Republican Priorities

rimrocker · Aug 22, 2006

These people have to go. Reading between the lines, the budget is being cut because Rummy and the boys don't want to have to face the press (or the potential costs) that identifying brain injuries would bring. That our men and women in uniform don't get the best care possible doesn't matter. They were thrown into Iraq for political reasons and they're denied care for political reasons.

And the amount they are talking about is "budget dust." They just wrote a Dem campaign commercial... "Here are the priorities Republicans think are more important than brain injuries to our troops"... and list every piece of pork and ridiculousness in the budget that costs more than $7 million bucks...

Center for war-related brain injuries faces budget cut
Posted 8/8/2006 10:01 PM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions | Subscribe to stories like this Subscribe to stories like this
By Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-08-brain-center_x.htm

Congress appears ready to slash funding for the research and treatment of brain injuries caused by bomb blasts, an injury that military scientists describe as a signature wound of the Iraq war.

House and Senate versions of the 2007 Defense appropriation bill contain $7 million for the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center — half of what the center received last fiscal year.

Proponents of increased funding say they are shocked to see cuts in the treatment of bomb blast injuries in the midst of a war.

"I find it basically unpardonable that Congress is not going to provide funds to take care of our soldiers and sailors who put their lives on the line for their country," says Martin Foil, a member of the center's board of directors. "It blows my imagination."

The Brain Injury Center, devoted to treating and understanding war-related brain injuries, has received more money each year of the war — from $6.5 million in fiscal 2001 to $14 million last year. Spokespersons for the appropriations committees in both chambers say cuts were due to a tight budget this year.

"Honestly, they would have loved to have funded it, but there were just so many priorities," says Jenny Manley, spokeswoman for the Senate Appropriations Committee. "They didn't have any flexibility in such a tight fiscal year."

George Zitnay, co-founder of the center, testified before a Senate subcommittee in May that body armor saves troops caught in blasts but leaves many with brain damage. "Traumatic brain injury is the signature injury of the war on terrorism," he testified.

Zitnay asked for $19 million, and 34 Democratic and six Republican members of Congress signed a letter endorsing the budget request.

The House of Representatives approved its version of the spending bill June 20. A vote in the Senate is pending.

Scientists at the center develop ways to diagnose and treat servicemembers who suffer brain damage. The work is done at seven military and Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals, including the center's headquarters at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, and one civilian treatment site.

The center has clashed with the Pentagon in recent months over a program to identify troops who have suffered mild to moderate brain injuries in Iraq from mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs — the most common weapons used by insurgents.

Preliminary research by the center shows that about 10% of all troops in Iraq, and up to 20% of front line infantry troops, suffer concussions during combat tours. Many experience headaches, disturbed sleep, memory loss and behavior issues after coming home, the research shows.

The center urged the Pentagon to screen all troops returning from Iraq in order to treat symptoms and create a database of brain injury victims. Scientists say multiple concussions can cause permanent brain damage.

The Pentagon so far has declined to do the screening and argues that more research is needed.
Click to expand...

Deckard · Aug 22, 2006

Thanks, rimrocker...

They wanted $19 million for "treating and understanding war-related brain injuries." Less, I'm sure, than what the toilets in the Capitol cost. Much less. Our fighting men and women weren't deemed worthy of such treatment and research. The Pentagon was urged "to screen all troops returning from Iraq in order to treat symptoms and create a database of brain injury victims. Scientists say multiple concussions can cause permanent brain damage.

The Pentagon so far has declined to do the screening and argues that more research is needed."

And yet, in this "tight," budget year, there has been the usual push by the Republican Congressional leadership and the Bush Administration TO CUT TAXES, THE STUPID CRIMINAL IDIOTS! I hope Bush's supporters are pleased as punch. Just swimming in glee. Go ahead. I'm waiting to hear the excuses. Surely, you have some. You hand them out for this group like candy at Halloween.

Go ahead. Make our day.

Keep D&D Civil.

StupidMoniker · Aug 22, 2006

Deckard said:

And yet, in this "tight," budget year, there has been the usual push by the Republican Congressional leadership and the Bush Administration TO CUT TAXES, THE STUPID CRIMINAL IDIOTS! I hope Bush's supporters are pleased as punch. Just swimming in glee. Go ahead. I'm waiting to hear the excuses. Surely, you have some. You hand them out for this group like candy at Halloween.
Click to expand...

Didn't tax receipts increase after the last tax cut?

CBrownFanClub · Aug 22, 2006

This is going to be an ongoing and serious problem, not just in brain injuries research. Mental health, vocational training, rehab, etc. are going to cost so much - so far, i think 1.2 million have rotated through. Something like 1 in 3 of those who have seen combat are attempting to access mental health treatment. anyone care to calculate the cost of that?

"Supporting Our troops" will eventually be a dollars and cents issue - i sure as hell hope those who sent our men and women to Iraq are prepared to sacrifice tax dollars in order to care for them.

I am. Anyone else?

mc mark · Aug 22, 2006

CBrownFanClub said:

I am. Anyone else?
Click to expand...

Whatever it takes!

geeimsobored · Aug 22, 2006

StupidMoniker said:

Didn't tax receipts increase after the last tax cut?
Click to expand...

