A (formerly) Far East located, politically focused, Blog with attention also paid to the finer things in life: Women, Beer, Women, Travel, Women, Adventure, Golf, and did I mention women?
For the most part, I have been impressed with the cabinet appointments President Elect Obama has made. His more liberal supporters are disappointed he did not appoint Kool-aid drinkers, but by seeking to have a cabinet that is at the same time inclusive and broadly based, he showing that he takes this little undertaking seriously. One of his best picks was to keep Secretary Gates on at Defense. Gates has shown how truly horrid, Donald Rumsfeld was as a SECDEF, and the past two years with Gates at the helm have been a tonic after over 5 years of Rummy’s buffoonery.
Gates has signaled however, that he is prepared to make some changes at the levels below him. I sure hope so-there’s a couple of people who are long past their shelf life-one guy in particular who should have been exiled a long time ago. Of course, I am talking about my favorite punching bag, and overall evil Pentagon henchman, Dr. David Chu.
Dr Chu’s sins are long and heinous. I’ve tried to chronicle the worst of them here. Soon, if all goes well-he will back at the Rand Corporation where he can only write about screwing active duty and veterans over-instead of actually doing it.
It really is time for the “Stingy Man” to go away. Gates should not only tell Chu that he is no longer welcome in the Pentagon-he should publicly fire him before January 20th-so as to send a statement that this new administration means what it says about keeping promises to the troops.
Must be nice to have that kind of money. Condo in Crystal City, home in Sedona, Condo in Phoenix, one in San Diego, and then investments besides?
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, “Trading Up”.
I guess the thing that bothers me is that he makes it sound like its a normal way to live. Yet, whenever he’s been given an opportunity to put money in Veterans pockets- some of whom are like me and are barely able to put together the wherewithal to buy one house(much less even think about owning 7!), thanks to America’s f**ked up divorce laws- he’s consistently voted against that. And although he is a divorced Navy retiree himself, he will not take a stand in favor of the over 150,000 veterans who unlike himself have to fork over hard earned money to someone else who did nothing to earn it.
But hey, the surge is working! So who cares about anything else?
The good doctor silently weeps. The President signed the GI bill into law a couple days ago so that he could pay for the war. Whatever gets the job done……….
Many people say this was about affordability and transferability. Regarding the former-if the country can afford to keep 150, 000 troops in Iraq for the next few years, it can afford to pay some college tuition. About the latter, I never understood why that is a big deal. I know that tuitions have gone through the roof and some would like to do so-fine, whatever blows your skirt. Does not mean anything to me. This benefit is for me and me alone. Transfering it to one’s spouse is like giving up part of your retirement when she dumps you-an unearned benefit. And we all know I am not, in any way , bitter about that.
But as a VEAP baby-its good to see this bill pass. Having Bush and McCain parrot your talking points failed, dear Dr. The best point about this election is that hopefully, no matter who wins, you will be packing your things and leaving the Pentagon. Screw you.
I’ve been watching this for 30 years. On the one hand, we say, ‘This is the new greatest generation,’ and on the other we don’t even give them the type of educational benefit that will allow them to go to a good school. It’s just not right.-Sen James Webb D-VA.
PBS ran a pretty good story today outlining how, as is so often the case with this crowd of losersof folks at DOD-what they say and what they do are too different things. As long as Dr. David S.C. Chu is in a position of prominence at DOD, this hypocrisy will continue. One thing, one message that John Mc Cain-and for that matter Barak Obama-can send loud and clear, is a message that this lip service of saying we support our troops, while proposing legislation that screws them over will come to an end.
Sooner or later, John McCain will have to go through that annual right of passage on military issues-addressing the VFW. I have a suggestion for his speech writers:
You have heard me say here-that I was a loud and frequent critic of the Rumsfeld strategy on Iraq. Well now in Iraq, we have new leadership and a new strategy. And it is showing results-results that will bode well for our troops and for the success of the American effort as a whole.
(Sorry-had to pause for a second while I cleared the bile from my throat. …..But I digress).
However it was not just in Iraq, where Donald Rumsfeld and his lackeys in DOD led the United States and its military in the wrong direction. In so many areas, from force structure to personnel policy, his vision-as expressed by those who held principal positions inside the Department of Defense-was fatally flawed. It can be summed up in one sentence. Do more with less-and cheat the serving Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine out of benefits and support that they had earned at every opportunity.
I tell you today, that in a McCain administration those days are over. We will expand our armed forces to a size that can adequately support this long term effort we have undertaken. So that the same people do not have to deploy over and over again without a break. And we will honor those who have undertaken this effort by providing for them, taking care of their families, and properly funding and protecting those benefits they were promised and given by law. To those rotten men, such as Dr David Chu, who under the encouragement of Donald Rumsfeld actually displayed disdain for those who, in the past, served their country with honor, I have a message. For such men as Dr. Chu, come January 20, 2009, they will find a NOT WELCOME sign on all the entrances of the Pentagon. We will no longer allow you to behave with what one proudly serving officer called “misguided parsimony”. There is no place for you and your mean spirited thinking here.
For Senator McCain’s speech writers-feel free to use this verbiage. I will expect consideration for a job in the White House next January though-or a cushy overseas posting. Take your pick.
Either way-just make the Pentagon shut up and pay the bill.
Last things to do today-then back to Japan. There will be no rest for the wicked there as I will have a lot to do-plus have to keep the full court press on the job hunt. If you know of and or are seeking a hard working professional to do your bidding in Asia-please email me.
There is a story on the CBS News as I type this-being broadcast on AFN. Its a tragic story of Carmelo Rodriguez who died of melanoma-which it looks on the surface-was misdiagnosed by a Navy doctor. In a nut shell the report shows a condition that was documented when he enlisted in 1997, got worse over time and in the end killed him. The purpose of the piece is to highlight the Ferres Doctrine. The Ferres Doctrine is a court ruling that specified that military members have no right to sue the government for malpractice made by doctors in its employ.
