Politics - what I see and what I do not understand: 02/03/13

Saturday, March 2, 2013

What now? Congress looks towards new March deadline
By Frank Thorp, House producer, NBC News

With the sequestration cogs now turning, in the coming weeks Congress will turn its attention to its next budget deadline on March 27, when funding for the federal government is set to expire.

Without a Continuing Resolution (CR) approved by Congress, the country could face a government shutdown in addition to the existing sequestration cuts.

House Speaker John Boehner said Friday that he intends to bring up a CR next week that would avert a shutdown – a fight he says he would like to avoid while Congress is working to cushion the blow of the across-the-board government cuts which were set to go into effect March 1.
“I’m hopeful that we won’t have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown while we're dealing with the sequester at the same time,” Boehner told reporters after a meeting between Congressional leaders and President Obama at the White House to discuss the budget cuts.

The CR the House will consider next week will keep spending levels the same as last year, but with the caveat that sequestration would drop that level lower if those cuts are not dealt with in the coming weeks and months.

The Republican bill would also give flexibility to the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs Departments in an effort to allow them to move funding around in ways that a straight extension of government funding would not.

The CR, which would keep the government running through September, would keep government funding levels at $1.043 trillion, but because it would be subject to sequestration, the level could effectively drop to somewhere around $974 billion for the 2013 fiscal year.

House Republicans seem surprisingly galvanized around this plan, considering there was originally concern amongst conservatives that allowing any wiggle room to avoid sequestration would not be something they would support.

Rep Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., a notable conservative, told reporters this week that he would support the strategy, and House Republicans met as a conference on Wednesday to discuss the CR, a meeting that aides said went well.

The question is whether House and Senate Democrats will support the plan, or instead ask for more flexibility for other departments not associated with the military.

Asked today if House Democrats would support the Republican-proposed plan, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she would have to look at the specific language of the bill before making a decision.

“It would be curious to me if at that level the Republicans can produce the votes to pass (the CR),” Pelosi told reporters, “But certainly we don't want to have a shutdown of government.”

Government funding was scheduled to expire on October 1st, 2012, but Congress passed a six-month CR in September to avoid government shutdown talks ahead of the November elections. The bill passed the House with bipartisan support, 329-91.

Congress, White House get full pay during sequester

3/1/2013

1:33pm

by Chris in Paris
PDF file below

Even if the sequester shuts down much of the federal government, including your Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid payments, and unemployment benefits, for starters, unlike other federal employees the salaries of members of Congress and the President will not be in jeopardy. Their salaries won’t be cut.

Isn’t that convenient?

Not only does the DC political class get the best government-subsidized health insurance, and perks that haven’t existed in decades for working Americans, they also have nothing to worry about when it comes to the sequester.

This is yet another example of why DC politics is broken.

Senior politicians in Washington have nothing to lose by being extremists. Sure they might have to listen to a few complaints from the 99% about longer lines at the airport, or maybe additional people being out of work, but for them life is good. They live in a city where property values didn’t drop that much during the past decade, and have actually been increasing since January of 2009. Life as a senior politician in Washington, DC is pretty good, in addition to creating a false of sense of prosperity.

Matt Gibson / Shutterstock.com

How many Americans can rest comfortably at night knowing that they have government-subsidized healthcare?
How many friends do you have that enjoy luxurious retirement plans? Such easy-living retirement plans have been dead in the US for decades, unless you’re part of the political class.

And perks continue if you’re part of that group. Everything that’s gone away since the tide turned during the Reagan years still lives in Washington.

We shouldn’t expect answers to tough problems like healthcare and the budget when politicians in Washington have no skin in the game.

Republicans and their cronies on Wall Street are constantly talking about how we have to tighten our belts – but they mean us, not them. They want cuts to our health and retirement benefits, not to their corporate welfare. In fact, the most recent fiscal cliff deal included over $200 billion in corporate gifts. I didn’t see a lot of gifts for the rest of us. They get the bail outs, we get the cuts.

Since the GOP, and far too many Democrats, like to babble on about the benefits of the free market, let’s introduce the free market to Washington, DC. Make political Washington get its own health insurance on the open market like the rest of us. And when the government shuts down, make them face the same cutback in services, and benefits, and salaries as everyone else in the country.

The problem would be solved in minutes if political leaders in Washington had to suffer the consequences of their own inaction.

