What did we learn from the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing?

Thirty years. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy spent thirty years on the Supreme Court. In his final year on the court, the Supreme Court ruled on seventy five cases. Each of those cases will likely impact decades if not centuries of law in the United States.

As we consider seating Justice Kennedy's replacement, this past weekend has made many question how the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing impacts who the next Justice of the Supreme court will be. For most, there is little to debate about Dr. Ford's testimony. You likely either believe her or you do not. So that leaves Judge Kavanaugh's testimony. He began with an abrasive serious of barrages on the democrats on the committee and then continued during the questioning period to misdirect of refused answer many of the questions.

I have thought over the last few days about what I took from his testimony. I have heard a great number of people say how this was an "emotional response," that if I was falsely accused I might act the same way.

First off, I believe it's important to remember that we must hold Supreme Court nominees and justices to the highest standards. Not only because they are a lifetime appointment, but because their rulings can last centuries. We don't want justices making emotional decisions. We want justices with a superhuman knack for being focused on justice and the law. They need to be able to (as much as possible) set aside their own biases, their own experiences and focus on what is equitable, just and what is the law.

We don't want justices playing political games(as Kavanaugh did during that hearing). The supreme court must strive to be as anti-political as possible.

My last point is that this wasn't a spur of the moment emotional reaction as some seem to believe. This was a planned response to the power of Dr. Ford's testimony. This was the man who used to prep supreme court justices for the Bush administration. He made a calculated decision in his opening statement and his responses to questions. His statements had an intended response, to take the conversation away from how credible Dr. Ford sounded and whether or not her allegations might be true, to is this a political stunt by democrats. His point was to rally the troops of the GOP. It wasn't to say I'm innocent, it was to play into Graham/McConnell/Grassley's hands. He did not want the focus of his testimony to be picking apart the facts of the case, which is why he refused to answer so many of the questions.

If he wanted to say "I'm innocent" and I'm an open book willing to prove my innocence, you answer every question as clearly as you can. You are willing to submit to the FBI investigation without a second thought. That was not his desire.

That was not his response. His response was to try to allow the committee to do whatever they could to push his nomination through, by circling the GOP wagons around himself by attacking the "enemy."

Witness Testimony Shows Depth of VA Cover-Ups While Veterans Are Dying

Image source: Flickr

Over the last few years, the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) has come under fire for failing to take care of veterans. From 2007 to 2013 the VA's patient load increased by 46%. Patient wait times increased dramatically, and the VA began to draw fire from many members of Congress. Patient care also decreased as staff was not able to keep up with demands. Funding had increased by only 16% which did not keep up with the need to hire and train new staff. This led to delay or impromper care of veterans.

The worst problems appeared at the Phoenix VA, where many soldiers died of improper care. One tragic example of the failure of the Phoenix VA is the case of 71-year-old Navy veteran Thomas Breen. Breen visited the Phoenix VA in September of 2013 after discovering blood in his urine. Having a history of cancer, and proud of his military service, he would go nowhere but the VA. The VA marked his chart as urgent, and stated that he could see a primary care physician in one week's time.

He was sent home without being seen. His family contacted the VA hospital several times over the following weeks trying to get an appointment, but was unable to schedule an appointment. Thomas Breen died on November 30, more than two months after visiting the VA. The death certificate shows that he died from Stage 4 bladder cancer.

A new report from the Inspector General shows that more than 300,000 American veterans likely died while waiting for health care services from the VA and nearly twice as many are still waiting to receive help. It also shows that VA workers marked thousands of unprocessed healthcare applications as completed and may have deleted as many as 10,000 or more electronic records over the past five years.

This report also shows that VA facilities cost twice the normal amount for public facilities, a claim that is likely to reignite a debate about moving toward the privatization of some VA services. The findings also contradict the department’s claim that most patients are satisfied with the care they receive.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is responsible for both providing care to returning disabled veterans as well as determining their status. As you may be aware because of this increased number this has also meant there has been an increased demand for nursing home beds, injury rehabilitation, and mental health care. The VA processes healthcare claims for service-connected disabilities.

Rather than focus on fixing the issue, the VA has gone on the offensive attacking whistle-blowers. Chris Kirkpatrick, a former psychologist at the Tomah Veterans Affairs Medical Center, was reprimanded by his supervisor in April 2009 after raising questions about the medications being prescribed for veterans. When he was fired three months later, according to Senate testimony, he returned home and committed suicide.