It is a sad and tragic story. However to me there is an unanswered question-if he had suspicion that the doctor was not giving him the right story-why not go see a civilian doctor? Just for a second opinion? It is your life at stake.
Because its against the rules for military personnel to do so. However people do it, and if nothing else it might have provided a means to get someone to sit up and take notice. There is a little voice inside of me that thinks it might not have been enough.
Plus in this particular case he was deployed when he brought it to the doctors attention.
I have had my own experience with self righteous Navy doctors so this is an issue near and dear to me. In my particular case this particular WPOS* thought his D.O. degree also gave him a carte blanche to interfere in my personal life. The privilege did not, and still does not, exist.
I would have loved to be able to sue him.
And beat the shit out of him. Sadly I exercised neither option. I have learned a lot since then and my real regret over the whole thing was not confront him directly and challenging him at the time. However under the circumstances-he had the ear of the mighty.
Which brings me back to this news story.
There are a host of issues that the story did not touch on, but should have if they had the time.
For one thing it should point out that military members do not enjoy the same confidentiality protections that civilians do. National security concerns -that old chestnut-are trotted out as a reason. So if it had been another condition, such as a sexually transmitted disease perhaps, the doctor will tell the member’s commanding officer.
Who may then punish him based on the doctors info-which prevents military members from seeking treatment from such ailments inside the military system. Its a Catch-22 created by the Morality Police that exist in the military today.
Second-no other employer does the dangerous things-like getting shot at by mortars and RPG’s- that the military does. Doctors are under enormous pressure in such situations. Should they have to also worry about getting sued by a Soldier’s family? Probably not.
Third-the military does not have enough doctors. Every hospital is understaffed, primarily because every hospital has to provide people to Iraq and Afghanistan under our twisted Individual Augmentation system. And it has more patients seeking to use the system than it can really handle.
Which begs the question: Why cannot, in the continental US, active duty people see regular civilian doctors and get reimbursed under their health insurance. Seems to me that is an out sourcing decision that would make sense.
Also is the Ferres Doctrine still valid? My own fear is that the US military will oppose any change to the law by Congress -and like my retirement robbery, Congress will not lift a finger to change it. I’m not saying doctors should be held personally liable-but as the employer the government does have a certain liability.
No post yesterday-I spent most of the day horizontal and having some very wierd dreams. The S.O. was kind enough to give me her cold and I felt like dog squeeze yesterday- all day. When I am sick and I sleep-I have the same dream over and over again. Regrettably Norika is never in it, naked, for some inexplicable reason.
Feeling better today though, which is good because tomorrow I begin one of my marathon trips-one of the last I shall make for a while, I fear. After this one, only one more then it all comes to screeching halt for a while, at least. After a couple of stops end up where else-but Korea for about 10 days. I will be freezing my a$$ off there, hat in hand, brief case full of resumes. When not working I will be crying in my beer I suspect. Shameless bleg: Anybody wants to put me in contact with some of the Yongsan /Osan contractors-please e-mail here.
So it seems time for a blog/events round up. A lot to cover and little time to cover it in.
<—————————————————————————————————>
Over at the USFSPA Repeal Group (see link on the left hand side), one of their readers has discovered that the Army actually helps former spouses collect their money. Whose side are these guys on? They are supposed to be helping the retiree keep it-not make it easier for him or her to give it away to someone who did not earn it.
Actually it points out something that should have been rectified a long time ago. Law or no law-DFAS should not be allowed to garnish retirement pay, or active duty pay for that matter-for anything. If I were president (there’s a laugh……..), I would sign an executive order forbidding DFAS to garnish any pays-period. DFAS would no longer be a bill collector-just a cash payment agency. Let the whores go through the courts and try to get their money like every other bill collector.
Besides-if DFAS was not allowed to garnish retirement checks-guys like me would have an easier time skipping the country and living in Thailand for the rest of their lives. The way it is now, I could skip to Thailand and just stop paying alimony. But she can garnish the retirement pay for her alimony. And I get screwed only receiving at most 40% of my disposable retirement pay. That’s just wrong. Let her sleep in a cardboard box-not me.
<—————————————————————————————————->
Under the category of “don’t view this if you have just eaten”, be careful when you visit Expat at Large’s place. I was treated to a rather disgusting view of his feet!
<—————————————————————————————————->
It’s official. GI Korea confirms that I spent 5 weeks in Korea this fall for no good reason. His key point is that , for the ROK’s, the status quo is the way to go. Without a substantial investment in their command and control infrastructure, they are not prepared to assume operational control. This is particularly true with respect to the ROK Navy, who recently moved to a new headquarters. ( The story is uglier, but I cannot repeat it here.). On the other hand, it is also true that the US -particularly our Navy, has some unreasonable expectations of the ROKS-like presuming they can function fully in a staff to staff relationship without a liasion element to turn ROK double talk into something a US staff can understand. They can’t do that, and if makes the ROKS happy to have a liasion element-I say let em have it. Besides, it keeps guys like me employed. Too bad the bonehead himself cannot realize that.
<—————————————————————————————————->
One of the guys I work with , does this on the weekends (not him in the video-there is nonetheless a whole subculture of guys who do this. And no, its not on his liberty plan!).
The worst part? He gets paid to do it!
On second thought- I may need this as a job soon enough!
Always, always,always-make sure the contents match up with the shipping label! The report below shows what happens when you don’t. It is actually a telling tale of the problems with globalization-you end up doing what the manufacter tells you to do.
Gakken Toys’ Smart Globe labels Taiwan as “Taiwan Island,” and its talking feature tells users that Taiwan is part of the People’s Republic of China, with its national capital in Beijing. After receiving many complaints from consumers, Gakken Toys issued a recall of the globes, offering full reimbursements to those who bought them.