Congressional Salaries and Allowances January 15, 2013 by Peggy Satterfield

lynchie • a day agoI recall various congressman and even the president say that the economy was tough and we all had to share the pain. Except of course the congressman and the 1%. We are expected to take our medicine for the good of the country and our fellow Americans. Funny how that works, their pension and income is guaranteed. We of course are subject to their tinkering on health care, SS and a myriad of other thing, If any one group has entitlements it is the Congress Americans so revile, yet they are immune to our pleading for a little consideration but let one banker or stock broker whine about their staggering incomes or their minimal taxes on that income and these same incompetent fucks jump on the we have to bail them out story, guarantee bonuses for a job poorly done, or we can't keep their expertise without high compensation. Tell that to the people working in Walmart who are prevented from organizing because the Walton's might have to be worth a few hundred dollars less. Tell that to college grads who can't even get a job at McD's because they are also competing for the same job with their mother or father who has been unemployed for a year or two. Tell that to the families who have lost their homes because they were lied to by the banks and mortgage companies. Tell that to the people living in their car or van. Tell that to the people who have just plain given up. I am so sick and tired of hearing about trickle down and the shared pain. The only thing that trickles down is a little squirt of urine every time i see these overpaid, arrogant, motherfuckers on tv talk about cutting SS and Medicare because they have to with no thought of the staggering amounts of money already stolen from the treasury and pissed away in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah it is our fault not theirs, it is our bad decisions not theirs. Yeah sell that bag of shit to someone else.›

Peter • a day ago

We were in trouble as a nation when Congress enacted provisions to grant themselves "retirement plans". Welcome to the working? world of "professional" politicians.›

Drew2u • a day ago

They also get health insurance while only being part-time workers. I wish I could get $75/hr and full health coverage for only working part-time.

Naja pallida Drew2u • a day ago

Part-time? You are being exceedingly generous. The House decided to pack it in at somewhere around 2 in the afternoon yesterday. Not even a full day's work. If you could call having to sit in the chamber and once in a while get up to cast a vote, whether you know anything about the issue being voted on or not, as work. The majority of Congresspeople never write bills, never get up and make speeches on the floor. When they do have to explain themselves to their constituents, it is usually in a pretty controlled environment that enables them to escape at the earliest convenience. Campaigning and soaking up cash is their job, and that's what they have a nearly million dollars a year staff - each - for. Calling it work, even part-time work, is an insult to working Americans. All the extra little perks for being a member of Congress need to be taken away. Return it to the time when people who were there wanted to be there because they felt an obligation to serve their country, not just serving themselves by soaking up campaign donations and living a life way beyond the means of the vast majority of Americans.

Drew2u Naja pallida • a day ago

Is this something that can be passed at the state level or would something need to be federally enacted or constitutionally amended?›

Naja pallida Drew2u • a day ago

I don't think anything could be done at the state level. Congress votes on its own pay rate, raises and benefits packages. Due to the 27th Amendment, their salary could not be changed this Congress. Anything they passed wouldn't go into effect until the next Congress, but they could change benefits and retirement packages outside of their salary any time they wanted to. They could also change lobbying and campaign law so that politicians weren't just sitting around soaking up huge amounts of outside cash regardless of their Congressional salary. They could also cut their staff budgets without much fuss, if they were actually serious about it. Each Representative has about a million dollar a year staff, give or take. Senators nearly twice that. Why does each and every member of Congress get their own press secretary, their own legislative council (usually more than one), as well as multiple legislative and executive assistants? Seems like a lot of overlap and extra people, when those jobs could be narrowed down and even shared among Representatives. I mean, how busy could one Representative's press secretary possibly be that he couldn't do the job for two or three other Reps at the same time? They could also change the hours and number of days they are in session. Instead of taking 2/3 of the year off, like they have for this Congress. And counting a day as having been a day 'in session' even if they left half way through the day. There is also no real requirement for Reps to even be in the chamber during in session hours.›

BeccaM • a day ago

I see this more as a 1% vs 99% issue than mere politics.

The 1% (or, more accurately, the 0.01%) are never asked to give up anything. In fact, every 'solution' proposed for the latest Shock Doctrine crisis ends up enriching the PBCs (Plutocratic Bastard Class) even more.

