Vets died. VA lied. Heads must roll. Congress must act

For the past five weeks, America has heard testimony from courageous whistleblowers, seen media exposés, and now has proof from the acting  Inspector General's (IG) report -- all of it pointing to one central and unfortunate truth: the Department of Veterans Affairs is a dysfunctional, corrupt, and severely mismanaged department that is failing America’s veterans.
The Twitter-sphere has aptly dubbed it the #VAscandal.  But at this point, it’s no longer a scandal—it’s a national disgrace of the highest order. The release of Wednesday's preliminary IG report on the Phoenix VA confirms our worst fears and deepest held beliefs—that delayed medical care and manipulating records is “systemic throughout” VA.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is a dysfunctional, corrupt, and severely mismanaged department that is failing America’s veterans.

According to the report, Phoenix VA officially stated that veterans were waiting 24 days on average for care at their facility but they were actually waiting 115 days. The names of 1,700 waiting veterans at the Phoenix VA simply vanished, as if they never existed. Moreover, the IG has expanded the investigation to 42 VA facilities, not just the previously reported 26—underscoring an even more poignant hashtag: #NotJustPhoenix. The IG report goes on for pages upon pages with similar outrageous findings.
Bottom line: VA lied. Veterans died. And now it’s time for heads to roll and Congress to step up.
Just one week ago, the push for greater accountability at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was gaining steam. With more facts emerging, and before this IG report, the House of Representatives passed the VA Management Accountability Act (H.R. 4031) as a first step toward reform at the dysfunctional department.
But now that good start is being jeopardized by a lack of action in the Senate, owing to a cynical political game on the part of the Obama administration and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  A cynical game that, in light of today’s findings, should have every red-blooded American up in arms.
The bipartisan House vote for H.R. 4031 was stunningly lopsided, something we rarely see in today’s gridlocked Washington. The bill passed 390-33, with 160 Democrats and even Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi voting in favor of more accountability at the VA.
The support for the VA Management Accountability also stems from the bill’s directness, clarity and simplicity. Unlike the typical incomprehensible mishmash of logrolling and favor-seeking we see in most legislative fixes these days, H.R. 4031 is under 3 pages long, and entails a simple common-sense reform: it gives the VA secretary the authority to remove and replace executives who fail to perform. Period.
So after such a remarkable bipartisan endorsement from the House, what happens in the Senate? Sanders has declared he wouldn’t allow a vote on the bill, which would need to go through legislative hearings to study the proposal and determine its “implications.”
As a reminder, the bill is 3 pages long and the House has already held hearings.
As veterans wait on secret lists, have Harry Reid and Bernie Sanders had a chance to read the bill yet?  You bet they have. So why would Sanders slow-walk the bill? Based upon his recent public comments, he appears to be siding with career bureaucrats—i.e., the same people who have driven the VA into a ditch—over the needs of veterans.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has already signaled opposition to H.R. 4031, suggesting the bill would open the government to the threat of litigation from fired employees.
So how can we expect this to play out? The Obama administration’s tepid response—marked by expressions of deep concern and the “firing” of a single VA undersecretary who was already set to retire in just a few weeks—suggests they’re hoping the scandal will burn out if they don’t give it too much attention.
In a few weeks, when the VA scandal drops from the front pages (which won’t happen if the organization I lead has anything to say about it), they’ll dismiss it as “old news” and cynically argue that their critics are motivated by partisan advantage. This has been the administration’s approach to previous scandals, and it’s worked before.
Meanwhile, Sanders will continue to stall the progress of the VA Management Accountability Act, and may even go so far as to reintroduce his own VA “reform” bill that failed in the Senate earlier this year. That bill would have dramatically expanded the VA’s responsibilities and provided billions in new funding—without fixing what’s wrong at the department. That’s a recipe for continued dysfunction and disaster.
The standoff on the VA Management Accountability is a case study in why Americans have lost faith in Washington. Many pundits lament the fact that Washington can’t achieve major accomplishments, but at this point most Americans would be satisfied with basic good governance. When it’s impossible to enact even the simplest and most straightforward of administrative reforms, such as the VA Management Accountability Act represents, it’s clear something is deeply wrong.
Which is why veterans, their families and taxpayers who care about government accountability should take up the cause and contact Harry Reid and Bernie Sanders. Demand that the Senate give the VA Management Accountability Act (sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio) and up-or-down vote. Demand that senators go on record as either being for the bureaucrats or for our veterans.
Let’s not allow Senator Sanders, Senator Reid and the Obama administration to get away with burying this scandal. It’s time to send a clear message: veterans are the ones who are “mad as hell” and we will accept nothing less than action.

