.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
EIB Bumpersticker

Tuesday, May 02, 2006


WIN Article on VA 'They try hard to find controversy' (Not enough effort on focusing on the good that the VA does for Houston area Vets)

In the recent WIN article Opinions Vary on VA Funding, I was glad that they focused on the VA, and would have hoped that they would have stayed more on the positive than the negative.

The VA Medical Center here in Houston, named after the famous doctor Michael E. Debakey, is probably one of the best hospitals in the country. The technology is top notch, the people are trained by the best, and they even have valet parking.

The VA will always be up against budget cuts, that is the game they must play. And even though their patient care needs have risen, they are handling the pressure just fine. I had accompanied a Uncle of mine to the VA emergency room this past weekend, and their is no other place in Houston, you can be seen by a doctor, treated, and released faster than at the VA.

No matter the VA's budget, they are going to do what they have to do when it comes to patient care. Yes, some veterans may temporarily be left out of the system, but they will get in one day. Yes, it may take some time to see the doctor you need to see, and yes, co-pays for prescriptions may be going up, but is that not the case for everyone.

WIN didn't have to concentrate on the VA Medical Center in Washington in telling bad things about the VA, when they have a VA Medical Center less than five miles from the WIN studios. But in Houston, there are a lot of good things going on that would have made WINs report have too much good news.

What do you want? Positive spin?

They have someone for that. It's called a public relations department.

I thought WiN's story was pretty equal on positives and negatives. It was written by a vet of the armed forces. It says good things about the VA's service. What it is critical of is the politicians in Washington. Is there anything untrue in the article? Or are you just blowing more hot air?

By the way, your welcome for the story on the VA. I delivered what I said I would. Now, if only we can get the people in Washington to do the same.

Also, it didn't pass my attention that you and your family really do like those programs that were set up by the liberals you despise. It's ironic, isn't it?

Don't bust a gut. I'm not laughing at you too hard.
What's wrong with a little positive spin. We are talking about an organization that helps veterans.

I didn't denounce the story. I just believe more good things could have been said about the Houston VA.
Your headline denounces the story. Give credit where it is due.

The reporter interviewed people on more of a national level than a local level. Her choice, what can I say.

The story did say positive things about the VA's service though, I think waiting 2-3 years for back surgery or another serious ailment is a bit much.
Department of Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs was created by P. L. 100-527, 102 Stat. 2635
(H.R. 3471), which upgraded the Veterans Administration to Cabinet status. The
Department of Veterans Affairs Act was signed by President Ronald Reagan on
October 25, 1988, and the redesignation became effective on March 15, 1989.
Proposals to make the Veterans Administration an executive department had been
introduced in the 88th through the 100th Congresses. President Reagan’s public
endorsement of the idea on November 10, 1987, on the eve of Veterans Day, provided
added momentum to the effort.

On the same day that the President made his endorsement, the House Government
Operations Committee approved H.R. 3471 to create a Veterans Affairs Department.
Introduced October 13, 1987, by committee Chairman Jack Brooks (D-TX), the
measure was reported to the House on November 16, 1987 (H.Rept. 100-435), and
passed the House on November 17, under suspension of the rules, by a vote of 399-17.
Related legislation, S. 533, was introduced in the Senate February 17, 1987, by
Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC), a senior minority member of both the Armed
Services and Veterans Affairs Committees. The Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee held hearings on the measure December 9, 1987, and March 15 and 28,

The Governmental Affairs Committee marked up the bill April 14 and ordered it
reported by a 9-0 vote. As reported, the bill incorporated an amendment in the nature
of a substitute offered by Governmental Affairs Committee Chair John Glenn (D-OH),
which made significant changes to the bill originally introduced by Senator Thurmond.
The bill was reported to the Senate on May 12 (S.Rept. 100-342).

On July 11, 1988, the Senate began consideration of S. 533 under the terms of a
unanimous consent agreement.17 The agreement limited debate on the bill to 2 hours,
and made in order specified amendments. On July 12, 1988, the Senate passed S. 533,
adopting an amendment offered by Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA) to establish certain
positions within the Veterans Benefit Administration. Amendments to change the
effective date of the Act, and to allow limited judicial review of VA compensation
cases, were tabled.

