The Obama Administration has insisted on the health care overhaul being revenue neutral even though it could save thousands of lives to provide health care for all. If this is necessary, the escalation in Afghanistan, which will cost hundreds, if not thousands of lives should also be revenue neutral.
To do this the money should be redirected from other parts of the DoD budget. Speeding up the withdrawal from Iraq could be one major source of cuts. Another would be closing US military bases around the world. Okinawa does not want us there -- it's been 64 years since the end of WW II; we can remove the troops. We could return Guantanamo to Cuba -- we no longer need it as a coaling station. Honduras violated its agreement with us to restore its coup-ousted president; we don't need a military base there. We can close most bases in Germany and South Korea.
Reducing our military footprint around the world would improve the US's stature in the rest of the world. People in allied countries ask why the US should have military bases in their country when they don't have military bases in our country. If we would object to having foreign military bases on our soil (I would), we should be able to understand that citizens of other countries feel the same way.
President Clinton had a military budget of between $250 B and $300 Billion. Obama should strive to reduce the budget back to that level.
President Obama,
You were elected with the greatest wave of hope that I have seen since the election of President Kennedy...
...and now I feel terribly let down.
You have allowed, yes allowed the radical right to capture the emotions of this nation.
Although your negotiating skills are important; although your intelligence is important; although your organizing abilities are important; the most important ability you have is the ability to inspire.
You have not been using that ability lately at all. You have gotten sucked into the endless chess game of power and politics, and you have neglected your constituency, big time!
I listen to the news and the talk shows with dismay. I have been to a town hall meeting on health care with Lynn Woolsey. The passion and fear of the radical right was prominent, although not in the majority. It is hard to believe that so much credence is given to such outrageous lying. The right wing does not approach this subject, or any other, as far as I can tell, with logic or facts; its approach is on a crazy version of faith. It is like people who twist the bible to support their hate and then say, "The bible says it and I believe it." They forget that the people who hated Jesus were the ones who upheld the letter of the law, but not the spirit; the ones who were judgmental and divisive, not the ones who believed in love and community.
The greatness of the United States was NOT achieved by people acting alone, as much as independence is prized here. It was achieved by people acting together. People harvested their crops together, raised barns together. People helped each other. They were good neighbors. We developed a system of free public education, so all children could be educated, not just those of the rich and powerful.
Respect for the United States in the world was not born of military prowess, but of respect for the generosity, caring and fairness of the American people. It was because, at one time, we took the high road, the road less traveled!
Now we have fallen. We take the low road, talking about the necessity for something we don't call torture, but is. We kill, not to protect people from tyranny, but to protect *our* resources, even if they are located in the countries of others.
I find it so hard to believe, President Obama, that you seem to be cooperating with those who are so short-sighted as to believe that the well-being of the United States rests with military domination.
You talk about health care, but you have given away everything important that you might have done for health care. You talk about health care costs, but you are no different than President Bush in your spending our hard-earned wealth on death, on military adventures and military toys. Do you hope to save on health care and give those savings to the military?
Is it time for me to realize that I have been had? That in handing you this election, the American people have been had? Where is the man I voted for?
Yes we can...what? We can sit by while you allow the military-industrial complex and the insurance vipers to destroy America? I don't usually use that term, America - it applies to pretty much the whole western hemisphere, but I use it now, for the idea of American. The idea of people living together in freedom and peace, in community, caring for the well-being of all - not just our families, not just our town, not just our state, but everyone, everywhere. I thought we were nice people! What happened? Tears come to my eyes as I write these words. What happened?
I could understand the trend under President Bush - but you?
I know you cannot single-handedly do it all. But you have ceased to be a leader, because a leader inspires. A leader calls to the best and highest in us. The majority of Americans responded to that call when they voted for you. They were overjoyed at the opportunity to put their energy into positive endeavors at last.
You are gone, it seems. You have gone over to the fraternity of the rich and powerful.
I am dispirited, left behind, holding the (empty) bag of hope, while the mean-spirited rejoice.