But as Rerutled points out, it's in the Constitution, that neither the Congress's nor the President's pay can be changed during their current term of office. On the other hand, there's nothing in the Constitution that says Congress is entitled to their ridiculously short working weeks and frequent recesses, an especially egregious situation when there's an urgent situation (of their own creation) that needs dealing with.

To them, this really is nothing more than a game. And we're all the pawns up for sacrifice.›

nicho • a day ago

OK -- lock 'em all in the Capitol until it's over. Nothing but baloney sandwiches and water. No telephone. No television. No face time on TV. No internet. No booze. No access to their mistresses, boy toys, or hookers. Then we'll see how long it takes them to come to a conclusion. I'm guessing about an hour.›

jim morrissey • a day ago

Politicians primarily care about themselves first. There are a few exceptions, of course, but what an ugly lot they are.›

Joneses • a day ago

Since majority of Congress, ie, GOPERS, are basically not doing what is expected of them like ummmmmm getting the American economy back on its feet, I'll say they should be fired (impeached). Take away their pay and benefits and if they apply for unemployment only give them about 6 weeks and tell them to go out and find a job because as they say, the jobs are out there and a family of
four can survive off of minimum wage and if you get sick go to the ER.
I know I'm dreaming, but in reality, overall, the GOPERS will be hurting their own constituents but alas they are soooooooo blinded, yes of course, they will blame O, well maybe 60%. Dems to pick up at least 40%.

benb • a day ago

All those civilian workers on all those military bases in all those Red States are gonna get furlowed. Many are family members of serving military. You know, two small kids, husband's in Afghanistan and the wife loses her job at the BX. Local Republican congressman holds a town hall & tries to convince her that it's Obama's fault, that her unemployment is helping the Country.

Bill_Perdue • a day ago

The central problem is that the government is run by and for the rich. There is no possibility of reforming their government enough to end their wars, their massive unemployment and poverty and their determined attacks on the Bill of Rights.

Far from the possibility of more reforms, they are now dismantling the reforms like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and the voting Rights Act. Under Carter, Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton and Obama they've already dismantled regulatory laws and agencies and in the process created the current Depression and escalated the degradation of the environment. Clinton was far and away the worst of the lot - DADT, DOMA, NAFTA, much less welfare and many more cops and the deregulation of barriers that had kept predatory banks in line.

That is not going to change short of the victory of a campaign for revolutionary changes that leads to the creation of a workers government, one run by and for workers.

There are no more options. That's why the labor left is renewing their effort to create a Labor Party and break from dependence on Democrats and Republicans who are active enemies of workers. "The Corporations Have Two Parties, Now What?" "... the labor movement is back to facing familiar reality. That would be our relative powerlessness in the political arena, symbolized by ongoing party bickering and horse-trading that have nothing to do with the needs or desires of the 99%. How do we reverse this powerlessness? Lately you may have a heard co-worker, or even yourself, muttering “We need our own political party.” http://www.labornotes.org/blog...

UPDATED: Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2012

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2012
Ida A. Brudnick
Specialist on the Congress
PDF file below

The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 6, authorizes compensation for Members of Congress “ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.” Throughout American history, Congress has relied on three different methods in adjusting salaries for Members. Specific legislation was last used to provide increases in 1990 and 1991. It was the only method used by Congress for many years.

The second method, under which annual adjustments took effect automatically unless disapproved by Congress, was established in 1975. From 1975 to 1989, these annual adjustments were based on the rate of annual comparability increases given to the General Schedule federal employees. This method was changed by the 1989 Ethics Act to require that the annual adjustment be determined by a formula based on certain elements of the Employment Cost Index. Under this revised process, annual adjustments were accepted 13 times (scheduled for January 1991, 1992, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009) and denied eight times (scheduled for January 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, 2010, and 2011).

In the 112th Congress, numerous bills have been introduced to alter this procedure, reduce the pay of Members of Congress, prevent or delay pay in the event of a government shutdown, or extend the current pay freeze.

Previously, in the 111th Congress, the Senate passed legislation (S. 620) that would have eliminated the provision of the Ethics Reform Act that provides for future automatic annual pay adjustments, although no further action was taken.

The salary for Members of Congress is currently $174,000. Members were originally scheduled to receive a 0.9% pay adjustment in 2011. This adjustment would have equaled a $1,600 increase, resulting in a salary of $175,600.

