previous post next post  

Argghhh!~

By The Armorer on August 22, 2006 | | Comments (16) | TrackBacks (5)

Okay, lemme see if I've got this straight, ladies and gentlemen. I'll add my voice to that of Cassandra and Grim. Fuzzlicious Thinking and Blackfive pile on, too.

From Military.com, quoting USA Today:

According to USA Today, the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury center, which is devoted to the treatment and understanding of war-related brain injuries, is set to lose half its funding, from $14 million down to $7 million, next year. The House and Senate versions of the 2007 Defense appropriation bill contain only half of the funding the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center received last year. "Honestly, they would have loved to have funded it, but there were just so many priorities," a spokeswoman for the Senate Appropriations Committee told the paper. "They didn't have any flexibility in such a tight fiscal year." Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is becoming one of the most common injuries among soldiers fighting in Iraq. Research by the center has concluded that ten percent of troops in Iraq suffer concussions during combat.

Heh.

"Honestly, they would have loved to have funded it, but there were just so many priorities," a spokeswoman for the Senate Appropriations Committee told the paper.

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?

That would be the same bleeping Senate Appropriations Committee that didn't have any trouble finding $160 Million for the VA so that the VA could pay for a service - credit monitoring - that victims of identity theft can, with a touch of a telephone keypad, get for free?

Lessee, $160 mil, minus $7 mil, equals (takes off shoes) um, $153 mil.

Y'know, it just TORQUES ME RIGHT OFF that the Honorables of this Committee could rummage about and find $160 mil for an unneeded service to cover an embarrassing faux pas by an agency of this government, but, well, there just isn't $7 mil to continue funding research into what is the Signature Injury Of This War.

Gee, Honorables, our soldiery and the medical personnel who serve them are sorry that we are surviving injuries that used to kill us - so that these injuries weren't as, um, noticeable as they are now. We beg your indulgence.

One wonders how someone can say something that bloody insensitive and bleeping ignorant with a straight face and not have their head implode? I had to stick my head in the Armorer's Helmet to keep it from exploding...

Oh, I forgot. They really do think we're simpletons with short memory spans.

Thank heavens for Google!

Note to the Kansas Congressional Delegation... I'm a medium fish in a small pond - but Kansas is a small pond too. I'll be watching this one, and I will be *very* interested in your staff's responses to my inquiries on the subject. Especially Senator Brownback, as you sit on the Senate appropriations committee in question. But I'll be interested in Senator Robert's views, as you sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Congressman Ryun, as you sit on the House Armed Services Committee.

C'mon Senator Brownback, Congressman Ryun - you both have "Support Our Troops" banners on your websites, there isn't 7 million where once there was 160 million?

I do my bit of taking care of the wounded - via Project Valour-IT. Let's hear what you gentlemen have to say.

Updates to the story:

The Washington Times gets the run-around - maybe not deliberately, but it's *still* a run-around. I'd love to hear what DoD has to say on the issue.

A letter to the Editor from a founder of the centers, Dr. George Zitnay (you'll have to scroll a bit).

And last, but not least... so, it's all wrapped up in Senatorial Snits? Really? Sigh.

And golly, I provoked a decent exchange in The Corner today! Whee!

Share This Article:

Categories:

5 Trackbacks

TrackBack this entry at http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/6075

The Brain Dead Politicians from BLACKFIVE on August 22, 2006 1:40 PM

Suppose you were an idiot ... and suppose you were a member of Congress... but I repeat myself.- Mark Twain I've got to say here that John Donovan speaks for me about this travesty in funding that is complete bullshit.Okay, Read More

The Brain Dead Politicians from BLACKFIVE on August 22, 2006 2:22 PM

Suppose you were an idiot ... and suppose you were a member of Congress... but I repeat myself.- Mark Twain I've got to say here that John Donovan speaks for me about this travesty in funding that is complete bull$h!t.Okay, Read More

Links and Minifeatures 08 22 Tuesday from Searchlight Crusade on August 22, 2006 6:31 PM

RINO Sightings

Carnival of Rea... Read More

Braindead Politicians from The Steeljaw Scribe on August 22, 2006 9:10 PM

$223M for a bridge to nowhere, but an additional $7M for troops suffering brain injuries? Nooo... Mere words fail to describe the depths this Congress continues to plumb. Pathetic. Lamentable. Wretched. Piteous. --umm, no, they all seem so...inadequa... Read More

Disgusting. from HomefrontSix on August 23, 2006 12:06 AM

Absolutely disgusting. Feel free to jump on the bandwagon. You can track down your own Congresscritter HERE. I've already fired off a letter to my Senator...good ole' "Screw the Military in Order to Fund My Pension" Ted Stevens. Gotta love him. Sorry S... Read More

16 Comments

By fdcol63 on August 22, 2006 9:47 AM
This is despicable.
 
By DoctorDentons on August 22, 2006 9:49 AM
Hey, how about taking that $230 Mil that is being earmarked for the rebuilding of Lebanon and spreading it out over the VA's budget. We did not fire a shot in this last little dust-up between Israel and Hez'bollah so why should we pay...let Iran, Syria, Saudi and all the others rebuild that sandbox.
 