I must comment on the idea that pulling down our $100 billion in foreign aid to help other initiatives in the US is somehow going to be “good” for America. This argument pops up every time the US Mindset returns to focus on the disastrous budget deficits we have been running for nearly 2 generations now. Unfortunately, like the ups and downs of our economy, all discussion related to the deficit dies as soon as the economy turns the corner and people go back to focusing on making money in the latest paper bubble. It is also unfortunate that these incredible "peace time" budget deficits do little more than expose the underlying reality that the US economy has become so reliant on consumer spending and non manufacturing "industries" that our bubble to burst cycles have become more frequent (about every 10 years) and more dramatic. Obviously, with the economy based on businesses that have no physical infrastructure and or physical output capacity (the production of intangible products) they are able to grow rapidly when able to exploit the latest economic / financial gimmick and can just as rapidly shrink when that "event" is played out. Consumption as we all know is primarily of foreign made products of all varieties. Getting back to the argument that somehow reducing our "foreign aid" and bringing back a few billion dollars back to the US as having any tangible ability to "enhance" our economic development. This is a completely false argument and even when foreign aid has been reduced during tough economic times, it quickly returns during boom times and is usually a greatly celebrated event stamped by whoever happens to be in the White House as an example of the how "generous American" people are willing to back whatever pop-charity is prevalent at that time. Before I go on, I will preface my argument with my own jaded view of the machine that functions in Washington of ex-piece-corp / lobbyist / international "aid" how to make $200k a year "non-profits" with "do gooder" figurehead cronies "leaders" related to the various politicians, lobbyist, ex-politicians etc., all of whom are very good at raking money out of the Federal Government to feed themselves using their idealistic agenda. These many folk are professional and very good at making carriers for themselves, backed by US Gov money under the guise of "international aid" and normally spend most of their time traveling the world, speaking, living in posh neighborhoods of DC and otherwise justifying their idealistic agenda to other folks who look just like them or aspire to create their "careers" picking up in their footprints. The vast majority of US Foreign "aid" goes in the pockets of these folks and their extended networks and little of it gets anywhere near the end "user" or "target" of the program or individuals it was designed to "help". I could go on but you get the point. In addition, the "International Aid" machine in Washington and associated labyrinth of non-profits (most often not of international focus) are also often the best way to pay for access to the political machine. "Give $50k to my wife's / sister's / friend's / ex-business partner's / other relative's charity and we can talk" kind of politics. Having said all of that, I will go back to the argument that somehow reducing foreign aid is going to better our economy if we redirect that cash. We have directly spent since our pointless invasion of Iraq no less than $1 Trillion. I remember Bush's speech during the height of the financial crises when talk of $700 billion to bail out financial institutions was being thrown around and thinking, "George, why don't you just say it? You know how much $700 billion is, you spent more than that battling your fictitious "enemies" on the other side of the planet for the past 5 years." George could have just said, "T-ain't anything America. Just deal with it. I know the war was a great excuse to use my access to the largest "bank" on the planet to write checks to my friends and buddies, esp. the ones who lost so much money in the .dot com crash and Enron like debacles of the early part of my presidency, but this, well, now we have another "crises" primarily created by my friends and I got no nation to invade so please excuse me if I just hand this money over directly to them this time!" Well, that is reality you know. So what about "foreign aid"? What about pulling our vast military presence out of Japan, 2/3 of it out of Korea and Europe? What about exiting Iraq? Can we get that Trillion Dollars (plus the estimated Trillion or so legacy costs) back? Never. What about the pointless war in Afghanistan? Does anybody ever ask themselves what the real long term ramifications of a decade war against Muslim extremist around the globe will have on the long term desire of these folks to one day actually organize themselves some kind of multi-nation alliance and truly threaten other nations? I mean really, right now and for the years going back to the beginning of radical Muslim movements against nations outside of Israel (the true root of all this mess), was there ever a time in modern history they had the potential to do anything more than cause a bit of terror by blowing something up with some rudimentary explosive devises or come up with more creative ways to use our own technology against us like in the 9.11 "attack"? Come on? Help me out here. How many Americans ever went to bed worried that some "army" from the middle east would invade their shores? We and a few other developed nations feed our "allied" Muslim nation friends all of their military technology for crying out loud. These folks cannot even make a microphone or CD player in their own nations let alone a computer or sophisticated guidance system, navy fleet, air force or any other mass weapon arsenal necessary to threaten other