About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Ask a Vet 2017
Author: TriSec    Date: 01/03/2017 10:29:16

Good Morning.

Mr. Trump seems to be having some problems finding a suitable candidate to run the Department of Veteran's Affairs. Two potential candidates have withdrawn over this weekend, which you may have missed due to the New Year.



Donald Trump’s top two picks to become the next Veterans Affairs secretary abruptly withdrew their names over the weekend, leaving a shrinking list of candidates for the Cabinet post and a host of uncertainty surrounding the next administration’s ambitious reform plans.

On Saturday, Florida businessman Luis Quinonez announced he would not pursue the job due to health issues. Within hours, Cleveland Clinic CEO Toby Cosgrove also removed himself from consideration, marking the second time in three years the well-known health care executive has turned down such an offer.

Both men had met with the president-elect several times about overseeing the agency, which employs about 365,000 people and has an annual budget nearing $180 billion. Trump announced nominees to lead nearly every other major government department before the end of last year.

The president-elect has described the current department as broken and vowed to massively expand private care options for veterans, root out waste within veterans programs and restore public confidence in a department still reeling from the 2014 wait times scandal.

He also promised to enact many of those changes within his first 100 days in office. Transition teams have been laying the groundwork for those reforms for weeks, but it’s unclear how far that work can progress without a new VA secretary.

It’s also increasingly unlikely that a new secretary will be in place by the end of January, since the Senate confirmation process typically takes several weeks even for non-controversial candidates.

Veterans groups have expressed frustration with the pace of transition, and requested meetings with Trump to voice their desires for the department's future.

Multiple groups have publicly supported the idea of keeping current VA Secretary Bob McDonald in place, but Trump officials have dismissed the idea.

The leading remaining candidates include Fox News host Pete Hegseth, former president of the conservative advocacy group Concerned Veterans for America, and former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown. Both have met with Trump multiple times in recent weeks.


While we have not endorsed our former senator, here at Ask a Vet we did deal with his office personally on a number of veteran issues while he was in office - and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity in this area.

Looking past January 20, there's a huuuge number of issues that are looming on the horizon for the new "President". Not the least of which is his first budget, and we're starting to hear some rumblings about what that might entail. Again going back through history, I see a parallel looming with Japan and Germany withdrawing from a number of military treaties in the "in-between" period to embark on a massive military buildup. Of course, we all know what the long-term consequences of those days was.


Donald Trump has vowed to “rebuild the military” and will get his chance to start as he drafts his first federal budget plan.

Trump's first Pentagon funding request must be complete by April, when temporary legislation funding government operations is set to expire. It will set a baseline for at least the next four years of defense spending.

The president-elect has vowed to grow the Army and Marine Corps, increase Navy shipbuilding and boost the number of Air Force fighter aircraft. He also wants more money to modernize U.S. nuclear weapons systems and more investment in cyber security.

Over President Obama's objections, Congress in December passed legislation that funds the addition of 23,000 troops across the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps. By some estimates, Trump's long-term plans could see the active-duty force grow by almost another 140,000 personnel.

Some observers have called such plans prohibitively expensive. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation, for instance, estimates — at minimum — those plans will require an annual defense spending boost of 3 percent. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has pegged the cost at an additional $150 billion in coming years.

That could be a tough ask, given the focus among conservatives in Congress who have campaigned on reducing government spending.

Trump has said he's confident that savings can be found by cutting bureaucracy and better policing government waste. But few independent analysts believe such reductions will be enough to offset the cost.


We haven't been here in quite a while, so it seems appropriate to visit our old friends at the Cost of War.

So we find this morning's Cost of War passing through:

$ 820, 115, 200, 500 .00


And we'll take a look at some of the tradeoffs today, and remember that these are based on the current budget.