This WWII veteran on ultimate wait list: He gets benefits after 68 years

The Veterans Administration is under fire for its long waiting lists, but it's unlikely any of America's service members can match the claim by Milton Rackham: It took 68 years before he was given the benefits he earned in battle.
The 89-year-old Rackham, of Belding, Mich., lived for decades without any benefits because the VA told him his records were lost in a fire in Missouri, the World War II veteran and Purple Heart recipient told FoxNews.com.
"They always said, 'we can't help you,'" recalled Rackham, a former engine mechanic with the U.S. Navy who suffered injuries during the war and later struggled to find work.
"It made me feel like I was worthless," he said.
In 2011, Rackham's friend, Myrl Thompson, began writing about Rackham's war stories, and arranged meetings between the veteran and VA officials over the benefits he allegedly never received. Roughly two months ago, Rackham claims he started receiving $822 a month from the VA as well as $7,000 in back-pay.
Perhaps more alarming is the allegation by Rackham that the VA had no new information on his record to prompt the payments some 68 years after he left the Navy.
"What drove me crazy was that they had the same information in 2008 and they denied me," he told FoxNews.com. "That’s what blows me out of the water. Ever since 1974, when I first asked for benefits, they've had the same information."
"Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction," Rackham said. 
Rackham, who grew up herding cattle in Rigby, Idaho, said he enlisted in the Navy when he was 17 years old -- against the wishes of his mother. He fought aboard the PT Boat 81 in the Aleutian Islands for his first year. He later transferred to the South Pacific, where he was severely injured while defending a U.S. ammunition supply ship during a Japanese kamikaze attack. The explosion caused Rackham serious shrapnel wounds that nearly led to the amputation of an arm and leg.
After spending two years in Navy hospitals in Hawaii and Manila, Rackham returned to civilian life in Rigby. 
During his mid-twenties, Rackham, who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, set out for work only to be rejected by employers due to his weakened arms and hands.
"He couldn't handle the manual labor of being a mechanic," said Rackham's friend Thompson, 75, of Big Rapids, Mich. 
Rackham, a devout churchgoer, later married and moved to Michigan, where he managed to run an upholstery business from his garage. For years, the father of six struggled financially. It was not until 1974 when he first applied to the VA for benefit consideration. He was denied five or six times over the course of 40 years, according to Rackham, due to "lack of complete information." 
Thompson said he helped Rackham submit to the VA in 2013 detailed documentation of Rackham's service in the Navy. Following that submission, Thompson said Rackham received a letter, stating that his VA benefits had been approved "at the level of 50 percent." Since early this year, Rackham receives monthly checks of $822 that are labeled "VA benefit," which the 89-year-old is able to use to cover his medication and other costs. 
Rackham's wife, Carol, might be eligible for spousal benefits, but has received no money to date, according to the family. 
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs had no immediate comment when contacted Thursday, saying they needed time to review Rackham's file. 
While Rackham was elated to receive the money so many years later, his shrapnel wounds remain.
"I still set off the metal detector at the airport," he told FoxNews.com.
Most devastating to Rackham is the emotional scar caused by war and left untreated by a system he claims failed him. 
"I’d go to bed and wake my wife up with my screaming and thrashing around in bed," he said. "The nightmares ... they have been ongoing for 66 years and continue to this day." 
Still, he says, "I was so proud to serve this country. I'm still able to get into my uniform."
Rackham also indicated that he was advised by friends to appeal the $822 and the $7,000, which amounts to 10 months in back pay, but he opted not to, saying, "I won't live long enough to go through the VA process one more time."
He said his message to the VA is simple: "One out of every six homeless people in America is a veteran. For heaven's sake, acknowledge them. They should never be forgotten."

