(This budget mess is really quite frustrating on a whole bunch of levels. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
With the California budget crisis ongoing, it's safe to say that certain groups are going to be upset when their funding is cut or they are left out of the budget all together. However, yesterday, the LA Times article "California National Guard losing budget battle in Legislature" outlined how our State's National Guard will maintain its place as last in the nation when it comes to providing it's members educational benefits.
This is abhorrent, especially when one considers how our National Guard is being asked to do more and more these days. Think about it: Iraq, patrolling the border with Mexico, fighting fires, etc... You would think that the least we could do is provide them a tuition assistance program. As it stands, California is the only state in the country to not provide this basic benefit for it's members.
To add insult to injury, this was the second year in a row funding for the proposed program was cut. This despite the resolution I authored and passed within the California Democratic Party last year.
If we don't start taking care of our National Guard, who's going to be there for us when the fires are burning out of control or we need emergency response after a major earthquake?
In a democracy, every person has a single vote. Unfortunately, what is becoming increasingly true is that someone with millions of dollars and the willingness to fund front groups has the ability to influence millions of votes.
Take the issue of the Iraq War - by any and every national poll, millions of Americans want the war to stop as they see through the lies that got us in the war, the lies that have kept us in the war and now with even the Iraqi leadership asking we leave, the vast majority of Americans see no reason to fund billions on dollars in war every month.
However, despite their wishes and their votes, the wishes of the people are countered by the wishes of the few, or in today's example, the wishes of one, Sheldon Adelson. Mr. Adelson is one of the very few wealthy "behind-the-scenes" manipulators that set up phony front groups and fund them with millions and millions of dollars to pollute our country's discourse, smear people, spread fear and lies and the worst kinds of dirty stories. Every politician knows that this ugliness could be directed at them if they dare try to fight this kind of power.
Where do these Republican, pro-war front groups get so much money?
Sheldon Adelson, the 74-year-old casino billionaire who has become the third richest man in America and who has strong ties to the hard-line Likud Party in Israel, has emerged this year a major benefactor of the American right.
Adelson has been a major backer of right-wing Republicans, including Tom DeLay, and has given $2.9 million to a Newt Gingrich organization, American Solutions for Winning the Future.
And now, according to Edsell,
. . .Adelson, according to the National Journal, has begun channeling cash and fundraising support to Vets for Freedom, which is expected to use the influx of money to finance what it claims will be a multimillion dollar "Four Months For Victory" ad campaign.
Why does a wealthy Jewish casino owner, so rich that he is flown around in his own Boeing 767, support a veteran's organization? Probably because Vets For Freedom isn't really a veteran's organization, but a Republican Party front group working to elect John McCain and keep the Iraq war going.
If Vets For Freedom was a veteran's organization, they would be front and center in holding John McCain responsible for voting against the new G.I. Bill? But they didn't say a word.
If Vets For Freedom was a veteran's organization, they would be concerned with the hundreds of thousands of returning wounded warriors and their need for care and assistance? But they're not.
In fact, Vets For Freedom has only one mission - build public support for continuing the war in Iraq and now it appears they really only have one donor - a hard line neoconservative who is determined to influence US foreign policy in the Middle East.
Adelson is also a major funder of Freedom's Watch, another Republican front group that exists solely to help wealthy individuals like Adelson get around campaign finance laws that are designed to protect our democracy from this kind of dollars-outweigh-votes corrupting influence.
These organizations are allowed to take unlimited donations and not disclose donors because they are supposed to be educating the public about issues, not polluting our elections with ads that support or smear candidates. But, of course, who in the Bush government is going to stop them from breaking our campaign finance laws to support Republicans and smear Democrats?
In Israel Adelson has purchased a newspaper that he uses to try to influence Israeli politics. According to some, he inspires resentment and fear there. A recent New Yorker article about Adelson says,
"In Israel, where political, academic and business leaders tend to be outspoken, there is a striking reticence at the mention of Sheldon Adelson. Even people who are diametrically opposed to his politics refuse to be interviewed. 'There is a discernible amount of self-censorship going on,' the liberal Israeli-American writer Bernard Avishai said. 'There is no ideological justification for what Sheldon is doing among the Israeli intelligentsia and a revulsion at an American weighing in so heavily on Israeli politics, in such a crude, reactionary way. But they won't speak.'"