nations. Isn't it true the primary reason we don't want Iran to develop the technology to enrich uranium is that we really don't want any of the nations on the planet that do not align themselves with our capitalist / "democratic" value system to have the ability to create ANY technology or products which could head them in the direction of being able to create real weapons of mass destruction like we do? And so with all this, is taking $25 or $50 billion out of our "foreign aid" going to solve anything? We are directing hundreds of billions of dollars every year to our global military infrastructure; billions more are spent subsidizing our agricultural and agricultural exports; billions more are being spent / or credited to companies for the removal of fossil fuels from all corners of the planet; billions of dollars are being sucked out of our economy, from each individual, by companies operating within pathetically designed regulation / lack of regulation of our energy companies and infrastructure; billions of dollars are being sucked out of the American taxpayer every year for the construction of and maintenance of a transportation infrastructure designed specifically for the single most destructive product in use on the entire planet, the automobile; billions of dollars in energy literally escape right in the atmosphere by the pathetically designed and geographically dispersed regulation of building standards that allow millions of structures to be built annually with the environmental soundness of a mid 20th century box; billions of dollars are being spent incarcerating millions of Americans each year instead of educating them (with more of these dollars going into private hands each year);billions of dollars are being sucked out of the wealth of people, their pension plans and their governments around the planet monthly by the vast unregulated financial industries that have learned to rake as much cash out of the planet's financial wealth as possible with no nation, government, regulatory authority or power to answer to but the pursuit of as much wealth as humanly possible... I could go on about how many ways $25-$50 billion a year are completely wasted, lost, sucked into the coffers of companies riding the "free economic" poorly regulated and wasteful economy we have created but I will rest here.
Suffice to say, any person who decides to go after the politically easy, populace target of "foreign aid" when the true causes of our financial mess and destructive economic model lies right in front of us, is only succumbing to a failed logic and worse, exposing themselves to a deeper sense of "America is right and great and we should look after ourselves even if much of what we do economically and militarily is pathetically harmful to the planet and humanity in general."
Today irritation: Congress approves military projects and government spending NOT requested by the users of the end product. Presidential helicopters not wanted, planes not needed, unsuccessful projects allowed to continue running over both their budget and time estimates - not by small amounts, but by years and millions of dollars.
My experience with both personal and business budgeting - Being the expert in my field, I create the wish list of expenses, my possible sources of income and reconcile the 2 by removing expenses that cannot be paid for. Congress has taken the wish list of government that was created by experts, added projects Congress wants without regard to the experts' wishes and removed/denied $ for budget items that truly help individuals, and Congress created expenses that have no intrinsic value or result for the American people. Since when did Congress develop knowledge and planning abilities beyond those of the experts we have running our very specialized areas of our government?? Who does Congress represent? Certainly not me or any Americans I know.
The result of Congress wanting these things:
- MY tax dollars are spent on products that when complete will go into some unused equipment storage facility
- MY tax dollars cannot pay for direct help to individual Americans like healthcare and infrastructure
- THEY receive huge lobbyist money for choosing with the side of businesses instead of individuals (it would be cheaper to pay the salaries of those you fear might lose their jobs than to also pay business profit and use materials to create products no one wants!)
-THEY continue to have a job, get paid well, have their healthcare provided and line their pockets with money from businesses
Government support and bailout should be to the individuals of our country. When they are directly given the $ to save their mortgage, pay for their healthcare and put their lives in the best order possible, then businesses will receive that money through normal operational channels, as they should. Businesses and government should always be at the mercy of the desires and needs of individual Americans - let people speak their mind with their money, how they spend it, save it, and get the best return for it in both services and goods.
Obama, please be stronger and believe in your ability to fight through the confrontation to disallow these unethical and immoral practices that have moved individual Americans to the back burner so that businesses, politicians, and the wealthy can reap many benefits at the expense of the true fiber of America - individual people who work hard, have a generous heart within their community, struggle to make financial ends meet, experience constant stress about their jobs and the ability of their families to survive, and foresee a future as gloomy as today. REAL CHANGE PLEASE!!!!!
Irena Salina’s award-winning documentary investigation into what experts label the most important political and environmental issue of the 21st Century - The World Water Crisis.