The pay adjustment was prohibited by P.L. 111-165 (H.R. 5146), which was enacted on May 14, 2010.
Additionally, P.L. 111-322, which was enacted on December 22, 2010, prevented any adjustment in GS base pay before December 31, 2012.
Since the percent adjustment in Member pay may not exceed the percent adjustment in the base pay of GS employees, Member pay is also frozen during this period.

If not limited by GS pay, Members could have received a salary adjustment of 1.3% in January 2012 under the ECI formula.

Previously, a provision in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act prohibited any pay adjustment for 2010.

Members were originally scheduled to receive a pay adjustment in January 2010 of 2.1%, although this would have been revised automatically to 1.5% to match the GS base pay adjustment.
In January 2009, Members received a 2.8% pay adjustment under the formula established by the Ethics Reform Act.
Members previously received a 2.5% adjustment in pay in January 2008, resulting in a salary of $169,300.
According to the formula, Members originally were scheduled to receive a 2.7% adjustment in 2008, increasing their salary to $169,700. This figure was automatically revised downward to 2.5% to match the increase in base pay given to employees under the General Schedule.

Members voted to delay and then prohibit a pay adjustment for 2007. Pay in 2007 remained at the 2006 level of $165,200.

A third method for adjusting Member pay is congressional action pursuant to recommendations from the President, based on the recommendations of the Citizens’ Commission on Public Service and Compensation established in the 1989 Ethics Reform Act. Although the Citizens’ Commission should have convened in 1993, it did not and has not met since then.

Date of Report: February 22, 2012
Number of Pages: 30
Order Number: 97-615

Salaries of Members of Congress.congressional Votes, 1990-2012 by Peggy Satterfield

Budget cuts would hit Congress but not its members
Gregory Korte

6:02p.m. EST

February 25, 2013
2-PDF files below the second is history of pay from 1789

Senators and representatives won't have their own pay cut as part of the "sequester." The cuts could still hit close to home for Congress.

(Photo: Drew Angerer, Getty Images)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Under the Constitution, members of Congress can't have their own pay cut as part of the 'sequester'

Congressional offices could see an across-the-board budget cut of about 9%

Budget cuts could hit some congressional offices harder than others

WASHINGTON — As the rest of the federal government prepares for furloughs, layoffs and sweeping budget cuts caused by the "sequester," the people who could prevent the cuts are the ones whose paychecks are protected: members of Congress.

The 27th Amendment to the constitution — intended to prevent members of Congress from voting themselves a pay raise — also prohibits them from taking a pay cut until after the next election.

MORE: Obama enlists governors' help on sequestration

Congress will feel the pain in other ways. Members' office budgets, committee staff and leadership offices will all see the same across-the-board cuts as any other discretionary , non-defense spending.

Other legislative branch functions — the Capitol Visitor Center, the Library of Congress's Books for the Blind program, even the Capitol Police — would take cuts of about 9%, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget.

In the House, each representative gets an annual office budget of about $1.5 million — more for members from expensive and faraway districts.

Some congressional offices may feel the cuts more deeply than others. A USA TODAY analysis of 2011 congressional spending showed that 40% of House members had spent more than 90% of their office budgets — and Congress has cut its own budgets by about 8% since then. Additional cuts imposed by the sequester could force these offices to lay off staff or implement other cost-cutting strategies.

In 2011, Congress passed — and President Obama signed into law — the Budget Control Act, which required the across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion as a way to motivate lawmakers to find some other way of reducing the nation's budget deficit. They didn't.

Much of the $85 billion cost savings this year will come through furloughs, the administration has said. As many as 800,000 civilian employees in the Defense Department will have to take 22 days of unpaid leave before Oct. 1. Active-duty military and civilian defense employees in combat zones are exempt, as are senior political appointees in the Obama administration who don't fall under federal civil service rules.

The Executive Office of the President is subject to the sequester, but White House spokesman Jay Carney — while warning of the dire effects of agency cuts — declined to elaborate on how the presidency would be impacted. Again, the president's salary wouldn't be cut.

When Congress passed the sequester, Washington Rep. Norman Dicks, then the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, warned colleagues that the sequester would mean the elimination of about two legislative aides in a typical congressional office.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., runs two offices — his member office and the House Judiciary Committee, where he's chairman. He said the sequester hasn't come as a surprise — so he doesn't expect that draconian measures will be necessary to come within budget.