Gakken had originally intended to use the standard labeling for Taiwan (as per the Ministry of Education’s specifications), but the Chinese factory based in Shenzhen apparently refused to produce the globes unless Gakken agreed to label Taiwan as part of China. Gakken agreed to the factory’s demands.
The company sold out their entire first shipment of 10,000 Smart Globes, which were released in Japan last August, but customer complaints flooded in, prompting a recall.
Interestingly, a note included in the box along with each Smart Globe explained that Taiwan’s name and data had been changed at the factory based on instructions from the Chinese government. However, at a January 10 press conference to announce the recall, Gakken said that they did not receive direct instructions to make the changes, and that they are investigating why the changes were made.
Tommorow is coming of age day in Japan. (Seijin no hi). Here’s a report on how the 20-year-olds serving at a Ground Self Defense Forces base in Fukuoka Prefecture celebrate the occasion:
Each person coming to the platform had to shout out their wishes for the new year. Some wished for a good life-some just tell jokes. I find it interesting that the senior officers were there judging them. Somehow I can picture that happening at a US Army post near you soon.
Finally, after an almost 5 month abscence, Japanese ships will return to the Indian Ocean. The bill to allow it was voted down in the Upper House of Councillors-so the bill was re-voted on in the lower house, allowing them under Japanese law to override the upper house-the first such vote in 57 years.
Most observers believe that it shows that the Democratic Party of Japan is weaker than it appears (just like its American counterpart-are you listening Nancy?). The government is making preparations to resume the refueling mission possibly around mid-February.
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
That should be George W. Bush’s other name-only this guy works in reverse. He steals from the troops and helps the rich.
One of the little noticed news stories at the end of the calendar year was GWB’s pocket veto of the Defense Authorization bill. By execising the pocket veto, it meant that the scheduled 3.5% pay raise for service personnel died with the bill. It also meant that the DOD had no authority to pay bonuses after January 1.
Which created the interesting situation where Federal Civilian employees got a 3.5% raise, but serving military personnel did not. That is because civilian personnel raises were tied into an Omnibus spending bill that was signed by the President on 26 December.
Bush’s objection concerns a little known provision that would reshape Iraq’s immunity to lawsuits, exposing the new government to litigation in U.S. courts stemming from treatment of Americans in Iraq during Saddam’s reign. Even cases that had once been rejected could be refiled.
Funny, he has no objection to serving veterans getting hung with law suits from ex-wives stealing retirement pay-but he’s all up in arms about whether the Iraqis should have to fork over some of their money. Furthermore the way they explained away the lack of the full pay raise THAT BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS approved is simply pathetic:
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the administration will work with Congress to get the additional pay raise approved and retroactive to Jan. 1 under a reworked bill. He said the bulk of the raise for the troops — 3 percent — is slated to go into effect anyway.
Sounds like a reasonable explanation doesn’t it? Except its not true.
The President released an executive order that authorized a 3.0 % pay raise to be paid. He could have very well authorized the full 3.5% in the executive order and allowed Congress to call him on it-since the raise was in the bill that went to his desk. However, what that ignores is the fact that Bush never wanted a pay raise for service men and women anyway in this budget. His original budget draft had no pay raise in it and one was only added after it became clear that Congress wanted a pay raise for service personnel. After which the 3.0% pay raise was submitted. My favorite barking hound, Dr Chu repeatedly testified that the percentage was more than enough if not too much of a pay raise. Congress recognized that to be the lie it was and passed an additional 0.5% raise. ( Which is still about 3% short of what it really should be…..). In fact he made it clear from the start he and his boss opposed doing the right thing about pay and benefits from the start. “Bush budget officials said the administration ‘strongly opposes’ both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases ‘unnecessary.”
The White House’s policy statement opposed several other Congressional provisions as well, including a death gratuity for civilians who die in support of military operations and benefits for disabled retirees and their survivors.
Can’t afford it? When the country is spending 195 million a day on the war in Iraq? Hell that’s barely two days spending for the safety of Arabs. Trust me, the US can afford it.
However its typical of the way the administration approaches pay and benefit issues. They say all the right things and then when the rubber meets the road-they do exactly the opposite. I’ll bet somewhere, somehow there is an e-mail somewhere from one of Chu’s staffers recommending that the 0.5% be ignored by the President. Can’t prove that to be sure-but it is the kind of thing that they have had no problem doing before.
Contrary to what some readers may think, that is not my personal life goal.
No post yesterday-I’ve been in an out of sorts mood and have been trying to shake off the crud that Korea always seems to inflict upon me. Decided to wine and dine the S.O. last night, stay away from computer, and really make up for my prolonged absences and my overall foul mood toward her of late.
Wine? Yup.
Dine? Yup
Mission Accomplished banner hanging from my flag bridge this morning?-Not a chance. That’s what comes of letting her spend time with too many American women……………….
Why even bother?
Speaking of American women, a faithful reader and fellow victim of Pat Schroeder’s disease sent me a useful link to a Google forum on the US’s most evil law. I’ve added the link to my sidebar. Its a Google forum about Title 10-USC 1408. Also known as the unearned income law, or USFSPA. The purpose of this forum is to bring together fellow suffers from Pat ’s malady and together learn ways to cope and increase public awareness in order to one day find a cure. ( Right now the only cure is to have the ex-wife die-but as OJ found out that too gets expensive…..).
The original hope for a cure was to have the Supreme Court actually step up to the plate and do its job actually providing a proper interpretation of the Constitution-just as it did in 1981 when it declared that military retirement was not divisible as property, and should not be- because it is retainer pay. Today, however the court is clogged with BS cases about torture, school prayer, abortion, and other crap-instead of getting me back what is rightfully mine.
