Around this time last year (August 2011), the Super Congress was created to address the United States' multi-trillion dollar debt. Six members from the House and six members from the Congress served in the Super Congress. The Democrats were: Senator Patty Murray, Senator John Kerry, Senator Max Baucus, House Rep James Clbyurn, House Rep Xavier Becerra and House Rep Chris Van Hollen. The six Republicans were Senator Jon Kyl, Senator Rob Portman, Senator Pat Toomey, House Rep Fred Upton, House Rep Jeb Hensarling and House Rep Dave Camp. They were tasked with devising a plan to cut $1.2 trillion from the nation's debt. If their plan was not supported, then sequestration -- automatic cuts -- would take place this year. Their plan did not pass. Apparently sequestration will not effect the Defense Dept (I'm basing that on repeated statements during the Congressional hearings we've covered since fall 2011 -- primarily the Senate Armed Services Committee) and the White House has (finally) stated that the VA will also not be effected.
Maybe the VA should be?
In yesterday's hearing, it emerged that during this fiscal crisis, during the Great Recession when 8% unemployment (official figure of those still looking for work) has become the norm, during the administration's supposed pursuit of confronting the deficit, senior executives at the VA have received outrageous bonuses for doing their job. And, I think many would agree, for doing their job badly. When the VA has nearly a million unprocessed claims, it's not doing its job and no one -- especially senior executives -- deserve bonuses. 245 senior executives received $2.8 million in bonuses.
From yesterday's snapshot:
Chair Jason Chaffetz: Madam Undersecretary, the VA had reported that
it awarded $2.8 million to 245 senior executives. How do we justify
that? I mean, that's a very small group of people. We've got hundreds
of thousands -- close to a million -- veterans waiting in line and 245
people got $2.8 million in bonuses? How do we justify that?
Allison Hickey: Chairman Chaffetz, thanks for the question. First of
all, I will tell you in VBA, since 2009, we have actually decreased by a
full third the number of our SESs that are getting outstanding ratings.
So we have done what this administration's asked us to do which is to
really scrutinize the ratings that we are giving to our senior
executives and bring them down. I'll tell you from a VBA perspective, I
have 98 metrics, performance metrics, that I rate every one of our
senior executives against. They are performance based.
Chair Jason Chaffetz: How --
Allison Hickey: They are production and quality based.
Chair Jason Chaffetz: How many --
Allison Hickey: And in those environments where I do have
outstanding leaders, I need to keep those outstanding leaders. They're
making a difference for our veterans, their family members and
survivors.
Chair Jason Chaffetz: How many of them -- How many of the people that worked for you go those bonuses?
That is unacceptable. If you've attended House or Senate Veterans Affairs Committe hearings in the last years, you're familiar with the fact that the VA's budget request each year to Congress is more than met and that they are repeatedly and regularly asked if they need more money to hire more staff, if they need this, if they need that.
But we've been attending the hearings for six or seven years now and the VA's never presented that they need X million for bonuses. They've talked about needing money for hiring and training and equipment and that digital conversion that's forever on the verge of happening but never seems to actually take place. But not one word about, "We need X and from that we'll be giving out X millions in bonuses." They never made that request to either house of Congress. In the Senate, the chamber's been under Democratic control the entire time (first under Chair Daniel Akaka now under Chair Patty Murray) while in the House it was Democratic control (Chair Bob Filner) and now Republican control (Chair Jeff Miller). Regardless of whether the VA was making their case for more money to a Democratically controlled chamber or a Republican controlled chamber, they never, ever, raised the issue of bonuses.
Probably they never raised it because there would have been bi-partisan laughter at the thought that the VA deserved bonuses when they still weren't able to settle claims in a timely fashion.
As was observed yesterday by a House member in the hearing, if anyone deserved a bonus -- if -- it would be the people on the front lines settling claims and providing customer service, not the senior executives.
The Congress needs to hold a hearing -- I doubt they will -- into these bonuses. And this nonense of Allison Hickey's that she has this strict criteria when evaluating bonuses -- when the economy is a recession and when you're putting together a committee to propose cuts to the safety net (that's what the Super Congress was -- it was also known as the Catfood Commission -- popularized by Lambert of Corrente and our own Ruth -- because if the safety net were gutted that's what many elderly people would be consuming: cat food), you cease the bonuses. You freeze them.
Considering all of Barack's attacks on Mitt Romney's business leadership in the last weeks, I'm surprised the Romney campaign isn't airing ads right now asking how the VA -- with its huge backlog and it's track record of no-accomplishments -- managed to give out $2.8 million in bonuses (to 245 people) when the country's is in the midst of a recession?
One of the few reporters reporting on yesterday's hearing is Jared Serbu (Federal News Radio -- link is text and audio). Serbu notes, "Allison Hickey, who took over in 2011 as the VA's undersecretary for benefits, said the biggest hang-up for claims has been the mountains of paper records that claims adjudicators have to sift through in order to make their determinations. She said the VA realizes it can't dig out of the backlog with that paper-based system. But she vowed that system is going away and soon." Yesterday, I noted we'd be dealing with one other aspect of the hearing in today's snapshot. We're going to deal with more than one. I saw a number of reporters at the hearing. I'm not seeing their reporting. I was hoping others would pick up points so that I didn't have to feel like I was the meanie repeatedly kicking Allison Hickey. Fine, if others won't do their job, I will. So we'll note when her claim imploded in her face -- I honestly avoided that because I figured all the reports would lead with it -- when you lie to Congress and your lie is exposed as soon as you stop speaking, seems like that's the easiest thing in the world to cover. We were already going to note her vanity. I have no idea why you brag about yourself the way she did. Maybe you feel your job's in jeopardy? I don't know. But it's one thing to credit your department with accomplishments and it's another thing to make a series of I-statements about what a great job you've done. There's another area we may cover as well.
The following community sites -- plus the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Antiwar.com -- updated last night and today:
-
One size fits all?2 hours ago
-
THIS JUST IN! DIVERSITY IN MEDIA?2 hours ago
-
John Halle9 hours ago
-
Nolan justifies the attacks10 hours ago
-
Wendell Potter the big liar10 hours ago
-
More drought10 hours ago
-
Burning Love10 hours ago
Okay. I'm not sure why an e-mail came in last night but we'll note this from the DPC.