"We have been taking this into account with our hiring, both on the committee and in my congressional office. So I hope to be able to avoid that," he said. "Any federal agency that has been listening to what's been going on for the last year and a half since this issue came up, I would hope has also taken that into account in their hiring practices so that they can mitigate the effect. I don't have the faith that all of them have done that."

Contributing: Alan Gomez

Legislative, Executive, And Judicial Officials.process for Adjusting Pay and Current Salaries by Peggy Satterfield

Salaries of Members of Congres.a List of Payable Rates and Effective Dates, 1789-2008 February 9, 2011 by Peggy Satterfield

'Jedi Mind Meld' : White House embraces nerdy meme for sequestration push

The President's reference to a 'Jedi mind-meld' had fans buzzing — since the two aren't meant to be paired together: Jedi are from "Star Wars" and mind melds are an occurrence on "Star Trek." NBC's Brian Williams reports. By Carrie Dann, Political Reporter, NBC News
Welp, you can’t say they don’t move fast.

Hours after President Barack Obama joked about a “Jedi mind meld” to prompt bipartisan compromise on the sequester -- prompting cries of “gaffe!” from sci-fi devotees -- the White House took to Twitter add fuel to the nerdy meme created by the commander in chief.

“We must bring balance to the Force” the official White House Twitter account blasted to its nearly 3.7 million followers.

President Barack Obama discusses his Friday sequester meeting at the White House with Capitol Hill lawmakers, including House Speaker John Boehner.

The tweet included a photo of the president superimposed with the lines “These cuts aren’t the solutions Americans are looking for” and “To deny the facts would be illogical.”

The lines -- references to famous dialogue from Star Wars and Star Trek, respectively -- offered a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement that the president’s joke muddled the two series, and it also serves as a publicity tool for the administration’s website promoting its “solutions” to the sequester.

The URL for that site? Whitehouse.gov/JediMindMeld

After Newtown, states slow to embrace new gun laws

By Matthew DeLuca, Staff Writer, NBC News

Months after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, new state-level restrictions on guns have been slow in coming, and they’ve mostly been concentrated in a handful of states that already have tough gun laws.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in at least a half-dozen other states have gone the other way, proposing and in some instances passing bills that would expand where and when a person can be in possession of a firearm.

But for residents in the vast majority of states, gun ownership looks unlikely to change much absent federal legislation.

A person can still buy a pistol at a Nevada gun show without a background check or carry a rifle inside the New Hampshire state house, just as he or she could before Adam Lanza brought a Bushmaster .223 rifle into a Newtown, Conn., elementary school and opened fire.
“There has been activity in other states that one might not ordinarily think of -- Colorado, for example,” said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. But there remain “the Idahos of the world, where really little has changed since Newtown.”

Gun-control advocates had high hopes that the Newtown tragedy would serve as a galvanizing moment for the country. Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said at the time that he hoped it would be a “catalyst to demand the sensible change.”

While recent mass shootings do appear to have moved public opinion – a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found American support for stricter gun laws at its highest level in a decade – there has not been a rush at the state level to embrace sweeping new gun laws.

And most of the dozen or so states where significant new restrictions have been proposed already have a “C+” rating or above from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, putting them among the nation’s top states for gun control.

“Most of the viable proposals on the federal level and in most states would have very little impact on self-defense,” said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh. “But pretty much all the gun control proposals out there are not going to be terribly effective at combating criminals.”

In New Jersey, several lawmakers began calling for new gun laws in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown shooting, even though the state already has an A- rating from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Legislators voted a raft of bills through the Democrat-controlled state assembly on Feb. 22, including a ban on .50 caliber weapons and a 10-round magazine limit. Those bills may still be held up by a hesitant Senate and Republican governor.

“We’re going to take a hard look at the bills the Assembly did,” New Jersey Senate President Stephen Sweeney said in an interview with Philadelphia radio station 106.9FM. “Some might be changed, some might not go through at all.”

At the same time, lawmakers in Wyoming, South Dakota, Kansas, Tennessee, Texas, and Arizona all moved to loosen their controls on firearms, in many cases thumbing their nose at prospective federal legislation.