Salina builds a case against the growing privatization of the world’s dwindling fresh water supply with an unflinching focus on politics, pollution, human rights, and the emergence of a domineering world water cartel.
Interviews with scientists and activists intelligently reveal the rapidly building crisis, at both the global and human scale, and the film introduces many of the governmental and corporate culprits behind the water grab, while begging the question “CAN ANYONE REALLY OWN WATER?”
Beyond identifying the problem, FLOW also gives viewers a look at the people and institutions providing practical solutions to the water crisis and those developing new technologies, which are fast becoming blueprints for a successful global and economic turnaround. (Excerpt from main website)
Please visit the official website for more information: http://www.flowthefilm.com
Click the Fullscreen Button for a larger version.
http://politicalpete.com/forum/index.php
http://politicalpete.com/
In 1993 the federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. 654) was passed that prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."
16 years ago this law was progress. Today the law is antiquated and irrelevant.
It seems logical that sexual activity of any kind, by anyone, discussed or performed while fulfilling military duties would "risk the high standards of morale, good order and discipline and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." So why would a persons sexual intent be a topic of discussion or behavior while on duty?
Socially acceptable behavior, values and morals are not the divine providence of the “straight” men and women of the United States of America. Sexual orientation is not a precondition for promiscuity nor is it a guarantee of holiness. Straights and gays alike have high standards, faults and vices but these are not determined by their sexual orientation.
Each person is born to this world with a genetic code. Soon science will determine what percentage of who we are is determined by our DNA and what percentage is dictated by social conditioning.
In the mean time the United States of America is threatened by losing valuable, highly educated and skilled members of the U.S. military due to their sexual orientation. Men and women who have committed their lives to protecting the United States of America are targeted for discrimination because of fear and prejudice. This act of discrimination in the military must be stopped thru legislation.
President Obama I respectfully request that you and the current administration make every effort to repeal the federal law “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. 654) of 1993 and replace it with a law that offers protection against discrimination due to sexual orientation for all men and women that serve in the military of the United States of America.
Even the idea that the Taliban could possess nuclear material is harmful to our national security. The President should declare that and have spies and satellites vigilant in Pakistan. In the event Pakistan military forces are overrun near sites containing nuclear weapons or nuclear energy material he ought to immediately order those materials utterly destroyed. The Taliban would use those materials in a dirty bomb. It won’t be enough to drop cruise missiles on them because that would merely scatter the nuclear material around, where Bin Laden’s people can collect it. Mr. Obama should be prepared to nuke them, and he should do it immediately, before materials can be relocated. Many lives would be lost in such an action, but they would not be American lives. While all life is precious, President Obama must act decisively to protect our lives above all others.
BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE
Accountability: America's Moral Responsibility to Humanity
Eight years of Republican "leadership" has left America both economically devastated, and globally humiliated. Yet, far from apologizing for the damage that they've done to the stability and image of this great nation, instead, they've circled their wagons and gone into damage control mode–not to control the damage that they've done to the nation, but in an attempt to rewrite history in order to control the damage that they've done to themselves.
So now, as President Obama goes about the business of desperately trying to return America to its former position of economic stability at home, and respect, admiration, and moral authority abroad, the GOP leadership seems to be completely oblivious to the nation's desperate and immediate need for a concerted effort in that regard. They're like clueless children who find it impossible to see the big picture. Thus, at this point it has become abundantly clear that their primary concern is not with restoring America to a sound footing in the world, but rather, simply restoring themselves to power at any cost.
President Barack Obama says all Americans have a “sacred trust" with the military personnel who have served this Nation, a responsibility to reward courage and self-sacrifice with all the benefits an open democratic society can provide.
MyVetwork (myvetwork.com) provides the solid foundation for a vibrant network of support in the spirit of that sacred trust to improve the lives of not only our active duty personnel and the 600,000 veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, but all our nation's estimated 23 million living military veterans - and their families, too.
MyVetwork is already operational, with the capability to service the Veterans Community—for the first time—in three intersecting strings, known as a Trident Connection, add up to One Trusted Source for Veterans that anyone connected to the government understands is crucially needed:
Veterans community in one location. All for free.
Founded by decorated veteran John R. Campbell, MyVetwork draws on the “secret sauce” of the military, the “I’ve-walked-in-your-shoes” strength military personnel willingly share with one another, which will be a driving force behind MyVetwork.