Former Vice President Cheney: Obama is a 'very, very weak president'

 Former Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News’ Sean Hannity Wednesday that he believes President Obama is a “very, very weak president” who does not understand America's obligations around the world.
Cheney said on “Hannity” he has spoken with many people in the Middle East who believe Obama’s leadership has reduced American’s influence overseas. 
“They all are absolutely convinced that the American capacity to lead and influence in that part of the world has been dramatically reduced by this president,” he said. “We’ve got a problem with weakness, and it’s centered right in the White House.”
Cheney said Obama’s plan to remove all troops from Afghanistan by 2016, instead of negotiating an agreement to keep some troops in the country, is an example of his weakness.
“That’s stupid, it’s unwise, and it will in fact just reinforce the notion that we’re weak, that we’ve got a leader who doesn’t understand U.S. obligations and commitments around the world and is not prepared to act on them,” he said.
Cheney said Obama is “totally ignoring” why the U.S. invaded Afghanistan.
“It’s as though he wasn’t even around when 9/11 happened,” he said.
Cheney said Obama’s choice to not continue the presence in Afghanistan was also disrespectful to the military members who served there.
The former vice president also turned to the VA scandal, calling it an “outrage.” He said the Obama administration needs to take responsibility, despite the fact that some prominent Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have blamed the agency’s problems on the Bush administration.
“Six years out since we left office and we are still blamed by Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama for their current troubles,” he said.

American Killed In Mexican Border City Hours After U.S. Issues Travel Warning

Mexican authorities discovered the body of an Arizona man killed execution-style on the main highway south of the dangerous border city of Nogales on Monday, hours after the U.S. Consulate General in the city issued a travel advisory for the region.
Police said that the body of Jorge Luis Soto, 25, was found at the wheel of a 1997 Chevrolet Tahoe with gunshot wounds to his face and chest. The SUV’s engine was still running and was parked under an overpass on the highway.
Police in Tucson and neighboring Nogales, Arizona said they had not been notified by Mexican officials about the murder.
Soto’s death is one of five murders in the last three days in Nogales. Four of the victims were found shot dead in cars, but Mexican authorities have not confirmed if the slayings are related.  
Late on Sunday evening, the U.S. Consulate General in Nogales – which is located in the state of Sonora – issued a warning for U.S. citizens traveling in the region.
“Due to multiple and ongoing credible threats, the Consulate cautions Americans traveling in Nogales or surrounding areas to defer unnecessary travel at this time,” the warning said. “U.S. Citizens are urged to take the highest precautions regarding their safety and personal security in and around Nogales.”
The U.S. State Department has had a travel advisory for Nogales and surrounding areas in Sonora for a number of years, warning that the region is a hotspot in the international drug and human trafficking trades. The State Department hasn’t updated its travel warning in Sonora since January.
"Don't go. Three things you can consider if you choose to go: Number one, go in a group. Number two, stay in downtown shopping district. Number three, leave before it gets dark," E. Dwayne Tatalovich, a security consultant told Fox 10 about travel to Nogales.
Nogales is a popular destination for medical tourism – many Americans head to the border town for cheap plastic surgery, inexpensive dental procedures and low-priced prescription medicine that can be purchased in Mexico without a prescription.
After the Sinaloa Cartel took control of key drug-trafficking routes in Sonora from the Beltrán-Leyva Cartel in 2010, the region has experienced tenuous peace as the two cartels have operated under a supposed truce that has seen violence spike in other parts of Mexico such as in Matamoros and Nuevo Laredo.
But the spate of killings, along with a December 2013 gun battle between Mexican authorities and drug traffickers in Puerto Penasco, have raised concerns that widespread drug violence is rising in Sonora.
There is speculation that the recent capture of Sinaloa cartel boss Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán could create a new round of cartel fighting as a power struggle ensues for the trafficking routes. So far, however, Mexican authorities have remained quiet about the motive of the recent murders or if they were drug-related.