By Justthisguy on August 22, 2006 9:59 AM
Hey, maybe they're like the SS Doc in Hackett's "I Was a Stranger." He was working on the wounded of both sides at the hospital in Arnhem, and expounding his views on how to do triage. "Kopfschuss, Bauchschuss, spritzen!" or, just give'em an overdose and let'em go if they're shot in the head or tummy.
 
By Mark on August 22, 2006 12:15 PM
What else do you expect Conservatives to do? Conservatives have to pay for their tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent somehow. So, Conservatives will take the money from wounded soldiers. Wounded soldiers do not make campaign contributions. The wealthiest 1 percent, with their money safely packed away in the Bahamas, British Channel Islands, and Cayman Islands, pay the Conservatives' campaign costs. Does this actually surprise you?
 
By Kyle on August 22, 2006 12:18 PM
A few questions: 1. Why is this being funded by DoD and not NIH? There are plenty of civilians suffering from TBI, too. 2. Why does this center get an earmark while the rest of us medical research slobs have to go through competative grant applications? 3. Are earmark proponents using this cut as a political ploy (think Seaseme Street with respect to public TV)?
 
By Mark on August 22, 2006 12:23 PM
Conservative Oil Man, Ted Stevens (C-Alaska), is taking money away from injured soldiers to enact political payback. Here's Bob Novak: [remainder deleted and replaced with this link- which, if you've read the links in the post above... you've already read. -the Armorer]
 
By Mark on August 22, 2006 12:28 PM
And The Washington Times, like Bob Novak, no liberal rag merchant, also blasted Conservative Alaskan Oil Man Ted Stevens in an editorial and with this letter to the editor on Aug. 21. Again, another example of Conservatives using the military for political gain. [Again, reposted complete article replaced with a simple link - and, again, if you've read the post *with* the links, you've read this already. -the Armorer]
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 22, 2006 1:22 PM
Mark - did you *read* the post? I.e., where I already linked to that stuff you stuffed into the comments? Do me and my storage a favor - post links, not full-length articles. It's blog-politeness. I pay for this place, show some respect to me and the readers who have to scroll through info *already* provided. I didn't drag Left/Right into this, you did. I was going after the issue. Not that I expect it, if you read through this place, you'll find, yeah, I'm a conservative, but that doesn't mean I drink the kool-aid. Both sides of the aisle stink when it comes to this kind of thing, please. At least under this Congress, I only have to fund *part* of my disability payment directly from my retirement - unlike the the Democrat controlled Congresses (and many Republican, too) who did nothing about it but mouth pious platitudes. This isn't about Right/Left. At least not for me. Your mileage obviously varies. So, kindly quit thrashing about, okay? Golly, look at who I addressed the post to... they're *all* Republicans. That's my representation in Congress. So, it's not like I'm being a staunch Republican here...
 
By charles austin on August 22, 2006 2:56 PM
Unfortunately, we cannot have a discussion about this without bringing politics into it. Alas, the issue isn't simply one of funding research for brain injuries, especially soldiers who have suffered such injuries while performing their duties. Heck, who's really going to be against that? But, as you noted, this particular bit of funding is being supported by an earmark as a bit of political theater. I will almost always support an increase in funding for the military, but I am opposed to this method of funding an activity, no matter how worthy it seems. It is this method of ad hoc funding which has corrupted the federal budgeting process and helped make irresponsible spending the order of the day as far as the eye can see. If this cause is as worthy as it seems to be, and I do believe it to be so, why hasn't the funding request come through formal budgeting channels at the Pentagon, NIH, etc? Please note that this rant included no stone aimed at any particular person or party. My complaint is with the hidden and corrupt process.
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 22, 2006 3:11 PM
Charles - yes, I know. I'm not a babe. The point being that it's not a right/left issue. It's an almost pure politics in the rawest sense issue. And I'd love to hear what reasoning DoD provides. I'm an equal opportunity basher. But I don't want this to degenerate to right-left bashing. Just line 'em all up and start bashing.
 
By BloodSpite on August 22, 2006 3:44 PM
I think its about time ol Jim Nicholson start looking at doing a lot of fishing and step away quietly. Its his job to appropriate these funds and its obvious, both from his handling of the laptop fiasco and now this that he is inept. On the otherside of the house the Administration has just shown what we are in the full screaming color bandwidth of their opinion: cattle.
 
By HomefrontSix on August 22, 2006 10:32 PM
You're joking me. Right? Tell me I'm reading the Novak column wrong and Ted Stevens did not just turn down a request for funding for TBI treatment research and development because of a farking schoolyard spat last year. Please? Stevens should KNOW better. The military is THE largest contributor to the Alaskan economy and many of those 1,700 soldiers per year that face a traumatic brain injury are Alaskan residents and military members. HOW. DARE. HE. He'll be getting an earfull from me tomorrow. That son of a...well, we won't go there.
 