The following day, July 12, the Senate took up the House bill. The Senate
inserted the amended text of S. 533 as a substitute, and then passed H. R. 3471 by a
vote of 84-11. Differences between the House- and Senate-passed versions of the bill
were resolved in conference. The House conference delegation comprised eight
members from the Government Operations Committee (5-3 ratio) and three from the
Veterans Affairs Committee (2-1 ratio). Senate conferees came from the
Governmental Affairs Committee (seven, 4-3 ratio) and Veterans Affairs Committee
(two, 1-1 ratio). The conference report was agreed to by voice vote on October 6 in the
House (H.Rept. 100-1036) and October 18 in the Senate.

Boy...I'didn't know that Ronald Reagan was a liberal! Thanks for educating us all mister WIN advocate.

"I'm noticing your $.02 much of the time is ill informed. Do me a favor and the next time you want to add your $.02, know the facts."

"I'm noticing your $.02 is often ill informed. Why don't you do us all favor and know what you are talking before you add your two pennies."

Sure glad you guys at WIN are so great at doing your reasearch and giving us the "facts".

Congratulations! The contestants for those awards you so tout all of the time sure must have been carefully vetted huh?

Just another $0.02 from yours truly.
The VA was around before Reagan, asshole. My grandfather, a WW II veteran, spent many of his last days in a Veteran's hospital.

Besides, Reagan just signed the bill that upgraded the status of the VA. Two-thirds of the authorship in Congress was by Democratic leadership.

Why don't you look a little further back in history before you tell me I'm wrong.

I read a poll recently that said according to Americans presently, Ronald Reagan was the greatest American President ever. What a joke. I will say he was better in his first term than the last three we've had, but that's not saying much.

Let's not forget that he had a big scandal in the middle of his presidency.

Check the facts on the WiN stories if you have any doubts. You won't find any factual errors unlike your posts.

Just my $.02.
Yeah the VA started under Abraham Lincoln the first REPUBLICAN president in 1863. I guess he was a lib too according to WIN. So much for your "Facts" and "historical knowledge". It was Reagan going public about the issue that caused the momentum that made the bill happen.

Reagan had a habit of appealling directly to the American people on a lot of issues that Congress sat on their hands about and the result would be massive pressure on members of Congress from their constituents. Reagan did this many times in his presidency.

Reagan did not just sign the bill as you so foolishly propose. His very public support of it made it happen in the first place. It certainly didn't happen under Carter now did it? Your cognitive dissonace is truly amazing.

Thanks for your last two slugs.

Just my genuine $0.02.
Oh and the Veterans Affairs program that your grandfather used before it became the Cabinet level department under Reagan was a consolodation of all federal veterans programs under one department that was created by President Herbert Hoover in 1930 another REPUBLICAN.

I guess he was a lib too huh?

In Hoover’s December 1929 State of the Union address, he explained: “I am convinced that we will gain in efficiency, economy, and more uniform administration and better definition of national policies if the Pension Bureau, the National Home for Volunteer Soldiers, and the Veterans’ Bureau are brought together under a single agency.” The Veterans’ Administration (VA) became a new independent agency on July 21, 1930, with Hoover’s signing of Executive Order 5398, “Consolidation and Coordination of Governmental Activities Affecting Veterans.”
President Hoover regarded caring for veterans as one of the most important functions of government. “The consolidated budget of these services for the present fiscal year amounts to approximately $800 million, so that the new establishment [VA] becomes one of the most important functions in the government,” the president said.

Great Research WIN apologist! With investigative skills like yours you have a long and rewarding career awaiting you at Taco Bell.

Use this $0.02 as a down payment on my Nachos Supreme. Dont cheat me on the tomatoes either!
Lincoln and Hoover weren't neo-cons. They would probably be considered moderates today. You do realize that all Democrats aren't ultra-liberals and not all Republicans are neo-cons?

Lincoln and Hoover would both be considered liberals by clowns like you for their policies today.

The VA in itself is a liberal idea--it's "big government" as you fools say. Maybe we should privatize it and see how corporate America treats the vets. I'm just waiting for Dubya to suggest that one. It'll probably go over worse than social security did. He's got a Republican Congress and he still can't pass that one.

Taco Bell and Wal-Mart are for dumbasses like you--if you can ever make it out of college.

I'm a part of the workforce, a homeowner, a small-business owner and a taxpayer.

What the fuck do you do other than write falacies?