This is a travesty of justice worse than giving GWB Florida……………
What this small, but growing group of victims, wants to accomplish now is to help guild an effort to make the real costs of this evil law brought to light and get Congress to repeal-and if not that-amend this evil oppression of serving men and women.
“There are not that many people affected“, you say? Interestingly enough one of the folks actually petitioned DFAS under a FOIA request (Why is this not public record information?). Just under 100,000 whores Americans are receiving direct deposits of someone else’s hard earned retirement pay under the act. That does not include the folks who had to pay huge “buy outs” to get the little bitch Mrs off their back, nor does it reflect the number of people who make direct payments to their shrews ex spouses without making DFAS the middle man. Factor that in and the number is probably two to three times that.
And the number keeps increasing with women now joining the ranks of the fucked over victims.
One really good suggestion that has come to light is that one reason Congress is so apathetic as well as my favorite sycophant civil servant, Dr Chu, to the problem, is that so few of them are affected by the law. Of the 18 announced Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, only Republicans John McCain and Duncan Hunter have served on the front lines. Three others served in noncombat roles and another two served in the reserves. Probably only one, John McCain served for a full military career and qualified for military retirement. Albeit I think no one will doubt that he earned his retirement the hard way!
But…………
He did not lose any of his Captain’s retirement in his divorce…...
Lets look at what he did give up:
John McCain gave up his interest in two homes
and agreed to pay $1,625 a month in alimony and child support when he
divorced his first wife 20 years ago, court records show.
The senator and Republican presidential candidate divorced his wife
Carol in 1980 when he was a Navy captain with a home of record in
Orange Park, Fla., about 12 miles south of Jacksonville.
McCain, 63, gave her his interest in homes in Alexandria, Va., and
South Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., according to records of the divorce
settlement obtained by The Associated Press and other newspapers.
The Arizona senator agreed to give her their furnishings, $1,325 a
month in alimony, $300 in child support. He also agreed to pay an
additional $500 monthly if she couldn’t find a job.
She was subsequently employed in the Reagan White House, according to
George “Bud” Day, McCain’s attorney during the divorce. Day also was
one McCain’s cellmates when they were prisoners of war in Vietnam.
Carol McCain, who has remained friendly with her former husband, did
not immediately return a phone call to her Virginia home Thursday
seeking comment.
McCain filed for the divorce, stating in court records that the
marriage was “irretrievably broken.”
Under the settlement, McCain maintained insurance policies worth
$64,000 with their children as beneficiaries, agreed to pay for their
daughter’s college education and paid $3,005 in joint debts. Carol
McCain got the family’s Audi, while McCain was allowed to keep a
Datsun 810 and his personal belongings, the records show.
Now in my opinion that alone is a heinous settlement-especially at 1980 prices-for a woman it would appear is, and was, quite wealthy in her own right. And who could get off her ass and work. However percentage wise, compared to many of the victims of the USFSPA, it was quite mild.
The problem is, McCain had the smarts to sell her out before Pat Schroeder’s abomination became law. However if memory serves the law did allow supposedly aggrieved ex- spouses to go back and file for what was “theirs”.
If only McCain were doing better in the polls. Then a group of veterans could get together and file a motion on behalf of the former Mrs McCain and get her divorce re-opened. Maybe if the good Senator had to give up 50% of his more than hard earned retirement-he might be a lot more sympathetic to those of us who do not have those kind of resources. If nothing else the court case could raise awareness of just how truly evil this law is-and how truly criminal the response of Dr. Chu and the department of Defense has been in sticking up for fairness and equity for serving and formerly serving Soldiers, Sailors, Airman and Marines. Hell, I bet in the right circumstances we could get some of the other candidates ( like the one who comes from a religion of multiple wives…….and sanctuary mansions) to pay for it!
I mean-it sure beats swift boating. And it helps a lot more people.
Yep, that would really make me happy. Almost as happy as opening up the paper and seeing:
My ex-wife run over by a bus.
Dr Chu identified as one Larry Craig’s secret lovers.
Seeing the USFSPA repealed.
None of which is going to happen. But a man can dream can’t he?
My favorite DOD punching bag, Dr Davd Chu-he of “I’d rather side with lawyers than do the right thing for military retirees” fame-really had nothing to do with this. Except in the fact that the tone he sets as Undersecretary for Personnel Readiness, sets the tone for rules enforcement such as this:
“It’s pretty much a slap in the face,” Anderson said. “I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership… once again failing the soldiers.”Anderson’s orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.
Yea, its not like they were busy or anything. Cause if you actually give a Soldier the benefits he’s earned-you know, like more Soldiers might want them. Can’t have that!
He will of course beam up to the Starship Project for the New American Century-the homeless shelter for the neocons and their bankrupt ideology.
Still, its nice to see another guy from DOD -who failed to stand up for the right sized force structure, and was the author of the other little thing, Iraq, get a good beating.
Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”“When combined with the overall military benefit package, the president’s proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families,” the policy statement says. “While we agree military pay must be kept competitive, the 3 percent raise, equal to the increase in the Employment Cost Index, will do that.”
Yea right……..try telling that to the family on month 16 of a 15 month tour in …..(fill in the blank).
Not a lot of time tonight. And what time I did have, I wasted putting up a post over here.
However, I have been watching some of the footage from the Congressional hearings about Walter Reed. I’ve also listened to the strident pledges of change that have come from the very top. From my little vantage point, I find it more than amusing-actually rather sad- that the administration seems to be only finding out about these things now. The truth is that people had been telling them that there were problems with veterans care for a long time now.
There are a lot more examples that can be given of how the Bush administration has been the most military personnel unfriendly administration since Jimmy Carter. When the good Dr Chu stands up and says that he is shocked that things were astray at Walter Reed, you should know that he is lying through his teeth. Plenty of veterans groups had tried to get the point across-that the administrations commitment to proper benefits was shallow and half hearted. Only to be ignored again and again.
