BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
IN MORE BAD NEWS FOR CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, A NEW POLL FINDS LIES AREN'T AS POPULAR AS THEY ONCE WERE:
Fewer Americans believe the economy is getting better and a majority disapproves of how President Barack Obama is handling it, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.
FEW AMERICANS BELIEVE IT BECAUSE THE ECONOMY IS NOT GETTING BETTER. AS REPORTED YESTERDAY ON ALL THINGS CONSIDERED (NPR):
MELISSA BLOCK, HOST:
And I'm Melissa Block at NPR West in Culver City, California. Today from Federal Reserve, another downbeat assessment of the economy. After two days of meetings, Fed policymakers cut their forecasts for growth over the next three years, and they said unemployment would be higher than they previously thought. But as NPR's John Ydstie reports, the sputtering economy only prompted a modest response from the Fed, the extension of a program known as Operation Twist.
JOHN YDSTIE, BYLINE: Fed officials cut their forecasts for economic growth for this year from around 2.5 percent back to about 2 percent. They said unemployment is likely to remain just above 8 percent.
LIES JUST AREN'T THAT POPULAR THESE DAYS WHICH IS BAD, BAD NEWS FOR CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O. HIS LATEST AD AGAINST MITT ROMNEY? RATED 4 PINOCCHIOS BY THE WASHINGTON POST.
OH WELL, SARAH JESSICA PARKER STILL LOVES HIM.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
House Veterans Affairs Committee
Ranking Member Bob Filner: Now, by the way, Mr. [US House Rep Timothy]
Walz -- now, Mr. Walz, she [VA Under Secretary Allison Hickey] doesn't
need your defense here for her past accomplishments. And I don't need a
lecture from you of her past. We're talking about what she's going to
do for the VA now. I'll stipulate any accomplishments that she's had. I
respect her service. But if she can't do this job, I don't care what
she has done in the past. Okay? So don't lecture me about how I don't
have respect for someone's past. She's talking about the future -- the
present and the future. And she didn't give one answer or one
recognition that there was any problem -- in all her testimony, in every
answer. This Chairman [Marlin Stutzman] asked her a number of things.
She talked for three-and-a-half minutes and didn't give the answer and
still doesn't know the answer. So let's talk about what she's doing
right here and right now. And I said if one of your veterans -- And she
didn't answer your question, your very good questions, Mr. Walz, about
the time period of what's going on in Minneapolis? She just said, 'Oh,
from time to time we have surges.' You asked are we heading toward a
lowest common denominator and she never answered that. So don't -- I
mean be a little more critical of the kind of answers we're getting. We
don't have a plan. This whole hearing was about a plan. If I were her,
I would have given out the plan. But we still don't have one. Again,
Ms. Hickey, if I were you, leadership comes from the top. The top is
saying, "There is no problem." You ask any veteran in my district, in
Mr. Walz' district, in Mr. [Mike] Michaud's district, in Mr. Stutzman's
district: Is there a problem? Every one will say, "Yes." Now you can
say, 'They don't understand fully. Their perception is wrong, we've
had a surge of this. We did this. We had the Vietnam era.' I don't
care what -- you have not either acknowledged the problem or say how
we're going to get out of it. You gave us an assurance of a date. And
Mr. Walz asked -- I know it's not a very bright question -- 'Are you
committed? Is it going to happen?' What is she going to say? "No"?
We've had these questions, we've had these committments for years and
years and years and years. And Mr. Walz asked you another softball
question: 'Has anything been tried as this big before? We have tried
every single thing that you have as your initiatives -- has been
tried. Every one of them at some point. In fact, we've had far more
comprehensive plans than your forty initiatives lumped together.
Nothing has worked. It's gotten worse. And you refuse to admit it.
You refuse to acknowledge it. And you don't give us a plan to fix it.