For Department of Defense, taxpayers in the United States are paying $528.49 billion, not including the cost of war. Here's what those tax dollars could have paid for instead:


➜ 6.54 million Elementary School Teachers for 1 Year, or
➜ 7.13 million Clean Energy Jobs Created for 1 Year, or
➜ 9.51 million Infrastructure Jobs Created for 1 Year, or
➜ 5.28 million Jobs with Supports Created in High Poverty Communities for 1 Year, or
➜ 59.31 million Head Start Slots for Children for 1 Year, or
➜ 51.15 million Military Veterans Receiving VA Medical Care for 1 Year, or
➜ 15.91 million Scholarships for University Students for 4 Years, or
➜ 22.72 million Students Receiving Pell Grants of $5,815 for 4 Years, or
➜ 222.93 million Children Receiving Low-Income Healthcare for 1 Year, or
➜ 595.33 million Households with Wind Power for 1 Year, or
➜ 148.46 million Adults Receiving Low-Income Healthcare for 1 Year, or
➜ 367.73 million Households with Solar Electricity for 1 Year


It's going to get interesting real quick.
 

30 comments (Latest Comment: 01/03/2017 20:39:27 by livingonli)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati

Add a Comment

Please login to add a comment...


Comments:

Order comments Newest to Oldest  Refresh Comments

Comment by Scoopster on 01/03/2017 14:32:34
Mornin' all!

Comment by Raine on 01/03/2017 14:33:44
This is going to be a master class in fuckery come January 29th.

Comment by Raine on 01/03/2017 14:34:02
good morning.

Comment by wickedpam on 01/03/2017 14:42:45
Morning

Hope everyone had a good new year despite the oncoming nightmare.

Comment by Mondobubba on 01/03/2017 14:46:08
Comment by trojanrabbit on 01/03/2017 15:17:47
Quote by Mondobubba:
House Republicans Strip Autonomy from Congressional Ethics Office

Nice going you bunch of thieves.


Very surprised that didn't happen at the start of the last Congress.

Comment by Raine on 01/03/2017 15:25:47
Quote by trojanrabbit:
Quote by Mondobubba:
House Republicans Strip Autonomy from Congressional Ethics Office

Nice going you bunch of thieves.


Very surprised that didn't happen at the start of the last Congress.
That's an interesting point.


Comment by Raine on 01/03/2017 15:32:53
ooOOoo this is something?

That said it does back up what Eichenwald tweeted.




Comment by BobR on 01/03/2017 15:42:32
Quote by Mondobubba:
House Republicans Strip Autonomy from Congressional Ethics Office

Nice going you bunch of thieves.

What kills me is the gaslighting - re: the rationale - that the election proved there was a mandate for the change. They lost seats in the House and Senate to the Democrats, and Clinton got more votes than tRump.

I'd like to see their explanation as to how that was a mandate that requires less oversight on the Republicans

Comment by Will in Chicago on 01/03/2017 16:07:33
Quote by BobR:
Quote by Mondobubba:
House Republicans Strip Autonomy from Congressional Ethics Office

Nice going you bunch of thieves.

What kills me is the gaslighting - re: the rationale - that the election proved there was a mandate for the change. They lost seats in the House and Senate to the Democrats, and Clinton got more votes than tRump.

I'd like to see their explanation as to how that was a mandate that requires less oversight on the Republicans



Good morning, bloggers!!

BobR, I doubt that explanations based on logic will be forthcoming. The GOP leadership may have decided as there are no elections for two years, they can act with impunity.

Trump and the GOP have less of a mandate than George W. Bush had in 2004. I urge Democrats to be bold and resist Trump's agenda. A question that this story raises is whether this is marking the beginning of a rift between Trump and some in the GOP.

Comment by livingonli on 01/03/2017 17:01:36
Hannity apparently went to London to interview his new buddy Julian Assange. I have to wonder about the lefties who still support the Ron Paul supporting, admired by David Duke pretender of "openness".

Comment by Scoopster on 01/03/2017 17:06:14
So umm.. where's the Merrick Garland recess appointment?

Comment by Raine on 01/03/2017 17:32:41
It's sounding like the Ethics office might not be shut down after all.

Comment by Mondobubba on 01/03/2017 17:34:45
Quote by Raine:
It's sounding like the Ethics office might not be shut down after all.



The scheme hatchery failed. For now.

Comment by BobR on 01/03/2017 17:35:22
Duke back from the vet. Doing well - could lose a few pounds (welcome to MY world)

Comment by wickedpam on 01/03/2017 17:35:49
Quote by Raine:
It's sounding like the Ethics office might not be shut down after all.