By arch on August 23, 2006 9:18 AM
As a retired USAF officer and a retired defense contractor, I have some experience working "plus up" funding with Congress. Rather than venting our frustrations about this obvious inequity, let's take action to turn this decision around. $7M in the Defense Appropriation bill is "budget dust". First, get a letter writing campaign going from vets who have been treated at the TBI center. Have their parents and wives write. We should write our congressman and both our senators. Tell them you don't have a lot of money, but you always vote. Second, visit the organizations who need the funding and get their support. To be successful, these operational users and their requirements staff officers must support the effort. There is some push back from people in the building because they think plus ups will come out of their hide. (The line is "no net increase in aggregate resources".) This notion must be dispelled. Third, organize a committee to work the staffers. You will be astounded at the youth and inexperience of the legislative assistants who write language into law. The members' offices we should visit include every member of the House & Senate Armed Services (HASC & SASC) and House & Senate Appropriations (HAC & SAC). Their names are published in books available in Washington. A key effort here is to convince the senior committee staffers (who are usually retored senior military). There's another trick - be nice to the secretaries. They're key to getting you on the schedule. Fourth, obtain congressional sponsors, members who strongly support this cause and would be willing to put their names on a letter advocating the restoration of funds. It's best if these members are on HASC, SASC, HAC or SAC. Three are good; five better. Even my two senators - Schumer and Clinton - may sign up. Finally, brief about 50 staffers and write the proposed text to go into the bill. A five slide power point briefing with a five page background paper to make these staffers look very smart. This is an issue that needs to be raised soon. All the House and 1/3 of the Senate are up for election now. Arch
 
By Mark on August 23, 2006 9:50 PM
John, An apology and an explanation. Yes, I correctly noted in your initial post the links that you provided to the Novak column and to the letter in The Washington Times. However, I’ve dealt with many people over the years on such issues, be it in the Veterans Administration or simply involving the activities of their local board of education. Too many people are, I respectfully submit, inherently lazy. As such, many won’t even click on the fine links that you offered to read another item. It’s too much work. I write this with a sense of exasperation, as I’ve met numerous people who’ve confessed to exactly this modus operandi of laziness to the Nth degree. As a result, I chose, apparently in violation of your website mandate, to post the full Novak column and the full letter to the editor in The Washington Times. I respectfully submit that people are much more likely to read something if it’s right there in front of their face. That, quite frankly, is sad, but terribly true. Feel free, of course, to disagree with me. And accept my apology for posting the items in full if so doing violated your site’s criteria. I find the actions of Senator Ted Stevens to be nothing short of deplorable. To bring personal political vendetta into such an issue is both repugnant and childish, and I could hardly care if Senator Stevens is a Conservative or a Liberal, a Republican or a Democrat, on the side of the Right, the Left, or the Just Plain Wrong. I will add that I find a great difference between Conservatives and Republicans, who are a breed apart. I find much to like about the Republican, including a penchant for fiscal wisdom and common sense. I find the Conservative to be a radical and no less a threat to our nation than a Liberal. We require moderation in this country, not extremism from either side. We require negotiation, not merely a pre-emptive strike mentality. We require a fair amount of logic and common sense, not pandering to fear, arrogance, or just plain foolishness. Without question, we require a commitment to our soldiers, not merely when stationed in the Iraqs and Afghanistans of the world, but when they return home, whether injured or safe. If we forget the dignity and health of our soldiers and allow politicians - regardless of party affiliation - to play petty games of payback with money that needs to finance services for our soldiers, whether in time of war or of peace, then, I respectfully submit, we are no better than our enemies. Don’t forget the soldiers. Don’t let the politicians place ego before action. Don’t, I respectfully submit, believe a person will click on a link. Put it right there. Before their eyes. Let them see what’s happening. Maybe, just maybe, they’ll do something about it. Thanks again.
 
By Justthisguy on August 23, 2006 11:27 PM
Hmm, I prefer Conservatives (American Burke-Locke type, not Euro authoritarian) to Republicans. For the same reasons given above, by Mark. I think he has it backwards. What goes past any of that, though, is, I think, that most people find any kind of mental weirdness or brain injury which manifests in weird, "defective" behavior to be creepy and abhorrent. So much so they don't even want to think about the neurally different folks, no matter how they got that way, except to shove them into a "hospital" somewhere to be forgotten. I mind the time I saw a Marine officer testifying before a Congressional committee on C-SPAN: He looked good and sharp in uniform and decorations, but sometimes had to have his wife interpret for him because he was talking funny due to brain damage from Gulf War Syndrome. He said something about how he understood that going into combat might kill him or mess him up, but not like that. Sounded like everyone's idea of a short-bus kid. Creeped me out, and I think *I'm* a bit weird neurally. I think there's something about the monkey social brain functions which causes the monkeys to zoom in on and beat up upon the weirdly-behaved monkey. Dang, it's hell being a monkey with brains, sometimes.
 
By Justthisguy on August 24, 2006 8:16 PM
P.S. By "monkey with brains", I mean "human."
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.