Maybe the President did not know about it. However Rummy’s boys did. And they did nothing.
So they say. Which is why I am passing the following on to you. A concerned reader and fellow victim of flawed congressional legislation has sent the following letter to the Secretary of Defense. His central point is worth noting: its time for Dr. David S.C. Chu to be sent packing.
Read for yourself:
The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301-1000Dear Secretary Gates:
You are to be commended for accepting the resignation of Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey in the wake of the scandalous and deplorable treatment of patients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I now respectfully request you solicit the resignation of Dr. David S. C. Chu, Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness).
Since taking his current Department of Defense post, Dr. Chu has testified before Congress, given speeches and written articles for the media on numerous occasions. If the topic relates to veterans’ issues, retired military personnel or military dependents benefits his approach has repeatedly been negative. In fact, some of his public comments have actually displayed disdain for those who, in the past, served their country with honor. He has been particularly vicious in arguing against expenditures for veteran and retiree health care.
I do not need to chronicle all the reasons why Dr. Chu is viewed as the designated “attack dog” fighting against apparently anything that will benefit active duty, veteran and retired military personnel. Following are just a few of the items Dr. Chu has opposed:
-Concurrent receipt
-Reduced Reserve retirement age
-Health Care improvements for veterans
-Hikes in Imminent Danger pay and family separation allowance
That’s just the begining of a long list of sins. In his position Dr Chu has oversight on Military Healthcare. In fact the now departed Assistant Secretary of Defense for Healthcare issues worked for Dr Chu. Few people know who he is. However just about every verterans group has had issues with Dr Chu-ever since he came into office he has been the voice of non-compassion. Having a visibile and public firing of Dr Chu would send a message that the new SECDEF gets it. Even if it did nothing to solve Walter Reed, it would be welcomed by the military coalition. Having their support will be critical in the months and years to come.
Because in the end, as Rep Waxman stated, the scandal at Walter Reed is just the tip of the iceberg. Take a stroll around the milblogs and you will see that DOD has big problems and it all comes down to one thing: requirements are outstripping resources. Its not just healthcare, its equipment, its people, its so many things that are not being resourced properly. As I have said repeatedly, that was the primary responsibilty of Donald Rumsfeld. It was a task that he failed miserably at.
It’s important for Secretary Gates to distance himself from any trace of the old regime. Firing Dr Chu advances that cause. Many of the other villians are gone: Wolfwitz, Feith, even Rumsfeld himself. This would simply be completing the circle.
I watched an interesting special on TV tonight. It was about the big shift that has occurred in funding retirement and in particular how the 401K is not the be-all, end-all that many have made it out to be. For military people and military retirees, this discussion is particularly apt, since my favorite Pentagon dickhead bureaucrat is spearheading the charge to change the military retirement system from one of fairness and defined benefits to one of inequality and uncertainty. Its time for Congress to reject the proposals of the Defense Advisory Commission on Military Compensation once and for all.
Dr Chu wants to take the current retirement system and turn it into a 401K style contribution system-eliminating the ability to retire at 20 years and receive payments and require servicememebers to wait until they are 60 to receive anything for their service-regardless of when they leave the service. For the department of defense it means saving money and elimnating “entitlements”-which allows them to make the proper way of saying it, receiving what you have earned and risked your life for-sound like its a bad thing.
The problem is, the military is very ripe for a phenomenon noted in the program-what they called yield disparity:
HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] I was curious. Why would Thibeau and Crabb have such wildly different results with the same 401(k) plan? In Dallas, I found the man with the answer, a corporate benefits consultant with 50 years of experience named Brooks Hamilton.
Originally, Hamilton had been a big believer in the magic of 401(k)s, but by the 1990s, he began to notice troubling differences among employees in the 15 corporate 401(k) plans that he was running.
BROOKS HAMILTON, Corporate Benefits Consultant: They were all large plans with $100 million, $200 million dollars in the plan, and 1,000, 2,000 participants or more, so these were big plans. And they were scattered around geographically, some up East and some on the West Coast.
HEDRICK SMITH: Hamilton dug deep into his 401(k) records, analyzing investment yields for every single worker in every single plan.
BROOKS HAMILTON: We saw the same thing over and over. Say the bottom 20 percent had an investment return for the year  for the year  of 4 percent. The top 20 percent would be anywhere between 5 and 7 times that number.
HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] Like 30 percent.
BROOKS HAMILTON: Yeah, 30 percent. Right.
HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] According to Hamilton, the huge differences between Thibeau and Crabb reflected a far larger problem.
BROOKS HAMILTON: In every case, the 20 percent at the top not only had the highest investment income  like 30 percent or whatever  they also had the highest average annual pay, whereas the bottom 20 percent not only had the lowest investment income, 4 percent, they had the lowest average annual pay.
HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] So what you’re saying is the best paid people, the richest people are getting richer, and the middle class workers are falling further behind.
BROOKS HAMILTON: Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I label this “yield disparity.” I just coined the term. I thought we have a yield disparity that is a financial cancer in this  in our great, beautiful 401(k) movement. And I had never seen it before, but it was everywhere I looked.
HEDRICK SMITH: What do you mean, a financial cancer?
BROOKS HAMILTON: It would destroy the opportunity for ordinary workers to retire in dignity. They couldn’t get there from here.
HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] It’s a huge problem. Half of America’s workers are not covered by any retirement plan. Forty percent are enrolled in some 401(k)-style plans, and according to the latest report from the Federal Reserve, the average family’s account balance is only $29,000.
And it’s not just average Americans who have trouble making a 401(K) work well. Even the experts have trouble.
The military now has a TSP plan (a version of a 401K) but it does little training for its young people in how to manage that plan-if they even sign up. Guys like Dr Chu however have no such worries since they have been covered by the Federal Employee Retirement System for years and have considerable assets built up from their stints outside of governement when the Republicans lose the White House.
