussein, we tried to do it on the cheap. It's an iron law of warfare that those unwilling to pay the butcher's bill up front will pay it with compound interest in the end. We not only didn't want to pay that bill, but our leaders imagined that we could make friends with our enemies even before they were fully defeated. Killing a few hundred violent actors like Moqtada al-Sadr in 2003 would have prevented thousands of subsequent American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths. We started something our national leadership lacked the guts to finish.

Despite our missteps, victory looked a great deal less likely in the early months of 1942 than it does against our enemies today. Should we have surrendered after the fall of the Philippines? Today's opinion makers and elected officials have lost their grip on what it takes to win. In the timeless words of Nathan Bedford Forrest, "War means fighting, and fighting means killing." And in the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."

Myth No. 3: Insurgencies can never be defeated.

Historically, fewer than one in 20 major insurgencies succeeded. Virtually no minor ones survived. In the mid-20th century, insurgencies scored more wins than previously had been the case, but that was because the European colonial powers against which they rebelled had already decided to rid themselves of their imperial possessions. Even so, more insurgencies were defeated than not, from the Philippines to Kenya to Greece.. In the entire 18th century, our war of independence was the only insurgency that defeated a major foreign power and drove it out for good.

The insurgencies we face today are, in fact, more lethal than the insurrections of the past century. We now face an international terrorist insurgency as well as local rebellions, all motivated by religious passion or ethnicity or a fatal compound of both. The good news is that in over 3,000 years of recorded history, insurgencies motivated by faith and blood overwhelmingly failed. The bad news is that they had to be put down with remorseless bloodshed.

Myth No. 4: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.

In most cases, the reverse is true. Negotiations solve nothing until a military decision has been reached and one side recognizes a peace agreement as its only hope of survival. It would be a welcome development if negotiations fixed the problems we face in Iraq, but we're the only side interested in a negotiated solution. Every other faction - the terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, Iran and Syria - is convinced it can win. The only negotiations that produce lasting results are those conducted from positions of indisputable strength.

Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.

When dealing with bullies, either in the schoolyard or in a global war, the opposite is true: if you don't fight back, you encourage your enemy to behave more viciously. Passive resistance only works when directed against rule-of-law states, such as the core English-speaking nations. It doesn't work where silent protest is answered with a bayonet in the belly or a one-way trip to a political prison. We've allowed far too many myths about the "innate goodness of humanity" to creep up on us. Certainly, many humans would rather be good than bad. But if we're unwilling to fight the fraction of humanity that's evil, armed and determined to subjugate the rest, we'll face even grimmer conflicts.

Myth No. 6: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs.

It's an anomaly of today's Western world that privileged individuals feel more sympathy for dictators, mass murderers and terrorists - consider the irrational protests against Guantanamo - than they do for their victims. We were told, over and over, that killing Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, hanging Saddam Hussein or targeting the Taliban's Mullah Omar would only unite their followers. Well, we haven't yet gotten Osama or Omar, but Zarqawi's dead and forgotten by his own movement, whose members never invoke that butcher's memory. And no one is fighting to avenge Saddam. The harsh truth is that when faced with true fanatics, killing them is the only way to end their influence. Imprisoned, they galvanize protests, kidnappings, bombings and attacks that seek to free them. Want to make a terrorist a martyr? Just lock him up. Attempts to try such monsters in a court of law turn into mockeries that only provide public platforms for their hate speech, which th e global media is delighted to broadcast. Dead, they're dead. And killing them is the ultimate proof that they lack divine protection. Dead terrorists don't kill.

Myth No. 7: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them.

Did the bombing campaign against Germany turn us into Nazis? Did dropping atomic bombs on Japan to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American lives, as well as millions of Japanese lives, turn us into the beasts who conducted the Bataan Death March? The greatest immorality is for the United States to lose a war. While we seek to be as humane as the path to victory permits, we cannot shrink from doing what it takes to win. At present, the media and influential elements of our society are obsessed with the small immoralities that are inevitable in wartime. Soldiers are human, and no matter how rigorous their training, a miniscule fraction of our troops will do vicious things and must be punished as a consequence. Not everyone in uniform will turn out to be a saint, and not every chain of command will do its job with equal effectiveness. But obsessing on tragic incidents - of which there have been remarkably few in Iraq or Afghanistan - obscures the greater moral issue: the need to defeat enemies who revel in butchering the innocent, who celebrate atrocities, and who claim their god wants blood.