What am I to think? 'Well, she was an Air Force General that did great
things.' If it doesn't happen by 2015, are you going to say I resign or
what's going to happen if you're at the top? And it's always two or
three years out. It's never, "I'm going to do this tomorrow." You've
been working on this. Your predecessor's been working on this. I don't
have any assurance. You can't even correct a date on the computer for a
year-and-a-half and you call it a "glitch." What confidence do I have
that you can do anything if it took a year-and-a-half to fix a
"glitch?" The simplest thing. Put a date in. You could have done it
by hand in a few months. It took you a year-and-a-half. You still
haven't done it. I'm sure we'll get a memo from you -- I just bet, you
want to make a bet right now -- that you'll ask for another
extension. I just bet. When's that going to be done? Why should we
have any confidence in 2015 that a system of a million backlog is going
to be fixed when we can't even get a "glitch" fixed in a
year-and-a-half? What gives me the confidence? That you were an Air
Force General? Sorry, it doesn't work. Give me some confidence. What
has worked so far? Everything has been a problem.
Yesterday
US House Rep Gus Bilirakis and other Republicans chaired a VBA
hearing. Chair Jeff Miller wasn't present for the hearing. "Well here
we are again," observed Ranking Member Bob Filner, "I think one of the
first meetings I went to twenty years ago as a member of the Veterans
Committee was on the backlog. We've hired what? In the last few years,
maybe 10,000, 15,000 employees."
I spent last
night on the phone to friends in federal, state and municipal
government because Bilirakis brought up an issue that I didn't feel
comfortable speaking to without some research. Bilirakis noted the
claims progress, or rather the lack of progess.
Acting
Chair Gus Bilirakis: VBMS I know that I and my fellow Committee members
and our Ranking Member have many questions to ask as to when this
system will be ready for national roll out rolled out and how issues
relating to the scanning of paper documents will be handled in the
future. As a matter of fact, VA's contract with the US National
Archives and Records Administration, the agency currently handling VA's
scanning needs, expires on June 26th, just one week from today. I'll
ask what goes after, what's going to happen on June 27th?
Backlog
needs to be farmed out. I'm not surprised or troubled by that. I'm
bothered by backlog being created as I type this sentence. Paper taken
in today should not become part of a backlog. The first person touching
that paper in the VA should be immediately scanning it into the
system. (Then it would be put in a box for archiving, as was explained
last night, according to whatever retention program they're operating
under.) The paper needs to be addressed immediately. And how do you
address it?
You don't hire one or two people
in the office to scan documents and carry the documents to them. That's
how you begin creating the backlog. The first person to handle the
paper, is the one who scans it. Every one that comes after is referring
to the digital copy in the system after that. And everyone responsible
for accepting paperwork or opening mail has a light scanner
(inexpensive) attached to their computer and they immediately scan what
they receive.
That's the only way you're going
to end the paper backlog. There is no excuse for creating new
backlog. Again, I'm not disputing the farming out of the existing
backlog. There's no way VA employees can catch up with that and also do
their current job tasks. But new backlog should not be created. You
touch a claims application, you scan it in and then it goes to a pile to
be boxed up for archives. The original is not sent somewhere else in
the office to be scanned or placed with stacks of others to be farmed
out for scanning.
How much of a problem is the
claims request? Do they get lost? I was told by three people with the
VA that "missing" happens more than "lost" with "lost" meaning -- in
their usuage -- it's not showing back up and "missing" meaning a week or
two of fumbling around for the paper. (How often are original paper
documents "missing?" "From time to time" and "it happens" were the
responses, no one with the VA wanted to give a percentage or an
estimate.)
Many governments are already
moving towards that. In your local areas, getting an application to put
up a fence means turning it and paying for the permit and more and more
local governments are scanning that document in right there when
payment is being taken. They're doing that to prevent the loss that can
take place when the original document is routed to one or more
different people before it's entered into the system. This is not a
"C.I. brainstorm." This is what is happening in government offices
around the country and what the VA should immediately begin doing.