Learn more about MyVetwork by visiting myvetwork.com or join the Veterans Community by visiting community.myvetwork.com.
Online Veterans Community: veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/post/president/gGxcKgDocument posted by David Apperson
Poenau
Juansaj anr
The House Armed Forces Subcommittee held a Military Personnel hearing, today, on “Sexual Assault in the Military: Prevention.”
The subcommittee heard testimony from Carolyn Collins, program manger of the Army’s Sexual Harassment and Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) Program, Raymond Bruneau, manager of the Marine Corps’ Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program; Katherine Robertson, deputy manager of the Navy Installation Command’s Counseling, Advocacy and Prevention Program and Charlene Bradley, assistant deputy for the force management integration in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Prevention and Response Office.
This was one in a series of hearings that this subcommittee will conduct on the subject of sexual assault in the military, this year. The hearing today focused on Prevention Programs that are currently in place.
Chairwoman Susan Davis (D-CA) said: “Just as we have the responsibility to ensure that victims of a sexual assault receive all the support that can be provided following an attack, we also have an obligation to do all we can to prevent such attacks from ever taking place. The Department of Defense has made significant improvements in recent years, but the question we need to ask is, has enough been done?”
Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) asked the witnesses whether and why the question “do women belong in the military” was still an issue and stated that this needed to be addressed. She said there needs to be a “change in cultural attitudes” towards woman in the military, and more “effective laws.”
The prevention and after-care systems that were identified by the panel seemed focused on the woman; offering counseling for victims. There was no evidence of rehabilitation programs in place for the men who commit this offense.
Mr. Bruneau said: “People are our most important resource. Marines have a long history of taking care of their own. Which means that we do not intentionally harm one another. Nor, do we leave a comrade behind. Victims of sexual assault are entitled to our support and care and deserve to be returned to the fight as fully functioning marines. The marines as always, are committed to caring for their own, as it’s the right thing to do.”
The subcommittee showed three videos by the witnesses that have been created by and for the military in an attempt to highlight the serious nature of sexually criminal behavior.
Source:
http://talkradionews.com/2009/03/marine-corps-%E2%80%9Cvictims-of-sexual-assault-are-entitled-to-our-support%E2%80%9D/
IN OUR OWN WORDS
A Collection of Stories and Photographs
From Military Families of the
Iraq and Afghanistan Wars
To our President and First Lady
On February 27, 2009, in his speech from Camp Lejeune, President Obama said, "…my strategy for ending the war in Iraq does not end with military plans or diplomatic agendas; it endures through our commitment to uphold our sacred trust with every man and woman who has served in Iraq.... And for you and your families, the war does not end when you come home. It lives on in memories of your fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who gave their lives…. You and your families have done your duty; now a grateful nation must do ours….”
“We also know that service does not end with the person wearing the uniform. In her visits with Military Families across the country, my wife Michelle has learned first hand about the unique burden that your families endure every day. I want you to know that Military Families are a top priority for Michelle and me, and they will be a top priority for my administration…. Each of you has your own story. And that story is now a part of the history of the United States of America..."
Recently, on a show from Walter Reed, Oprah talked about Military Families, reminding Americans that every day when we listen to the news, we hear another number, and we go on with our lives. Behind the statistics are real families. An injured service member at Walter Reed said, “No soldier comes back the same - it is a family process. Go to the floor upstairs where the injuries are not seen. They are just as injured as those with physical injuries."
As President Obama works to end the war in Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan continues, the faces and every day lives of Military Families who wait at home will remain at the center of the war and our stories will continue. During war, military family experiences are so much more than can ever be communicated in news reports, care packages, legislation, military or political strategies.
Our MYBO/OFA group, “Military Families Need Obama as We Share the Human Faces of War,” led by military parents and siblings, invites military spouses, children, grandparents, cousins, aunts, and uncles to be a part of "IN OUR OWN WORDS," a special collection of stories and photographs that will be presented to our President and First Lady.
"IN OUR OWN WORDS" will share the human faces of the consequences of war from the hearts and souls of those who live it everyday. It is intended to serve as a tribute to the lives of Military Families of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and will include both our inspirational and heart breaking experiences, with a special section honoring those service members who have been killed while at war. Together, Military Families will create "IN OUR OWN WORDS” with the hope that as we share our stories, it will lift us all up.