On Tuesday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on the VA’s treatment of whistle-blowers. Kirkpatrick's brother asked for more help protecting federal whistle-blowers.VA whistle-blowers from across the country told the Senate committee that the department has continually failed to hold supervisors accountable for chronic delays processing claims of veterans seeking medical care and for falsified records covering up the waits.

Witnesses spoke of improperly trained nurses in the Phoenix VA who improperly triaged patients leading to dangerous delays. Others outlined how some patients were over medicated to the point of causing harm which could have proved to be fatal. The workers stated that the supervisors were more interested in keeping their jobs than assisting veterans. Even when these supervisors are caught reprimanding whistle-blowers, the VA rarely fires them. Of 40 supervisors who have had action taken against them for this cause, only one has been terminated.

Senator Ron Johnson, (R-Wis.), who led Tuesday’s hearing, said: “The VA has a cultural problem with regards to whistleblower retaliation.”

Solutions to the systemic problems with the VA are slow coming. Earlier this month the new healthcare undersecretary of the VA spoke of his plans moving forward. “We are working hard with Congress to make sure we have the resources we need to care for them, and I am very optimistic about what this year will bring.”

The VA will need more than optimism though, to solve the problems facing the department. Criticism from veterans and Congress on slow moving reforms is unlikely to go away as long as veterans face month long waits to receive care. Desperate reforms are needed now to stem this crisis of dying and neglected veterans.

What do you think of the VA scandal? What should be done to solve the problems with the VA? Let us know in the comments.

IRS Scandal Ways and Means Second Hearing Thoughts

By Tim Newton
So I've been hearing from a few critics lately about the IRS Scandal. They say  "why should we subsidize these groups that are clearly political in nature?" I have also heard the statement "shouldn't they expect to be investigated further if their group seems political in nature?"
I refer those who ask these questions to two videos, one which details this argument more fully, the second answers these questions. No representative that I have heard from has disagreed on the fact that these groups were targeted and that there was harassment that occurred, and that it was definitely inappropriate on all counts. No one is doubting that, the question remains to be answered is who directed this. From what we learned from Rep. Issa this weekend, he believes and seems to have evidence that it went deeper than just a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati.


Rep Jim Mcdermott (D-WA)




Rep Aaron Schock (R-IL)



Rep Paul Ryan (R-WI)
(his time starts a minute and a half in)



We must consider several ideas here, the first of which is this, if political groups need additional scrutiny, was it done equally? The answer is a resounding no. Out of the 300 groups singled out in Cincinnati 75 were conservative, and 3 were liberal. From what we can tell there is no evidence of any kind that liberal groups were given the same scrutiny and harassment or asked similar questions.

Next we must consider the question: Was the type of scrutiny appropriate and even handed, and were records obtained handled fairly? Again a resounding no, as evidenced during Rep. Ryan's questioning, it is evident that much of the handling was inappropriate and at times excessive, at times even illegal actions were made by the IRS. Asking for donors lists, requesting not to have them protest, detailing every speech made by a speaker, who made it and their credentials? Not only are these things excessive, but definitely overreach and out of control is what it seems. 

Now, whenever you have a group that is receiving status for educating and promoting the well being of citizens, there will be innately an ideology involved of some sort. These groups are not big money funneling groups, but groups seeking to promote what they deem is in the public benefit of the U.S. Over the course of our history our country has had a healthy and constant discussion of the rights of the people and the role of government, which is one of the most polarizing questions of our time. 

The next question we need to consider is this: What form of subsidization is occurring here, and why do we have the designation for these groups for individuals to donate their funds to them? Now when we talk of tax exemptions here it is referring to exemptions for individuals donating to these groups. This does not mean that the individual group is receiving any money from the government. Similarly if you are asking that question are you as concerned about a liberal group as you are a conservative group? 

What is to be done about the issue? The first I would say is that the truth in it's entirety needs to come forth, and be examined. Next we need to consider the proper course of action, such as additional transparency and accountability for actions of individuals within the IRS and other possible entities outside. If it does come out that it is individuals lower down then maybe their authority needs to be limited further, and greater accountability measures need to be put into place on these matters.