Kind of like this guy:
HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] United’s senior management got big bonuses to stay on during bankruptcy. Like everyone else, they took a hit on their pensions, but they more than made up for any losses by receiving a grant of $400 million in new stock.
But not everyone’s pension was cut.
GREG DAVIDOWITCH: All United employee pensions have not taken a hit. One notable exception is Glenn Tilton, who negotiated as part of his employee contract that a secular pension trust would be established for him, for his retirement security.
HEDRICK SMITH: CEO Glenn Tilton got special protection for his personal retirement benefit, a benefit from his former employer that was bought out by United.
ROBIN GILINGER, Flight Attendant, United: Our current CEO has decided to keep his $4.5 million pension. It was unfair that he was keeping his in his contract and we were having to give ours up.
HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] How about Glenn Tilton’s retirement guarantee?
BILL REPKO: I’m not going there. [laughs] I don’t want to go on the record with that one.
HEDRICK SMITH: Is that a good idea, when he’s asking other people’s pensions to be put on the chopping block?
BILL REPKO: You know, Glenn Glenn did a great job. I think Glenn’s compensation was appropriate under the circumstances.
HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Glenn Tilton declined FRONTLINE’s repeated requests to talk about United’s bankruptcy. But the company says it is rehiring again, training 2,400 new flight attendants to replace some of the more than 5,000 who left during bankruptcy. United says it saved 55,000 jobs out of 83,000 pre-bankruptcy. Its financial advisers boast that United saved $7 billion a year in costs through bankruptcy. Five billion dollars in cuts came at the expense of employees and retirees. Unions report pension losses for more than 50,000 people because the government’s payout formula from the PBGC is lower than United’s contracts.
GREG DAVIDOWITCH: We’re looking at the abandoning of corporate responsibilities. We’re looking at changing the expectation of the middle class with regard to health care and retiree benefits. And it’s just not United Airlines. It’s happening all across the private sector in America today.
JAMES H.M. SPRAYREGEN, United Bankruptcy Attorney: The restructuring business or the Chapter 11 business is just part and parcel of the American economy. I call it the efficient working of American capitalism.
HEDRICK SMITH: That efficiency took a heavy personal toll on rank-and-file employees, people like 42-year-old flight attendant Robin Gilinger. Gilinger says she lost pay, some benefits and 30 percent of her pension.
ROBIN GILINGER: Because of the bankruptcy, I have gone through great changes in the time I’m away from my family and the time that I have
Tilton is not the only one who has gotten rich on the backs of his employees. Its a cautionary tale of what Lou Dobbs hammers on every day-the war on the Middle Class. Get rich and life is good. Be in the middle or below, well you get to see your buying power reduced every year. But hey, not worry, the economy is doing great.
And those United Employees don’t have the added extra bonus of being shipped off to a place where they might get killed or lose a limb.
One of the things people forget is that the 401K system was never intended to be a primary source of retirement income. It was always meant to be a supplemental way to add to the base retirement plan of many companies. However, thanks to some obscure changes to the tax code, corporate greed and increased pressure to cut costs-companies quickly found that they could shift the burden to their employees and save 50% in retirement funding costs. Which increased the value of the stock options the executives held.
Remember that the next time some SES-2 or Flag officer tells you that we need to change the compensation system. They have their money-will you have yours?
The S.O. and Dr. David Chu sure are showing theirs.
S.O. is watching Home Finders on HGTV about all these people with bucks who buy and remake houses. Like she needs to be watching that and getting ideas. Bad ideas…….
Then there is Mr Chu:
Oh Chu is such a stingy man, The tighest man since time began. Oh he’s so tight so tight I say, He wouldn’t give a bride away.
It hurts him so to pay one cent, He wouldn’t pay a compliment. He makes bases use lightning bugs at night, to save the cash they’d pay for light!
Dr Chu has indicated that he supports the DACMC’s (Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation ) recommendations which he intends to turn over to the 10th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC). Chu has said he plans to send Congress at least one of the DACMC’s recommendations separately extending the pay table to 40 years of service. Surprise, surprise, this has not yet been done.
Some of the other recommendations of the committee were:
- eliminating the immediate annuity upon retirement and delaying payment until age 60,
-providing additional retired pay credit (and basic pay increases) through 40 years of service,
-initiating government contributions to a Thrift Savings Plan or 401(k)-like plan of 5 percent to 10 percent of basic pay, vesting of members between 5 years and 10 years of service,
-creating a gate pay system to provide lump-sum payment incentives at specific points of service,
-vesting in the retirement health care benefit at completion of 20
years of service, and
-raising single housing allowances to the with dependents rates.
The key recommendation is the elimination of the 20 year retirement, without any mention of any way to make a military career a viable option for most serving military people till 40 years. What the good Mr Chu and his cohorts really want is for people to leave when they are used up as far as the military is concerned, but not get any money to offset the lost opportunities in other careers while they went to garden spots like Iraq and the Afghanistan over and over over again. After all “people are expensive”.
And when his hearse goes rolling by,
No Soldier or Sailor is gonna cry,
But you can bet his ghost will curse,
because DOD is paying for the hearse.
After all Dr Chu s quoted as saying that young military people don’t value a 20 year retirement, “all they want is a pickup truck”. Maybe, but as they get the experience you value, Dr Chu, that retirement becomes pretty important pretty quick. Perhaps instead of butt sharking Duncan Hunter to screw veterans, you should get out and talk to those pickup driving, money saving young people. You would be surprised how much they know about money.
Like it or not the military is a young MAN’s game. Its just the way it is. I learned that near the end when doing each PRT was an ordeal and I hated it with a passion. Plus DOD has shown no inclination to increastrengthstrengh so those old timers sticking around will simply make advancement opportunity even worse. Or perhaps not since the next shoe to drop after removing 20 year retirement will be forced exits and RIF’s just like the USAF us doing this year ( and the Navy……). Just like corporate America. The only guys who will stay for 40 years will be the sycophants…..