Stories and photographs will only be used in this project to be presented to our President and First Lady. They will not be distributed to any other group, organization, or the media. To learn more about how to participate in this project, please contact one of us:
Debbie: DebbieIngraham@gmail.com
Jessica: JessicaIngraham@gmail.com
Terry: Tdaniel333@comcast.net
"I would characterize the likelihood of significant adjustments to this plan as fairly remote," said Gates.
Gates was asked about criticism of the plan from members of the president's Democratic Party, who do not like the idea of a large transitional force in Iraq until 2011.He stressed their mission will be very different from the combat forces now in place. The defense secretary acknowledged the remaining troops will still face some danger, but far less than today."It is a very different kind of mission and the units that will be left there will be characterized differently, they will be called advisory and assistance brigades," he said. "They will not be called combat brigades."U.S. commanders have indicated they are strongly supportive of the plan. The nation's top military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, told the Fox News Sunday program that he is comfortable with the president's decision."Clearly, the conditions are much more positive than they were two years ago," said Mullen. "And the conditions are set for the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, to take over their own country and be responsible for it."Both Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen said they were pleased with the process that led to the withdrawal plan. Mullen said the president listened extensively to the commanders. And Gates said he thought Mr. Obama was more analytical than his predecessor, George W. Bush."He makes sure he hears from everybody in the room on an issue, and if they do not speak out, he calls on them," he said.Gates said he does not know how long he might be willing to stay at the Pentagon, but admitted it might be a challenge to remain through President Obama's current four-year term in office.
Source: Voice of America
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-03-01-voa16.cfm
Orlando Illi: Unraveling a Web of Medical Records, One Veteran at a Time
From the Partnership for Public Service | Sunday, March 1, 2009; 11:00 PM
Orlando Illi has been a man on a mission, a very personal mission to change the way the military handles medical records.
Three decades ago, Illi was thrown from a vehicle during an Army training accident, hospitalized for a month and left with permanent back injuries. Many years later the medical file detailing his injury could not be found when he applied for veterans' disability benefits, causing him great difficulty proving his claim.
Now a civilian manager working for the Army at Fort Detrick in Maryland, Illi is playing a pivotal role bringing electronic medical records to the battlefield -- a task that is helping improve the care of wounded soldiers and ensuring that injured veterans will not have to fight our government for the benefits they deserve.
"When I leave here at night, I know that somewhere in Afghanistan or Iraq that if somebody is injured or in combat and wounded, that data is being captured and that guy will know forever what happened to him," said Illi. "That's what keeps me going. That is the bottom line."
Illi, deputy product manager with the Army's Medical Communications for Combat Casualty Team, or MC4, has been a steady and persistent hand for almost 10 years in helping oversee the worldwide deployment, expansion and improvement of the military's electronic medical records system that today is used in 14 countries.
While President Obama has made electronic medical records one of the hallmarks of the recently--approved economic stimulus package, Illi and his team have been ahead of the curve. The Army's MC4 unit has already trained more than 33,000 personnel, fielded 28,000 laptops, servers and handheld devices used to collect 9.6 million medical encounters.
The system has made a real difference.
When a soldier is injured in Iraq, doctors and nurses in the field hospitals use MC4's system to immediately create a permanent electronic record of the patient's condition, treatment and medications -- digital records that follow the soldier to larger military hospitals in Iraq, Germany or the United States. This allows doctors to have the complete medical history at their fingertips, and to make quick and often critical life-saving decisions.
"We used the MC4 system daily," said Mary Miller, a nurse in St. Charles, Mo., who served in a combat support hospital in the Iraqi desert in 2007 and 2008.
"We would build a record from the get-go, from the first point of contact when an injury or illness occurred'' said Miller, an Army Reservist.
Miller said before the "user-friendly" system was put in place, a paper record was created and sent from the frontlines to the next treatment center with an injured solider. ``Things would get lost and there would be no continuum of care,'' she said. "Now they can pull up the record and see everything."
Illi's boss, MC4 Product Manager Lt. Col.William Geesey, said Illi has been a big part of the program since its inception and is "relentless and committed in everything he does."