An Arkansas bill allowing holders of concealed-carry permits to bring their gun into churches was signed into law by Governor Mike Beebe, a Democrat, on Feb. 11.
First sponsored by state Senator Bryan King, the Church Protection Act passed the state’s Republican-controlled Senate by an overwhelming majority. In Kentucky, the state Senate voted 34 to 3 on Feb. 25 to approve a bill outlawing the enforcement of federal gun laws that do not yet exist.

The most aggressive gun-control legislative action so far has come in New York, where Gov. Andrew Cuomo championed one of the nation’s toughest bans on assault weapons, the first to come in the wake of Newtown. But the state already boasted gun laws that were among the nation’s toughest.

Even in states seared by recent tragedies, lawmakers have found their progress slowed.

After Connecticut lawmakers failed to coalesce around any of the gun laws offered in the days after Newtown, Democratic Gov. Dan Malloy introduced his own proposal and vowed to shove it through.

Lawmakers are trying to forge a bipartisan consensus but they are finding it difficult. “I would hope that we would have a broadly supported bipartisan bill, but I think it’s more important that we have a strong bill that meets the need,” said Sen. Majority Leader Martin Looney, a Democrat.

In Colorado, home of the Aurora theater shooting, House lawmakers advanced gun-control bills after some last-minute lobbying from Joe Biden, drawing the wrath of Republicans.

The bills would mandate universal background checks, ban magazines with more than 15 rounds, and allow college campuses to prohibit concealed carry. With the Senate planning to vote soon, the magazine maker Magpul Industries threatened to abandon its plant 28 miles from Denver if the proposed magazine limit is put into law.

“Colorado is in a unique position in that we have suffered these tragedies firsthand, so there is a drumbeat in Colorado,” said Colorado Senate President John Morse, a Democrat. “I think the governor will be in support of all of these bills once we get them to his desk.”

Passing a bill expanding gun rights can be complicated, too, as Wyoming State Representative Kendell Kroeker, a Republican, found out.

He got a bill passed in the state House of Representatives that would have made it illegal for anyone to enforce any new federal law that placed restrictions on guns, ammunition, or other firearms accessories within the borders of the state.

That bill died amid questions of its constitutionality, Kroeker said. But the response from his constituents was “overwhelmingly positive,” he added.
Whether gun ownership changes for most Americans may come down to actions taken on the national level, as hesitant state lawmakers wait for a cue from Washington. The Senate Judiciary Committee put a one-week hold on prospective federal gun bills on Thursday.

Related:

Gun stores running low on weapons as sales surge

Anger, violent thoughts: Are you too sick to own a gun?

Disaster relief? Dealing with Oklahoma City bombing fund 'horrible,' victim says
Fri Mar 1, 2013 9:17 AM EST

By Anna Schecter
Rock Center

A group of survivors and relatives of those killed in the Oklahoma City bombing are outraged that there is $10 million sitting in a disaster relief fund designed to help them. Meanwhile they say they’ve been denied help for years.

“They tell us that there are all these restrictions,” said Deloris Watson, whose grandson, P.J. Allen, was severely injured in the April 1995 explosion.

NBC News
PJ Allen in the hospital after being injured in the Oklahoma City Bombing.

Watson said she was led to believe the fund was depleted because it has been so difficult over the past 18 years to get financial aid.

A year after the bombing, the Oklahoma City Community Foundation was entrusted with $14.5 million in donated money from sympathetic individuals and religious groups around the world. The money was put into a newly established Oklahoma City Disaster Relief Fund.

Then-Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating mandated that the fund be used to help with the long-term health care needs of survivors and scholarships for children who lost a parent in the blast.

Watson said the Oklahoma City Community Foundation was helpful at first, but as the years wore on, the caseworkers lost their empathy.

“It's been horrible. It has been absolutely horrible. I try not to reveal that to P.J., the struggle, the attitude, the lack of respect,” Watson told NBC News' Harry Smith in an interview airing tonight at 10pm/9CDT on NBC's Rock Center with Brian Williams.

In 2005, then-11-year-old Allen needed major surgery on his trachea. Watson, who became his sole guardian after the bombing, said the Oklahoma City Community Foundation refused to pay for the surgery directly, instead steering her toward Medicaid to cover the cost.

“Why would the state of Oklahoma have to take money from taxpayers when money's been donated to the bombing fund to meet the medical needs of the children?” asked Watson.