Marine sergeant jailed in Mexico on gun charges speaks exclusively 'On The Record'

 (Bailey) "I've got a good idea, how about us trading back all their eleven million citizens that are over here illegally for our Marine."

A U.S. Marine who has spent nearly two months in a Mexican prison following his arrest for mistakenly crossing the border with registered guns in his pickup truck has spoken exclusively about the case to Fox News' Greta Van Susteren.
Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi spoke to Van Susteren by phone from prison Wednesday evening. He had spent part of the morning at a court hearing. Earlier in the day, Tahmooressi fired his attorney Alejandro Osuna, who had earlier advised Tahmooressi to claim that he had never been to Tijuana. 
Tahmooressi was arrested March 31 at the San Ysidro checkpoint, where he realized that he was about to enter Mexico with his weapons after taking a wrong turn. He claims that he acknowledged that he had weapons in the car and told officials at the checkpoint that he had no intention of entering Mexico. He described what happened next to Van Susteren.
"[A Mexican border guard] got on the walkie-talkie and was communicating what was going on," Tahmooressi said. "I think what he said was, 'Hey we've got a guy down here with three guns.'" 
That message brought a Mexican Marine to the scene. 
"He just took control," Tahmooressi said of the officer. "He didn't seem to care at all about anything that I had to say. It was like a math equation in his head. Three guns, man equals prison."
Watch the full interview with Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi on 'On The Record with Greta Van Susteren" Thursday at 7 p.m. Eastern on Fox News Channel.

State Department calls for all US citizens to leave Libya

 (Bailey) When Obama did not act on the murders of our people in Benghazi it made America look weak, and this is the results of his stupidity.

The State Department Tuesday urged all U.S. citizens to immediately leave Libya due to security concerns.
The evacuation warning came shortly after the USS Bataan, with about 1,000 Marines aboard, sailed into the Mediterranean Sea to assist Americans in leaving if necessary, according to U.S. military officials. The officials made clear the ship has received no formal orders to conduct new missions.
Officials said the Navy amphibious assault ship sailed from the Arabian Sea and was already scheduled to go to the Mediterranean to participate in a multi-county military exercise in the region. 
The State Department issued a statement Tuesday night saying,"The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against all travel to Libya and recommends that U.S. citizens currently in Libya depart immediately. The security situation in Libya remains unpredictable and unstable. The Libyan government has not been able to adequately build its military and police forces and improve security following the 2011 revolution."
The unrest has caused the State Department to limit staffing at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, and it is "only able to offer very limited emergency services to U.S. citizens in Libya," according to the release.
The statement added that "various groups" have called for attacks against U.S. citizens and U.S. interests in Libya, and said military-grade weapons remain in the hands of private individuals, including those that are capable of attacking civilian aircraft.
The warning was issued in light of fighting taking place earlier this month in the capital of Tripoli, where renegade Libyan Gen. Khalifa Hifter is waging an offensive against Islamists.
Hifter began his so-called "Dignity Operation" more than 10 days ago to crush Islamist militias and their political backers.
Hifter has the support of politicians, diplomats, army units and tribes that want him to impose order and rein in the country's unruly militias, three years after they toppled and killed longtime dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi.
However, the Al Qaeda-inspired group Ansar al-Shariah has now vowed to fight Hifter, whom it accuses of being an "American agent."
Ansar al-Shariah is believed to have played a role in the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Rural hospitals: on the critical list?

 (Bailey)
The Affordable Care Act sucks but no Democrat will admit it, as in doing so will make them racist.