There is no need to create new backlog and even without a numbered
estimate of how many claims application are lost each year, one is too
many. The longterm goal is for VA to move away from paper
altogether. They're not their yet and they're really not prepared for
that at present which is the point US House Rep Phil Roe made -- he is
also medical Dr. Phil Roe -- when he discusses his own practice's
transition to paperless. Disabled American Veterans Jeffrey Hall also raised the issue of the paper backlog, the future paperless goal and more. Hall, VFW's Gerald Manar, The American Legion's Richard Dumancas and Paralyzed Veterans of America's
Sherman Gillums made up the first panel. The National Archives Records
Administration's William Bosanko was the second panel. The third panel
was the IG. Fourth panel was the VA's Allison Hickey, Alan Bozeman and
Roger Baker.
Jeffrey
Hall: Mr. Chairman, even before VBMS was first conceived, it was clear
that in order to have a paperless claims process there must be a
comprehensive system in place to digitze paper documents. Yet VBA has
failed to finalize a long-term scanning solution, in part because it has
not yet definitively answered fundamental questions about when and
which legacy documents will be scanned into VBMS. Although VBA has
committed to moving forward with a paparelss system for new claims, it
has dragged its feet for more than two years in determining under what
conditions existing paper claims files would be converted to digital
files. Because a majority of claims processed each year are for
reopened or appealed claims and because files can remain active for
decades, until all legacy claims are converted to digital data files,
VBA could be forced to continue paper processing for decades. We have
been told that VBA's current plans are to convert claims files that
have new rating-related actions, but not those with minor actions such
as dependency or address changes. However, the uncertainty over the
past couple of years about how much scanning would be required, and at
what cost, is at least partly responsible for VBA's reliance on NARA and
its current rush to find a new scanning vendor. While there are very
difficult technical questions to be answered, and significant financial
considerations involved in transitioning to all-digital processing,
particular involving legacy paper files, we believe VBA would be best
served by taking the most aggressive approach feasible in order to
shorten the length of time this transition takes. While the conversion
from paper processing to VBMS will require substanital upfront
investment, it will pay dividends for VBA and veterans in the future.
We would urge VBA to provide -- and Congress to review -- a clear plan
for eliminating legacy paper files, one that includes realistic
timeliness and resource requirements.
As
noted before, there were several acting chairs for the hearing. It was
a disturbing hearing as we heard the same things that we've heard over
and over. But there were some new revelations as well. However, that
might have been even more disturbing. Excerpt.
Acting
Chair Marlin Stutzman: I'd like to do a second round because I'd like
to talk about the scanning issue. Why did it take this Committee
calling a hearing for the VA to meet with NARA [National Archives and
Records Administration] to discuss next week's scanning contract
expiration? I mean this is, I think, the frustration that's felt around
here. It's these sorts of things that we find out about and why isn't
there some sort of pro-active movement before this? Can you -- can you
give us an explanation of why the contract is set to expire next week?
There isn't a contract. Is there some other plan that the VBA is
planning on implementing? Is it going to be done in-house? I mean, I
know for us, Congressional offices, we have folks that we could use to
scan things in. I'm sure that you're system is a little bit more
complicated. We're spending ten million dollars a year, if I remember
the number correctly. It seems like we could do it cheaper and it
seems like we could get it done. Is there a plan to address that?
Allison
Hickey: Congressman -- I mean Chairman Stutzman, yes, there is. I
will defer the first part of it to my Assistant Secretary for
Information Technology, Roger Baker.
Roger
Baker: Thank you. I just want to talk to the NARA piece. NARA's been
our partner on this for two years so let me start with will we have an
agreement with them by the end of this week to continue them for the
next year? I believe the answer to that is "yes." I know that's in
process. I checked with my staff while we were listening to this going
on. Got absolute assurances that there is really nothing in the way of
that completing by the end of this week. So it's a little bit different
than a normal government contractor relationship. Because it's a
government-to-government relationship, it's much easier to do. We've
used NARA primarily from a development standpoint.