Myth No. 8: The United States is more hated today than ever before.

Those who served in Europe during the Cold War remember enormous, often-violent protests against U.S. policy that dwarfed today's let's-have-fun-on-a-Sunday-afternoon rallies. Older readers recall the huge ban-the-bomb, pro-communist demonstrations of the 1950s and the vast seas of demonstrators filling the streets of Paris, Rome and Berlin to protest our commitment to Vietnam. Imagine if we'd had 24/7 news coverage of those rallies. I well remember serving in Germany in the wake of our withdrawal from Saigon, when U.S. soldiers were despised by the locals - who nonetheless were willing to take our money - and terrorists tried to assassinate U.S. generals.

The fashionable anti-Americanism of the chattering classes hasn't stopped the world from seeking one big green card. As I've traveled around the globe since 9/11, I've found that below the government-spokesman/professional-radical level, the United States remains the great dream for university graduates from Berlin to Bangalore to Bogota. On the domestic front, we hear ludicrous claims that our country has never been so divided. Well, that leaves out our Civil War. Our historical amnesia also erases the violent protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the mass confrontations, rioting and deaths. Is today's America really more fractured than it was in 1968?

Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.

This claim rearranges the order of events, as if the attacks of 9/11 happened after Baghdad fell. Our terrorist problems have been created by the catastrophic failure of Middle Eastern civilization to compete on any front and were exacerbated by the determination of successive U.S. administrations, Democrat and Republican, to pretend that Islamist terrorism was a brief aberration. Refusing to respond to attacks, from the bombings in Beirut to Khobar Towers, from the first attack on the Twin Towers to the near-sinking of the USS Cole, we allowed our enemies to believe that we were weak and cowardly. Their unchallenged successes served as a powerful recruiting tool. Did our mistakes on the ground in Iraq radicalize some new recruits for terror? Yes But imagine how many more recruits there might have been and the damage they might have inflicted on our homeland had we not responded militarily in Afghanistan and then carried the fight to Iraq. Now Iraq is al-Qaeda's V ietnam, not ours..

Myth No. 10: If we just leave, the Iraqis will patch up their differences on their own.

The point may come at which we have to accept that Iraqis are so determined to destroy their own future that there's nothing more we can do. But we're not there yet, and leaving immediately would guarantee not just one massacre but a series of slaughters and the delivery of a massive victory to the forces of terrorism. We must be open-minded about practical measures, from changes in strategy to troop reductions, if that's what the developing situation warrants. But it's grossly irresponsible to claim that our presence is the primary cause of the violence in Iraq - an allegation that ignores history.

Myth No. 11: It's all Israel's fault. Or the popular Washington corollary: "The Saudis are our friends."

Israel is the Muslim world's excuse for failure, not a reason for it. Even if we didn't support Israel, Islamist extremists would blame us for countless other imagined wrongs, since they fear our freedoms and our culture even more than they do our military. All men and women of conscience must recognize the core difference between Israel and its neighbors: Israel genuinely wants to live in peace, while its genocidal neighbors want Israel erased from the map.

As for the mad belief that the Saudis are our friends, it endures only because the Saudis have spent so much money on both sides of the aisle in Washington. Saudi money continues to subsidize anti-Western extremism, to divide fragile societies, and encourage hatred between Muslims and all others. Saudi extremism has done far more damage to the Middle East than Israel ever did. The Saudis are our enemies.

Myth No. 12: The Middle East's problems are all America's fault.

Muslim extremists would like everyone to believe this, but it just isn't true. The collapse of once great Middle Eastern civilizations has been under way for more than five centuries, and the region became a backwater before the United States became a country. For the first century and a half of our national existence, our relations with the people of the Middle East were largely beneficent and protective, notwithstanding our conflict with the Barbary Pirates in North Africa. But Islamic civilization was on a downward trajectory that could not be arrested. Its social and economic structures, its values, its neglect of education, its lack of scientific curiosity, the indolence of its ruling classes and its inability to produce a single modern state that served its people all guaranteed that, as the West's progress accelerated, the Middle East would fall ever farther behind. The Middle East has itself to blame for its problems.

None of us knows what our strategic future holds, but we have no excuse for not knowing our own past. We need to challenge inaccurate assertions about our policies, about our past and about war itself. And we need to work within our community and state education systems to return balanced, comprehensive history programs to our schools. The unprecedented wealth and power of the United States allows us to afford many things denied to human beings throughout history. But we, the people, cannot afford ignorance.