Post-Script: As we were about to publish it, news comes that Sheldon Adelson has hired Karl Rove with a mid six figure deal to help run "Freedom's Watch" another right wing front group.
Generally, we progressive Democrats have had little confidence in the Bush Administration to run an effective, fair, humane Federal government. Over and over again, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condelezza Rice, and their cronies have promised one thing and then did little or nothing in follow-up. Cases in point include protecting our borders from unrestrained immigration, rebuilding a hurricane ravaged New Orleans, protecting the health and welfare of the rescue workers at New York's ground zero, and developing a cohesive, cogent plan to defend the United States against terrorism at our seaports, airports, power plants, water ways, and metropolitan areas. Bush and his cronies are more interested in commercial profit than in preserving and protecting the Union.
The Bush Administration has done little to nothing in order to help our armed forces, National Guard, and Reservists. First, they developed a piss-poor plan for the occupation of Iraq. Second, the Bush Administration and their war machine did little to protect the troops in harm's way. Now, from the Walter Reed scandals onward, they have done nothing to process and assist returning Iraqi war heroes who are in dire need of psychological services. I know from personal experience working in the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Brooklyn, as a summer psychology intern in 1995-96, that the Reagan Administration decimated psychological services at the DVA in an ill-advised attempt at eliminating cost in the Department.
People in the Bush Administration have, as elsewhere, been on a crash course to privatize the DVA and in its ill-conceived and anti-government pursuit, has left our brave soldiers, National Guard, and Reservists without adequate services.
Finally, with the Democrats in control of the U.S. Senate, Constitutional oversight has begun. As indicated earlier, in a Press Release, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Kit Bond (R-MO), Barack Obama (D-IL), and John Kerry (D-MA) requested that Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, George W. Bush, so-called President of the United States, and the Department of Defense guarantee impartial psychological assessments of soldiers when needed. Not 'when needed' from the Bush perspective, but from a common sensical perspective.
Now, Senators Kit Bond (R-MO), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) are urging Bush to create a Special Review Board for discharged troops and to place a moratorium on the DoD's use of Personality Disorder Discharges.
It is a moral outrage that U.S. Senators have to urge a President of the United States of America to provide 'fair treatment of combat veterans.'
I have written previously on mydesert.com and on Calitics.comregarding my concerns about the lack of adequate treatment and prevention for mental illness including Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in our returning servicemen and women.
It is clear from the prosecution of the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and in the current occupation of Iraq, that the Bush Administration has given little thought to the preparation, planning and follow-through for the military efforts and Iraq occupation. In addition, the Bush Administration did little to adequately train and supply our troops. The poor planning and follow-through is even more evident in the Walter Reed scandals of 2006. This Administration appears to at the very least neglect our honorable men and women in uniform. At the worst, the Bush Administration seems to view our soldiers as mere fodder for its own political ambition. Hopefully, it is an issue of neglect and not vile political manipulation.
Anyway, the Armed Forces under the direction of the President of the United States and of the Secretary of Defense needs to ensure that every returning soldier, marine, airmen and women, and sailors, National Guard, and Reservists be screened for mental disorders related to their time of service. And, the Armed Forces needs to provide adequate and immediate treatment for anyone who needs such.
I received the following Press Release today that expands on my concerns by addressing the lack of impartial reviews when assessing the mental health of our returning servicemen and women:
"Washington, D.C.-U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Kit Bond (R-MO), Barack Obama (D-IL) and John Kerry (D-MA) today sent the following letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates:
December 14, 2007
The Honorable Robert Gates
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington , DC 20301
"Dear Secretary Gates:
"We are concerned over reports that members of our Armed Forces with underlying mental health conditions are not receiving balanced, fair, and impartial reviews when facing judicial punishment and administrative discharge for engaging in misconduct that could be related to their conditions.
"We understand and support the necessity of maintaining good order and discipline in the military. At the same time, we are concerned that the decision to prosecute a service member with serious mental health issues may, in some cases, be carried out without appropriate consideration of recommendations made by uniformed mental health providers. As such, we ask you to promptly review guidelines for the administrative handling of such complex cases."
This is cross posted at the Huffington Post. If you've seen California Lt. Governor John Garamendi on CNN or MSNBC today, you'll agree with his statement that, "we need our troops back from Iraq."