That's
more than enough from him. I'm really tired of witnesses who eat time
to avoid answering questions. Stutzman would go on to ask about the
cost. "I really don't know," Baker told him. The cost is a per-page
scanned fee. Well then you should know it. And it's probably not a
good idea to tell Congress and taxpayers that the deal will be closed by
the end of the week but you don't know how much the VA will be paying
for the scanning. See, most people would assume that you find out the
cost before you start closing on a contract. Rushing to complete a deal
when you don't know the cost doesn't look like you're being scrupulous
with the taxpayer money.
And it's not good
to call something a plan when, as Acting Chair Stutzman noted, it's a
presentation (slide show) of variables, not a plan. Excerpt.
Ranking
Member Bob Filner: When you were asked: "Do you have a plan?," you
said, "Yes, we supplied it to the Committee." This is not a plan. This
is not a strategic plan. I will ask you again, do you have a strategic
plan? And why don't you just have it with you and give it to us?
That's the title of this hearing [Reclaiming the Process: Examing the
VBA Claims Transformation Plan as a Means to Effectively Serve our
Veterans]. Do you have a plan to give to us this minute?
Allison Hickey: I do have a plan, Congressman Filner.
Ranking Member Bob Filner: You what?
Allison
Hickey: I do have a plan. I do not have it in this book, in these
materials. I'm happy to provide it for the Committee.
Ranking
Member Bob Filner: Why are you providing it with us, a plan of
execution? You're going to provide it to us? Why don't you have it
here? You have 18 people here working for you. Give us the plan.
That's all we're asking for. You said you did it. [Shaking head] We
have some slides. We don't have a strategic plan of how you're going to
execute this so-called transformation which sounds more like a
fossil-formation. So where is the plan?
Allison Hickey: Congressman Filner, I have the plan. It's in Word document.
Ranking Member Bob Filner: A secret one or what?
Allison
Hickey: No, it is not a secret document. In fact, I have shared it
with Veterans Service Organizations, with our labor partners, with --
Ranking Member Bob Filner: I just said none of us have seen it. Why don't you have it with you?
Allison Hickey: I will be happy to bring it to you, sir.
The
paper backlog and the some-day-transition-to-paperless are issues and
are problems. There are other problems. The worst backlog problems is
veterans waiting and waiting for their claims to go through the
process. And, as Ranking Member Bob Filner noted, this isn't weeks or
months, this is years. He estimated that there were 100,000 Agent
Orange claims -- from Vietnam era veterans -- waiting, over thirty
years, he noted.
He noted that the IRS used to
have a huge backlog and you waited and waited forever and ever for a
refund check if you had one coming. What changed that? Why can you now
file and get money within three weeks if you have a refund coming?
Because it's "subject to audit."
Ranking Memer
Bob Filner argued that's what should be taking place with the VA today,
"Grant the claim, subject to audit. Send out a check."
Ranking
Member Bob Filner: What have we done in the last few years? Doubled
the backlogs. Raised the rate of inaccuracy, according to the recent
report, up to 25%. This is disgraceful. This is an insult to our
veterans. And you guys just recycle old programs, put new names on them,
and here we are again. Do you know what the definition -- one
definition of insanity is? Try the same thing over and over again
expecting a different result. I mean somebody has to take
responsibility for this. We just keep announcing new names, new pilot
programs, on and on. We're up to 1.2 million by one count on backlog.
If it wasn't tragic, it would be ridiculous.
Acting
Chair Bilirakis raised another issue that needs further attention. So
we'll ignore it here. Seriously, it'll be carried over to Third on
Sunday because it's one of the issues -- the first one -- that we
discussed with Dona in "Congress and Veterans."
It has to do with education and I see Bilirakis' concerns (which are
solid concerns) as related to Senator Richard Burr's concerns that we
discussed with Dona for the piece last Sunday so it makes more sense to
pick it up this coming Sunday at Third. There's something we're
carrying over for tomorrow already as it is. I'll be one day behind on
hearings all week, I bet but I didn't know a damn thing about storage of
records or moving towards digitized or anything and I needed all the
wonderful people who walked me through the process last night (thank you
to all) so I could understand the hearing I'd sat through. There's a
press release on the hearing that we'll include in a morning entry
tomorrow there's not room for it today.
No comments:
Post a Comment