"He's seen the program grow from only a handful of people in 1999 to an outfit that's meeting a global mission with a workforce of more than 250 people," said Geesey.
"Getting doctors and commanders to adopt new technology in the war zone has been MC4's biggest challenge, and remains so," said Geesey. "Orie's historical knowledge of the program and ability to collaborate with industry and military partners has been the difference between success and failure."
Army Major Kevin Peck, who served in Iraq and is now a chief information officer stationed in Korea, said MC4 technical support teams have been responsive to those in combat, providing software and hardware "way faster than anything else ordered when in theater."
"If I put in a ticket to get a problem solved on the ground, the guys get on it right away and work nonstop to fix it," said Peck. "They provide excellent support for the system down range."
Illi said it is satisfying knowing he is helping save lives and sparing other veterans the same personal ordeal he endured when trying to link his medical condition to his military service.
"Everyone else in this office feels the same way," he said. "We are all here for the same reason."
(This article was jointly prepared by the Partnership for Public Service, a group seeking to enhance the performance of the federal government, and washingtonpost.com. Visit www.ourpublicservice.org for more about the organization's work to recognize the men and women who serve our nation.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022702059_pf.html
Veterans advocates are venting anger and frustration toward the biggest charity within the U.S. military after revelations that it has been packing more money into reserves than it has spent on aid during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We have so many soldiers, reservists and National Guard who are in dire need, and for the Army to be holding this much money in reserve is despicable," chairman Bob Handy of Veterans United for Truth, of Santa Barbara, Calif., said Monday.
He was reacting to an Associated Press investigation that examined five years of tax returns by Army Emergency Relief and reported on interviews with dozens of soldiers, veterans and officials from other military charities.
From 2003 to 2007, the charity, also known as AER, packed $117 million into its own reserves while spending just $64 million on direct aid, records show. By contrast, smaller Navy and Air Force charities both put far more of their resources into aid than reserves. Also, more than 90 percent of AER's aid was given as no-interest loans, not outright grants.
Though tax-exempt and legally separate, AER operates largely under Army control, the AP found. Soldiers are squeezed for contributions, often rewarded for them in violation of regulations, and sometimes delayed in transfers or promotions when loans aren't repaid.
AER, which operates on 90 Army sites worldwide and grew into a $345 million colossus during the Iraq war, is meant to help active-duty soldiers and Army retirees with their cash emergencies and to provide college scholarships to their families.
In written comments Monday, AER said it has been giving generously. "AER has always met the need for financial assistance. No soldier or family member has ever been denied financial assistance for a valid need due to a lack of funds," said retired Col. Andrew H. Cohen, the charity's national treasurer at its headquarters in Alexandria, Va.
He said the charity's expenses fail to provide a complete picture of its performance. He said the total value of assistance, counting loan and grant dollars as equal, has grown every year since 2003.
At a news conference Monday outside El Paso, Texas, Col. Ed Manning, commander of Fort Bliss, said that the charity works well and he was "just kind of surprised that there'd be a question about the money." He said the charity at his post of 20,000 soldiers had distributed $2.9 million over the past year, though he acknowledged that it was mostly in loans.
He said soldiers contribute entirely of their own will, but he defended rules that make needy soldiers request aid through an Army superior. "It's good that a commander knows what's going on in his unit," Manning said.
Other charities on Monday questioned AER's generosity.
"It just makes me sick to my stomach," said Amy Fairweather, director of the Iraq Veteran Project in San Francisco, a nonprofit that helps veterans with shelter and emergency payments. "There are resources that are not being used when organizations like ours ... are pounding the pavement every day in this tough economic time to bring in dollars to help our veterans."
Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, in Washington, D.C., said AER should rework its policies to help more veterans. Right now, it limits emergency aid to active-duty soldiers and veterans who served long enough to retire.
"If they're sitting on all this money and there is a demonstrated need out there, they can expand their mission to meet the need," said Sullivan, an Army combat veteran who used to work as a project manager for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United for Truth are appealing the dismissal of a federal lawsuit they filed during the Bush administration over federal delays in providing disability benefits.
Source: Associated Press http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i8RwU4-Rr9BiSOiAjZeJIArc7ZjwD96HJSQ00