It’s been “probably a decade” since 68-year-old Tom Howell last saw a doctor. A nagging cough and some chest pain finally prompted him to drive 30 miles from his home in Iowa to the closest medical facility, Midwest Medical Center in Galena, Illinois.
"I've been coughing so hard I couldn’t catch my breath. My wife said I had to see the doc, so here I am” Howell said
He said part of the reason he avoided seeing “the doc” for so long was because he didn't have health insurance. As a self-employed farmer in Iowa, he couldn’t afford it and said he didn’t see a need for it.
But he’s now on Medicare, so doctors bills are less of a concern.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates more than 46 million Americans live in rural areas, working on farms or in small factories that provide resources for the rest of the country.
Often in these less populated areas, there is only one medical facility for the entire community.
Much of the funding for rural hospitals, about 60 percent, comes from Medicare. The rest comes from Medicaid or from general health insurance.
Budgets are so tight for these smaller hospitals, where patients are often older and sicker than the general population, that any changes to these programs -- even slight changes -- can have drastic effects on their budgets.
That's why recent cuts by the Obama administration for Medicare reimbursement funding are a grave concern to rural healthcare administrators. In addition, there's an October deadline for upgrading to electronic medical records. If the deadline isn't met, hospitals risk penalties.
But making the upgrades is not as simple as it sounds, especially for smaller medical offices that are still on pen and paper.
“Going from paper to electronic medical records is a big process," said Dr. Michael Wells of the Midwest Medical Center in Galena. "It takes a lot of personnel and staff and support for information technology just alone, so it's a huge task for a smaller hospital when we don’t have the number of employees to support that."
Midwest Medical Center CEO Tracy Bauer agreed. "It's a huge undertaking. We'll have invested over two million dollars in the project…The expense has been huge, the resources needed for it have also been huge”.
The combination of Medicare cuts and the added expense of transferring to electronic records is part of the reason there has been an epidemic of rural hospital closures. Eighteen have shut their doors since the beginning of 2013, more than closed in the entire decade before then.
“Regulations are always changing, and you look at additional cuts, you look at the federal budget, you look at the state budget and you don’t know when that next cut is going to be" said Bauer. "It’s the difference between you being able to provide access in a rural area to not being able to.”
When rural hospitals close, residents are left with no easy alternative for medical care. Often a drive to a doctor for a checkup can take more than an hour. In an emergency situation, the distance can be a matter of life or death.
"We've saved lives by being here and providing that access here, and a lot times if we're not here, those people unfortunately would not make it in time to the stop that they need to be at, so it's really critical that we're here, able to provide that care," said Bauer.
Care is provided to anybody, regardless of their ability to pay, at many of the critical care centers, which is another reason finances are so tight.
The Affordable Care Act was supposed to alleviate that problem by providing the poor with health insurance and reducing the number of uninsured going to emergency rooms for expensive treatment.
But health experts claim that's not always working out so well.
Brock Slabach from the National Rural Healthcare Association said often poorer people choose the least expensive option among the plans provided under ObamaCare, but still can't afford to pay the deductibles required before doctor visits are covered. As a result, those patients don't go to the doctor regularly, but instead run to the emergency rooms when a medical issue becomes a crisis.
It is the same costly problem that existed before ObamaCare went into effect.
Rural hospital administrators worry the trend of closing hospitals will continue as rules and regulations continue to change.
It is not just the loss of healthcare providers in a community when a rural hospital closes, there also is an economic impact. Medical facilities are often the biggest employer in the countryside, so when one closes, a downward financial spiral for the community begins that could quickly spread into more populated areas.
The National Rural Health Association warned the fate of rural hospitals is a bellwether for the nation's healthcare system.
"I think your rural hospitals are going to be the canaries in the coal mine that lead to disaster for hospitals all over if we continue some of our current trends" Slabach said.
He called it a domino effect: when rural communities suffer, the whole country suffers. "The sustenance of our country's health and well being is produced in the rural areas of our country," he said. "The second we begin to dismiss that is the second that we're going to be very regretful of having lost those resources."