This post deals with that.
Today, we all extend our sympathies and prayers to those devastated by the wildfires in California. Millions of Americans are impacted by this natural disaster.
Neighbors should help neighbors in their time of need. As Governor of New Mexico, I ordered two fire crews (strike teams, with 5 engines and 21 crew members each) to California. As a candidate for President, I donated to the American Red Cross and I encourage you to do so as well, click here to do so.
But as someone who believes the war in Iraq is a complete disaster and that we need to get our troops out now (www.getourtroopsout.com), I look at the natural disaster in California and feel compelled to also ask President Bush and every candidate who thinks it is okay for our troops to remain in Iraq until 2013 or longer - where is our National Guard?
It is a sad irony that yesterday, the very day I sent fire crews to California, 300 more New Mexico National Guard members were sent to Iraq. Just when we need them most at home, more of our brave men and women, true public servants, are sent away to a war we cannot win.
Never before in our history has our National Guard, a group of dedicated men and women who serve our country and provide critical aid in the time of natural disasters been used, and re-used, for so long to fight a war tens of thousands of miles away.
In California, the Guard force is authorized to have over 21,000 members. Today, that number is just under 15,000. Why the decline? I believe it has nothing to do with a diminished commitment to service, but rather is a frustration with having that commitment abused, and families turned upside down, just so President Bush can continue to pretend his war can succeed.
George Bush, his Republican friends and the Democrats who continue to allow this war to continue have not only broken our military, they've broken our National Guard.
The news this morning had images of Americans fleeing to a huge sports arena for shelter during a natural disaster that struck a familiar chord. When Katrina struck and the floods hit two years ago, a good portion of the Louisiana National Guard was in Iraq. How many people died in the days it took to get proper personnel on the ground in New Orleans? Today, as the fires rage, California has National Guard men, women, and critical equipment thousands of miles away in Iraq.
They need to come home. We need them here.
This has gone on long enough. When a national disaster hits, our states depend on the National Guard. Right now, President Bush is robbing Peter to pay Paul to continue his disastrous adventure in Iraq, and when tragedy hits us here at home, Americans are stuck with the bill. This cannot continue.
Bush won't end this war. Congress must. And they must end it now. We shouldn't have to wait until January, and we certainly can't wait until 2013 - we need our troops out of harm's way and our National Guard members back home where they belong.
Join my call at www.getourtroopsout.com to push Congress to begin ending this war now. Not in January, not next spring, not next year - now.
The war in Iraq is a tragedy, and compounding it by leaving our citizens here at home defenseless is an even greater crime.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is calling up 1,500 National Guard troops to deploy to the Southern California wildfires.
He's also asking President Bush to authorize San Diego-area military forces to begin coordinating to provide cots, first-aid equipment and possibly personnel to aid evacuees and firefighters.
This is why we have a National Guard, it sucks Arnold won't stand up to Bush and act as he should as the Commander in Chief of our National Guard. The "National Guard" has no business in Middle East Adventurism and Arnold should publicly point out he has be emasculated as Commander in Chief of the California National Guard. As SoCal Burns, Arnold looks like shit as people wonder why our Guard isn't available to do what they signed up for.
One of the main arguments in favor of the War in Iraq is that we need to fight terrorists over there so we are safe back at home. This week proves the fallacy of such an argument on two fronts. The terrorists are still here. Thankfully, law enforcement did its job and they were caught in time. Then came the heated discussion over National Guard preparedness.
Kansas Gov. Sebelius took the President to task over the slow and limited response to the deadly tornado. Now two wildfires in California have prompted legitimate fears that it could happen here too. Our National Guard is stretched to the limit and only has half of the equipment it needs. We are missing about $1 billion worth of trucks, generators, GPS units and other crucial equipment for disaster response. If we get a major disaster we will be in real trouble.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has rejected the Bush administration's request for more troops along the border, but some Dems wonder if that's the whole story.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office said Friday that he turned down a White House request to more than double the number of California National Guard troops that will be deployed to the border, fearing the commitment could leave the state vulnerable if an earthquake or wildfire erupts.(LA Times 6/24/06)
Arnold Schwarzenegger has okayed the deployment of California National Guard Troops. Under the rights bestowed upon him by Darrel Issa the state and federal Constitutions, Schwarzenegger had the authority to approve the deployment within the state. (Note that the states do not have authority to block deployment overseas due to the Montgomery Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987. See "PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)".)