The other tenant of the pay plan will be not paying people of the same paygrade the same money. Now that exists today through flawed programs like AIP and some of the bonus programs, but folks have some opportunity to choose their path. What the pay raise plan they propose ignores is that in death there is total equality and IBM and other companies don’t have the right to ask you to die for the corporation. That one reality alone demands semi-equality among pay grades and points up why the current system of pay raises is a good one. Want to get rid of the dead wood? Make High Year tenure limits strict, increase advancement opportunity and have selective early retirement looks for senior pay grades after selection boards.
Or better yet, why not look at something like the British do. At the 18 year point all would have to apply for a transition to the career force. Get selected, you get to stay till 55 and retire with your full pay. Get told no and in less than 2 years, you are on Her Majesty’s unemployment line ( with a pension of sorts….). Only about 20% of officers make that cut, and for those that don’t well at least they are young enough to viably re-enter the job market with skills employers and society need. The US Navy could do a similar thing at the 18 year point, by which in most cases the tenor of you career is set any way, you are either one of the beautiful people or you are not. The percentage could vary based on end strength and there could be some room for negotiation for folks who agree to “take one for the team” by taking a raw deal. Non-selects would have 2 years to transition and then move on at 20. Selects would have to agree to serve overseas and other places and would, in all probability, end up as “professional” staff officers on a variety of staffs they way so many Brits I’ve met have done. ( And who out class their American counterparts in professionalism and military expertise….).
But then again, that might actually require Dr Chu to actually care about what happens to all those new veterans. He’s already proven his inability to do that.
And when its time for him to go,
His soul will travel down below.
And when he gets there you can tell,
Because you’ll hear old Satan yell,
YOU’LL HEAR OLD SATAN YELL!
“How can anybody be so stingy, so stingy. How can anybody be so stingy. He’s the stingiest man in town!”
(Paraphrased from the musical of the same name…….Skippy-san)
A reader e-mailed me and tipped me off to the fact that Donald Rumsfeld had a chance to be a hero to victimized affected servicemen and women, but avoided the issue entirely. Evidently during his Town Hall meeting in Korea, a question was asked about the Former Spouse protection act and why DOD still refuses to do the right thing and stick up for the little guy. According to my source, ” the question drew a thunderous applause from the crowd, but he dodged it. He[Rumsfeld] ended up saying Congess was not willing to revisit the issue yet”. I tried to get a transcript on Defense Link , but it was not posted yet. Hopefully it will be. While he did not have time to get anything meaningful said, he did have time for a photo op though:
Jenifer talks about this event on her blog. She points out the issue:
My question? “Why is military retired pay being treated as a marital
asset?” Instead, another trooper from across the gym asked that question and
gave a complete monetary assessment of what he was giving to his ex-spouse. Mr.
Secretary’s answer? I am aware of that issue, I have been informed about that concern. What I am referring to readers, is the U.S.F.S.P.A. enacted in 1982, by Congress; in essence it is simply this: If you marry somebody while you are in the military and stay married to them for ten years and get divorced, for whatever reason, that ex-spouse gets half of your retirement pay should you make the military a career and successfully retire. This applies even if they remarry. Is it fair? No it isn’t.
Damn right its not fair! You will recall back in June when the SECDEF was cornered on this issue
he promised to have Dr Chu take a look at the issue. Anyone who is familar with Dr Chu’s record and lack of compasssion knows that “having Dr Chu look at it” is the equivelant of saying, “I’ll take your suggestion and stick it in the round file………..”. It is the fox guarding the hen house.
Since then has anything been done by Dr Chu? The real answer is nothing. He would dispute that of course, however I will let you be the judge of that by asking you to read this statement by the lady who started the question ball rolling:
Written Statement Prepared for The Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS)On October 18th, 2005
By Lieutenant Colonel Patricia M. Larrabee,
U.S. Army
In two minutes, it is impossible to explain the intricacies of the issue I’d like to bring to your attention. I will use a scenario to at least help illustrate a portion of the issue. Two Army Officers marry. At the time of marriage, they both have 5 years of service behind them.After a year and a half of marriage the male decides he no longer wants to be in the military– as it is not lucrative enough for him. They decide that he will get out of the military and complete a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science (that he has been working on part time for several years) and then pursue a Master of Science degree in Software Engineering. He attends school full time without employment for over three years. During those three years, the female officer commands a company, continues to work on her master’s degree after duty hours and has their first child. The male then enters the civilian workforce. Shortly after, he decides he wants to pursue an MBA and begins taking night courses. Upon reassignment to another state, the male spouse stays behind and takes another six months off from employment to finish his MBA, while the female officer makes the move to the new state alone with their two-year-old child. She again provides the only support for the family—but, this time in two different states. They soon have a second child. Although the male has gone from making approximately $32k per year to making $100k per year over the course of their 9 year marriage—largely due to the schooling and support he receives– the male feels that the Army is “holding him back”. They agree to divorce. The marriage ends at nine years. In a routine divorce proceeding, the male spouse is granted 22.5% of her retirement; which she has to continue to work for another six years before earning. The female officer is ordered to begin payments at 20 years of service, whether she chooses to retire at that time or not and continue these payments until her death. This court order effectively ends her career as
she will not be able to afford to pay him out of her monthly military pay while supporting her two young children. The female officer was blind-sided in the courtroom. In her 14 years of service, there was never any information provided by the Army to educate her of such a possibility.
This is my story. The issue is the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA) that was passed by Congress in 1982.
As I began to research this issue, I found that there were already over 250,000 military members who suffered from this unfair law before me. These victims include: male, female; regular force, retirees, national guard and reserve military members.
But how can that be? It appears that only those of us who have gone through a divorce know the true affects that this unfair law can impose on us. Everyone else seems to believe certain “myths”about the law and its affects.