GOP hopes renewed probes into Benghazi, IRS will fire up conservatives and not annoy centrists

WASHINGTON –  Republican strategy for the fall elections seemed set: hammer Democrats on the health care law and "jobs, jobs, jobs."
As Democrats show increasing confidence on those fronts, however, House Republicans are gambling that ramping up new inquiries into old controversies involving the Internal Revenue Service and Libya will energize conservative voters without turning off moderates.
Over Democrats' heated objections, House Republicans voted this month to hold an IRS official in contempt for refusing to testify. They also launched a new investigation into the September 2012 terrorist attack on a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, which killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
Democrats say the moves reek of political opportunism and desperation.
Criticizing the president's health care law "has run its course," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, and Republicans "have to find something else to talk about." She called the new Benghazi inquiry a "political stunt."
Republicans say their actions are serious and justified, even if they also might be good politics.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the select committee on Benghazi will not be partisan or involve political "sideshows." But he declined to tell Republicans to stop using the Benghazi tragedy to raise campaign money.
Republicans acknowledge the hearings could backfire if their select committee members appear overly zealous.
"There's a real burden on us," said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla. "We need to not overreach" and simply "figure out what the truth is." He predicted the select committee chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., will "lean over backward to be fair."
Democrats spend little time defending the Obama administration's role in Benghazi or the IRS' actions in scrutinizing conservative groups that sought tax-exempt status. Instead, they cite the multiple hearings and inquiries already conducted into the matters, which were fading from national headlines except on outlets such as Fox News.
An inspector general's report blamed poor management in an IRS office that gave special scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. But it found no evidence of political conspiracy.
The division's director, Lois Lerner, infuriated Republicans a year ago by proclaiming her innocence at a House Oversight Committee hearing and then declining to answer questions, citing her constitutional right against self-incrimination. In a mostly party-line vote, the House voted May 7 to hold Lerner in contempt. It wants a U.S. attorney to take steps to force her to testify.
As for Benghazi, at least half a dozen inquiries have probed the terrorist assault of Sept. 11, 2012, generating more than 25,000 pages of documents. Main questions include: Did the Obama administration do enough to get military relief to those under attack? And did it try to mislead Americans about the attack's origins to protect President Barack Obama's record on terrorism with two months left in his re-election campaign?
Opinions mostly fall along partisan lines, although some Republicans express more outrage than others. House Armed Services Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., said the military did what it reasonably could.
The attack's origins were murky at first. At the time, Egyptians were rioting over an amateur American-made video mocking Islam's prophet Mohammad.
Then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice cited Islamic outrage over the video when she appeared on talk shows the Sunday after the Benghazi attack. Administration officials later said the assault was a calculated terrorist action, not a direct response to the video.
House Republicans have seized on a recently divulged White House "talking points" memo written to help Rice prepare for her TV appearances. The memo said one goal was "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video and not a broader failure of policy" by the administration.
Republicans say the White House deliberately hid the memo from investigators.
Many Democrats say congressional Republicans want to injure Hillary Rodham Clinton, a possible 2016 presidential candidate, who was secretary of state during the Benghazi tragedy.
Several GOP political strategists said revived inquiries into Benghazi and the IRS will probably do their party more good than harm, provided their lawmakers appear more professional than partisan.
Undecided voters might not get excited about GOP accusations regarding the IRS and Benghazi, said Dan Schnur, a former Republican consultant who teaches political science at the University of Southern California. But given the administration's questionable behavior in both areas, he said, "They certainly don't line up on the other side."
GOP strategist Terry Holt agrees. The Benghazi assault, he said, was "the phone call Hillary Clinton warned us about in 2008 when she was running against Obama. They both blew it."
Democrats are banking on public revulsion.
"To make use politically and financially of the tragedy of the loss of four great Americans is beneath contempt," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y.
___