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has scheduled a press conference for 2 p.m. to announce that he has reached an agreement with the federal government to deploy California National Guard troops on the Mexican border, according to a source in the administration.
Details of the agreement were not available. But at a state Senate hearing on Wednesday, the guard's Major Gen. William Wade said up to 1,000 state troops would be deployed in a plan that would take effect in the middle of July and run through 2008.
Bush said he wants the troops to provide construction, surveillance and intelligence support until the federal government can fund, hire and train 6,000 additional Border Patrol agents. (SacBee 6/1/06)
So, the Governor has a chance to buck the President, but chooses not to. This National Guard at the border is quite simply a bad idea, and it’s a bad idea on many levels. First of all, the National Guard is already over stretched. These people signed up for “One weekend a month, and two weeks per year.” Instead they are getting “24 months on, followed by 24 months off.” Um, well, that’s terrific. We are abusing the National Guard and some of the governors should stand up to this. If Bush wants to have his wars he needs regular Army, not National Guard. If he wants to have a draft, let’s see him get that through the Congress, rather than bypassing any real decisionmaking. All of America should be sacrificing equally for the War, not just the poor. The children of the rich and the poor should be serving in this War equally.
The National Guard does not even get the same benefits as the regular Army:
JUDY WOODRUFF: Currently, there are more than 440,000 civilian soldiers serving part-time in the Army and Air National Guard.
Guardsmen and women usually drill one weekend a month and two weeks a year under the command of state governors. But during war or emergencies, the president can press them into federal service. Most deployments are limited to 24 months.
When on active duty, Guard members get paid the same as regular forces and are eligible for pensions, but only receive limited benefits. The Pentagon has resisted efforts by Guard leaders and governors to include a Guard general as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (NewsHour with Jim Lehrer 5/17/06)
So, they don’t even get typical benefits, and are forced away from their civilian jobs for two years. It’s hard on the economy because employers are legally bound to maintain a job for them while they are out. It’s hard on the families, as they weren’t expecting to be gone for two years at a time.
And then we also must bring up the question of who will be our emergency force? You know, when a real emergency hits? Like…say…a earthquake? Will we be fully equipped to respond to such a natural disaster?
In addition to overseas combat assignments, the National Guard is often called to respond to natural disasters at home. This week, the Massachusetts and New Hampshire governors dispatched their National Guards to help respond to record flooding.
In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, 50,000 Guard troops from across the nation were deployed to the ravaged Gulf Coast, while portions of the Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard were on duty in Iraq. (NewsHour with Jim Lehrer 5/17/06)
And finally, we have to consider whether we think it’s a particularly good idea to be stationing military personnel within our state. It’s just one more step to the police state that the Bush Administration has been building towards. Clearly Schwarzenegger is acting as an enabler. We need a Governor who will truly consider the costs of these actions with a critical eye for the state.
The National Guard as border enforcement presents a very difficult issue for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Does he play to the Right and send them down there? Or does he play to the Left and reject the President's request. Schwarzenegger is attempting to play to some sort of middle ground. Of course, he is being helped a bit by the fact that the actual mission of the Guardsmen is totally unclear. They won't act as border patrol people, so what exactly are they going to do? It at least gives him some room to wiggle for the time being. Added to that is the fact that the federal government has yet to appropriate any money to pay for this guard service. But ultimately, there will be some sort of reckoning here. Either he sends them or he doesn't.
But the governor continues to refuse embracing either side's all-or-nothing approach. He has said he does not like the idea of sending Guard troops to the border, but he has also said he would consider doing so, if it were a temporary solution.
And therein lies his problem. The governor is getting toasted as a waffler who is either pandering to both conservatives and liberals, especially Latinos -- or scared to rile either in an election year.(CC Times 5/21/06)
Immigration is such a challenging issue, for both Dems and Reps. I'm not sure how a Democratic governor would deal with this issue either. Would it be a natural for Gray Davis to just reject it out of hand? I doubt it. But, Schwarzenegger's waffling and lack of decisiveness is a problem. He has yet to say anything of substance on the immigration issues of the day. California's governor should have some sort of position on these issues and provide leadership. Shwarzenegger has not.