Is it possible that our senior leaders are unaware of the negative affects on our service members of this unfair law?
In the Defense Department World Wide Town Hall meeting on 29 June 2005, I used my personal example to illustrate to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and GEN Myers the unfairness of the USFSPA to military service members and to point out that it is causing retention issues.
Mr. Rumsfeld was unaware of this law and stated, “I’ve never heard of it.” However, GEN Myers was familiar with the law and stated that it was an “old” law put into place for “different times…when spouses were normally women…and when they probably did not work…” Mr. Rumsfeld’s public response to me on the 29th of June was that he would have “Dr. Chu look at it”. GEN Myers agreed that was necessary. Seven weeks later, I received a letter from one of Dr. Chu’s subordinates stating that the “Department of Defense is fully aware” of the issue and citing the USFSPA 2001 Report to Congress that his office prepared. This report was in response to a 1998 directive from Congress and took three years to complete—two years later than directed.
Who in DoD is aware of this issue and its affects on the military subordinates? If the report was dated in 2001, then why had Mr. Rumsfeld not heard of it in June of 2005? When reviewing the report, I realized that it contained no stated leadership position indicating that Mr.
Rumsfeld had no influence on its content. The report is completely devoid of any leadership concerns for the recruiting, retention, or welfare of the military members. In fact, the report reduced this very important issue to a “staff action.” The whole report appears to be an exercise in reaching a consensus on a list of issues. Since when do we lead our military by consensus?
Why was such an important report, which was specifically requested by Congress to be prepared and submitted by the Secretary of Defense, not endorsed by the Secretary of Defense himself? If Mr. Rumsfeld did not approve the final report, who in DoD approved it? How do we know that Mr. Rumsfeld, as our Secretary of Defense and senior Civilian Department of Defense leader, agrees with the consensus’ reached and final report prepared and submitted by the staff?
One of the very first and basic principals we learn as second lieutenants is to take care of our subordinates. In other words, look out for their personal welfare. How can our leaders look out for our welfare if they are not in touch with the issues that affect us?
Although many believe that USFSPA was originally well intentioned, it has turned into a discriminatory law working against military members and their families. This law is actually providing incentive for non-supportive spouses to abandon their marriages and take half of what the
military member has worked for toward retirement. GEN Myers is right. The USFSPA is outdated. Its original intent was to ensure that spouses who had no opportunities for careers of their own were not left with nothing in the event of a divorce. The times have changed. The military services have facilitated higher education opportunities for these spouses world-wide; families are stabilized for longer periods of time allowing spouses to get educations and jobs; and family members are given priority for filling government jobs all over the world. Women have come a long way in achieving their own career goals. It is time that we move into the 21st century and restore the rights of our military members to what they originally contracted for when they joined the military. Ex-spouses of military members have the same rights in divorce courts as those married to civilian members of this country. Why should these ex-spouses be “rewarded” with life time payments automatically for “calling it quits” on the service member? The service member must successfully serve 20 years to get these retirement payments for life. What does the ex-spouse have to do? He/she must simply marry a service member and then divorce the service member—no questions asked! It is time to stop forcing military men and women to support their ex-spouses until their deaths!
Many women have worked hard to gain career opportunities over the past 30 or so years. Why must those of us who actually work hard for a career have to pay the price for those who choose not to have a career? For those women, we have State laws that protect them in their divorces. As they get older, they can file on their ex-husband’s social security—just as every other civilian woman who chooses not to pursue a career.
I formally request that DACOWITS take this issue and fully study the affects on the service members and families. We have had 23 years of mistreatment in divorce court proceedings against service members
because of a bad law. In this time of War, the Department of Defense leadership owes it to those who fight for this nation to study this issue. We need the leadership to learn the issues, understand the issues, and then make decisions that are in the best interest of the National Security of this nation.
Let us not forget that famous quote by George Washington, “The willingness with which our young people are to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by our nation.”
Smart lady. I think this statement she says everything the SECDEF could and should say in a letter to the Congress urging them to scrap the law or at the least, reform its most heinous provisions. Congress not ready to take it on? Maybe, but no one has given them the opportunity in 3 years. Also if key figures in this administration would lend their weight to this effort, one might see better results. And it costs DOD nothing to do so, however it costs them everything in the respect of those of us who are victimized by the cruel and useless law.
Its a testament to the cynic in me that thinks, “maybe that is what this will take…..make this a woman’s issue and someone in DOD will pay attention to it. God forbid we could do something to improve the lot of men in the service! ” For 20 years men have been saying exactly the same thing as LT COL Larabee says. To deaf ears. Those of you who have read my writing for a while know that I am no friend of DACOWITS or its feminist agenda. But I am a pragmatist. If this will get the wheels turning, then OK I’ll live with. After all, DOD never says no to anything DACOWITS proposes………..
This question in Korea though, does point out another thing that might help get this evil law undone. This should be a question that comes up at every Q&A forum the SECDEF does. Anyplace, anytime. Bloggers can help spread the word. Perhaps if the Secretary hears the same question and the tales of misery repeated often enough, he and the rest of the powers that be will become more and more convinced it is an issue they can no longer hide from.
There is one other thing that each and every one of us, active duty or retired can do and no one in DOD can stop us: Write your Congressman! It is the right of every serviceman or woman to write their elected representatives. It cannot be taken away. However your retirement can. So if Congress “is not ready” then lets all help them get ready!
Middle of the road kind of guy. Love living in Asia and will be back there as soon as I can. I lived 8 and a half grand and glorious years in Asia traveling from one end to the other and generally having a really good time. Now I am going to be paying for my sins, by having to serve a 1-2 year exile from paradise back in the USA. Like the Israelites, I will be wandering in the wilderness looking to find my way home. Always on the lookout for my next ex-wife.