Whether they were a result of the tax cuts is a different issue.

vlaurelio · Aug 22, 2006

mc mark said:

Whatever it takes!
Click to expand...

though some prefer holding on to their tax cuts more than anything else

glynch · Aug 22, 2006

Taking care of brain injured veterans is just welfare for the Bush gang. Heck they don't even have any friends or relatives whose kids go into the military since the demise of the draft. Occasionally a photo op with someone on the campaign trail is about it.

Now a good multi-billion defense contract that Hallibacon or Carlylsle can sink their teeth into and you're talking.

rimrocker · Aug 22, 2006

Regardless of where you fall regarding weapons expenditures and the Defense budget, surely all agree that within the DoD pot of money (of which this article touches on only part) we could find $7 million...

Major arms soar to twice pre-9/11 cost
Systems to have little direct role in terror fight

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | August 19, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/08/19/major_arms_soar_to_twice_pre_911_cost?mode=PF

WASHINGTON -- The estimated costs for the development of major weapons systems for the US military have doubled since September 11, 2001, with a trillion-dollar price tag for new planes, ships, and missiles that would have little direct role in the fight against insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The soaring cost estimates -- disclosed in a report for the Republican-led Senate Budget Committee -- have led to concerns that supporters of multibillion-dollar weapons programs in Congress, the Pentagon , and the defense industry are using the conflicts and the war on terrorism to fulfill a wish-list of defense expenditures, whether they are needed or not for the war on terrorism.

The report, based on Defense Department data, concluded that the best way to keep defense spending in check in the coming years lies in ``controlling the cost of weaponry," especially those programs that the Pentagon might not necessarily need.

The projections of what it will cost to acquire ``major weapons programs" currently in production or on the drawing board soared from $790 billion in September 2001 to $1.61 trillion in June 2006, according to the congressional analysis of Pentagon data.

Costs for some of the most expensive new weapon systems -- such as satellite-linked combat vehicles for ground troops; a next-generation fighter plane ; and a cutting-edge, stealth-technology destroyer for the Navy -- are predicted to cost even more by the time they are delivered, because many of them are still in their early phases. In a quarterly report to Congress on weapons costs earlier this month, the Pentagon reported that of the $1.61 trillion it thinks it will need for big-ticket weapons, it has spent more than half so far -- about $909 billion.

But the huge increase in weapons costs is already placing enormous strain on the federal budget, according to government budget specialists, who predict major increases in defense spending for years to come so that the Pentagon can afford all the weapons it has on the books. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, for example, estimates that between 2012 and 2024 the Pentagon budget will have to grow between 18 percent and 34 percent over what was appropriated this year.

Overall, annual defense spending has increased by about 11 percent per year since 2001, to about $400 billion this year, not including hundreds of billions of dollars that Congress has set aside to pay for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Military operations and maintenance costs, as well as salaries and health benefits for people in uniform, have all gone up by about 40 percent.

But the price tag for major weapons has garnered new attention from watchdog groups and government auditors, who contend that many of the arms already on the drawing board don't have much to do with ongoing combat or the war on terrorism.

In fact, most of the weapon systems being designed, tested , or built had been in the Pentagon's pipeline long before the Sept. 11 attacks. Despite the steep price jump, there has been a relatively modest increase in the number of new weapons projects over the past five years, according to Pentagon figures.

Still, ``only a portion of these increased costs are a result of the war on terror," said Winslow Wheeler , a former congressional budget specialist now at the nonprofit Center for Defense Information in Washington and the author of `` The Wastrels of Defense ."

The weapons projects designated as ``major acquisition programs" require at least $365 million in research funding and $2.1 billion is acquisition costs. They include new armored vehicles; two new fighter jets; an advanced Navy destroyer; a package of land, air , and space-based missile defense systems; and sophisticated electronic and intelligence systems such as a new satellite communications network.

Defense specialists attribute the spiral ing costs to a variety of factors. Some projects have increased in scope, while other weapons systems have taken longer to acquire, adding to the cost. Other projects turned out to be far more expensive than project managers and contractors predicted.

For example, the Future Combat System, a high-tech fleet of armored combat vehicles being developed by the Army , was forecast to cost $92 billion when its development began in 2003, according to the GOP committee's report. As of December 2005, however, the price tag had skyrocketed to $165 billion, about an 80 percent increase in just two years.

The Government Accountability Office, the government's nonpartisan audit bureau, warned of ``the risks of conducting business as usual," and concluded in a report in November that the major weapons programs are at ``high risk" for fraud, waste, abuse , and mismanagement.

The Department of Defense ``has experienced cost overruns, missed deadlines, performance shortfalls, and persistent management problems," the report said. ``In light of the serious budget pressures facing the nation, such problems are especially troubling."

The GOP committee report was blunt about the impact of rising weapons costs on the federal budget, and expressed little confidence that Congress has the political will to reign in spending on weapons that are not critical to the war effort. Noting that ``every project has local employment implications," the report said ``weapon system politics" will make it extremely difficult to make cuts.

``Controlling the long-term costs of the Pentagon's arsenal are very nearly as complex as restraining the cost of government entitlements like Social Security and Medicare," the analysis said.
Click to expand...

Forums

Republican Priorities

rimrocker Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

StupidMoniker I lost a bet

CBrownFanClub Member

mc mark Member

geeimsobored Member

vlaurelio Member

glynch Member

rimrocker Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Republican Priorities

rimrocker Member

Deckard Blade Runner Supporting Member

StupidMoniker I lost a bet

CBrownFanClub Member

mc mark Member

geeimsobored Member

vlaurelio Member

glynch Member

rimrocker Member

Share This Page

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member