I don't trust them. They got their hands caught in the cookie jar and got reprimanded, doesn't mean they won't try again and be sneakier about it.

Comment by Scoopster on 01/03/2017 17:41:13
Comment by Raine on 01/03/2017 17:43:36
Comment by livingonli on 01/03/2017 17:59:24
How has our Boston contingency been dealing with the NBC affiliation change?

Comment by Mondobubba on 01/03/2017 18:01:27
Quote by wickedpam:
Quote by Raine:
It's sounding like the Ethics office might not be shut down after all.



I don't trust them. They got their hands caught in the cookie jar and got reprimanded, doesn't mean they won't try again and be sneakier about it.


That is why I said "for now" in the link I posted. I don't trust those sneaky fuckers.

Comment by trojanrabbit on 01/03/2017 18:18:30
Quote by Scoopster:
So umm.. where's the Merrick Garland recess appointment?


You reallly expected that??

Comment by Scoopster on 01/03/2017 18:21:23
Quote by trojanrabbit:
Quote by Scoopster:
So umm.. where's the Merrick Garland recess appointment?


You really expected that??

Yes? Even if it's only for a year. Why should Obama take this lying down when he could do that at the very least?

Comment by trojanrabbit on 01/03/2017 18:25:03
Quote by livingonli:
How has our Boston contingency been dealing with the NBC affiliation change?


All I know is that the puny transmitters (one in NH and one somewhere around Boston) have no hope of reaching me, even though I'm less than 20 miles from the closer one. They don't care. You're supposed to get cable/satellite.

Sucker....er....viewers in SE Mass are supposed to watch the Providence outlet (or spring for Comcast). Though it's odd that my mother in Mansfield (just a hop skip and jump from FoxboroUGH) doesn't have many Boston stations in her cable system, mostly Providence.

But since I don't watch anything on NBC, or even the local stuff, IDGAF. ;)

Comment by trojanrabbit on 01/03/2017 18:27:11
Quote by Raine:

Meh.

Oh, well, DEFINITELY don't care that NBC sliced out the cable cutters in SE MA.

Comment by Scoopster on 01/03/2017 18:37:46
Quote by trojanrabbit:
Quote by livingonli:
How has our Boston contingency been dealing with the NBC affiliation change?


All I know is that the puny transmitters (one in NH and one somewhere around Boston) have no hope of reaching me, even though I'm less than 20 miles from the closer one. They don't care. You're supposed to get cable/satellite.

Sucker....er....viewers in SE Mass are supposed to watch the Providence outlet (or spring for Comcast). Though it's odd that my mother in Mansfield (just a hop skip and jump from FoxboroUGH) doesn't have many Boston stations in her cable system, mostly Providence.

But since I don't watch anything on NBC, or even the local stuff, IDGAF. ;)

I haven't watched the Providence NBC station or even looked at their website since I found out they were sold to Sinclair Broadcasting and airing these propaganda shorts instead of commercials on their live stream.

Comment by livingonli on 01/03/2017 19:16:30
Bristol County is considered part of the Providence market according to Nielsen. Cable carries Providence with many Boston stations having significantly viewed status. Verizon FiOS there carries 2, 4, 5, 7, 38, 44, and 56 with the Providence stations. WFXT is carried, but subject to Syndex and network non-duplication rules which means the signal is cut to Swiss cheese.

Comment by Raine on 01/03/2017 20:23:26
So, Gretchen and Van Sustern are all going to NBC?


SMDH

Comment by Scoopster on 01/03/2017 20:27:11
Quote by Raine:
So, Gretchen and Van Sustern are all going to NBC?

SMDH

Apparently. Comcast's NBC has become Fox Lite. I'm about a pinky close to saying Rachel should go elsewhere.

Comment by livingonli on 01/03/2017 20:39:27
Quote by Scoopster:
Quote by Raine:
So, Gretchen and Van Sustern are all going to NBC?

SMDH

Apparently. Comcast's NBC has become Fox Lite. I'm about a pinky close to saying Rachel should go elsewhere.

Rachel has the highest-rated non Fox news show on TV. Right now, I am down to just watching Hayes, Rachel, Lawrence, and Joy. Otherwise, I have to watch overseas news channels to find out what's going on.