Just my two cents..........
By the way, who was Congress controlled by when Hoover who was President?
nix the "who" on the last sentence.
Hoover created the Department with an executive order as my post clearly indicated.

You graduated from college and don't understand that an executive order has nothing to do with Congress?

You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?

Like I said don't skimp on my tomatoes when I order. Hopefully when you serve me my Nachos Supreme it can be a real WINner!

Yet another $0.02.
Just because Hoover made an executive order, did not mean that congress had to abide. The departments are the ones that have to abide them unless they are actual law to begin with.

I don't know if you know this, but the President can't create laws.

I guess you'll be starving in the streets. Taco Bell wouldn't even hire you.

At least I've got degrees and they're not all from UH.
It was not a cabinet positon in 1930. It was a department under the executive branch. "Mr. Two Degrees" you really have no idea how the government works. I guess you won't be in the streets yet since UH was dumb enough to hire you for a "journalisim" position despite your obvious inabillity to do research and pitiful knowledge of how the government works. My junior high school government class apparently taught me a lot more than you know.

Doesn't say much for the school of communications does it now. I guess you would never work in the private sector so long as you can ride that government gravy train at UH. You don't even know how an executive order works and instead of being man enough to admit you spout of more ignorance in a pathetic attempt to cover up your previous ignorance.

Executive orders are regulations, rules, orders if you will that have the force of law. He does not need Congress to like them or approve them. Executive orders are always within the realm of authority that the President already has.

Since you are too dumb to know how the government works and too lazy to look it up I did it for you.

A regulation by the President of the United States or the chief executive of a state which has the effect of law.

A declaration issued by the president or by a governor that has the force of law. Executive Orders are usually based on existing statutory authority and require no action by Congress or the state legislature to become effective. At the federal level, Executive Orders are published in the Federal Register as they are issued, and then in Statutes at Large and title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations each year.

An action by the President or a Governor that has the legal authority of a law, often dealing with regulations or the workings of agencies.

1. A mandate signed by the President of the United States or Governor of New York State. {DPM 2002}

a rule or order having the force of law, issued by an executive authority of a government.

An executive order is a legally binding edict issued by a member of the executive branch of a government, usually the head of that branch.

Time to take some remedial classes, and if some day you are good enough for the private sector. DON'T FORGET MY TOMATOES!

Another $0.02 (need some extra cheese too).
I knew all that you posted. And I in fact, was correct. Executive orders are not "new" laws.

The legislative branch passes the laws, not the executive branch.
Big words from a guy with no degree.

How's taco bell?
"By the way, who was Congress controlled by when Hoover who was President?"

This clearly indicates that you did not understand how an executive order works. Your thinly veiled argument would be that if the Democrats controlled Congress in 1930, they should get credit for the improvement in the VA system that took place because of Hoover's executive order, instead of the REPUBLICAN president Hoover.
And for your information the President does have a very important role when it comes to law making. If he does not sign a bill into law it does not become law unless Congress can muster enough votes to override his VETO. Both the executive branch and the legislative branch have roles in PASSING laws. Members of Congress however are the only ones who can INTRODUCE legislation.

That is why the media has been referred to as the "bully pulpit" with regard to the presidency because the president can appeal directly to the public in order to get support for legislation that the President desires.

Executive orders have the force of law the same as Congressional statutes, the difference is that Executive orders deal with departments and organzations within the executive branch rather than laws that can be applicable to individual citizens like many Federal statutes INTRODUCED by members of Congress, and PASSED by BOTH Congress and the president, or by Congress alone if Congress has the power to overide a President's VETO.

You really are an idiot. A ten year old understands how the government works better than you do.

So much for your "two degrees" they obviously did not cover even the basics of American Government or research methods.

Another two cents to help fund your impending unemployment Mr. "educated" "Journalist"
You keep knocking my knowledge of American government, but your comments are misleading.

I was correct about the executive order and what it is in regards to Congress.

You still haven't responded to my long post that I spent time on. I guess you can't handle a good debate.
Not only were you wrong about the executive order and how it works, you are either too stupid or just too pigheaded to admit it.

Instead of two cents I'm giving you a couple of brain cells, you are in short supply.
"No matter the VA's budget, they are going to do what they have to do when it comes to patient care. Yes, some veterans may temporarily be left out of the system, but they will get in one day."

Two words: Walter Reed.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?