The Ronald McDonald House, the Red Cross and the Oklahoma City Community Foundation all pitched in to cover hospital and living expenses during Allen’s recovery and rehabilitation after the surgery.

Watson and a handful of disgruntled survivors and relatives of those killed have formed a group called the Survivor Tree.

One member, Gloria Chipman, lost her husband in the bombing. She said that though her son was given tuition money for college, her daughter was told by the foundation that her grades were not good enough for financial aid.

“You get denied so many times, you finally -- you give up,” Chipman said.

Falesha Joyner lost an ear in the explosion. She said she just wants contact lenses because without an ear, her glasses will not stay on.

When Tim Hearn's mother was killed in the bombing, he left school to raise his siblings. Last year he was denied tuition money for trade school, he said, because the Oklahoma City Community Foundation told him he was too old.

NBC News

Tim Hearn says the fund has denied him money to attend trade school.

“They can't put a time limit on when a person wants to go to school. They don't know my situation. You know, if they lost someone through a bombing or anything like that, they'd feel what I'm talking about,” said Hearn.

Nancy Anthony, president of the foundation, told NBC News there is another side to the story.

She said the caseworkers who have been helping survivors and the families of victims are caring and do the best they can to help those in need.

“I think everybody has to be realistic about what can be done and how much money can really do,” Anthony said, adding that she cannot comment on specific cases because of confidentiality agreements.

The disgruntled survivors all believe the foundation cares more about preserving the fund than providing assistance.

They said they are always pushed to state and federal programs first, resulting in a grind through government bureaucracies that has left them exhausted and angry.

“I think that they felt that we should just move on with our life. And all of us wanted to move on with our lives, but you can't move on with your life when you still have some major health issues hanging over you,” said Watson.

Allen said it has been difficult to watch his grandmother struggle through red tape to help him.

NBC News

Nancy Anthony, president of the Oklahoma City Community Foundation, says the fund for the victims of the bombing has helped nearly 1000 people.

“I don't understand why they have made it so difficult for not only myself but other survivors and victims to get the medical stuff they need and surgeries. I just wish my grandma didn't have to go through all that,” he said.

Adding insult to injury

Angry survivors were stunned when they recently learned there is still more than $10 million in the fund.

Adding insult to injury, in 2005 the Oklahoma City Community Foundation decided to reallocate nearly $4.5 million away from the survivors to a variety of causes including the Oklahoma City National Memorial, other communities hit by disasters and future research on disaster relief.

“They decided to give $4.4 million away, and we're on welfare…. I can't even imagine that,” said Watson.

Anthony said she will revisit the decision to reallocate money to other causes.

“We were thoughtful about it at the point in time when we did it,” she said. “We had perhaps a different perspective of it. So that can be revisited.”

Anthony underscored that she is fulfilling the mandate the foundation was given when the bombing fund was formed, as well as following the requirements of the Internal Revenue Service.

The Disaster Relief Fund has provided $11.1 million in assistance through 16,256 transactions to 962 people, according to the foundation’s website.

Anthony said that she and her colleagues have been good stewards of the money, and that is why, with interest earned on investments, there is $10 million currently in the fund. By preserving the fund, she said the foundation has ensured that there will be money to take care of survivors in need for many years to come.

“This isn't about distributing money. It's about helping people move forward. The money is just another tool. You have to try to say, ‘What's your ultimate goal here?’ If the goal is to give the money away, well, we could've done that a long time ago. But I don't know that would've been terribly effective,” she added.

When asked if the role of the foundation was to be paternalistic, she replied, “I guess that might be what we have done, whether that's good or bad.”

Attorney Ken Feinberg, who handled the distribution of billions of dollars for victims of 9/11, the BP oil spill, and the Virginia Tech and Aurora movie theater shootings, said taking a paternalistic approach is the worst thing you can do.

“I'll never forget in Virginia Tech, one family said, ‘We're going to take our share of the proceeds, and we're going to celebrate the memory of our lost son by going to Disney World with the whole family.’ My view of that is if that's what you want to do with compensation that is due you, do it,” Feinberg told NBC News.

Having built his career on overseeing settlement payouts in the wake of massive disasters, he has been criticized by some lawyers and victims for pressuring claimants to give up their right to sue. Over the years he said he has learned a few lessons along the way.

“All the words in the world are no substitute for getting the money out the door…. Do not attempt to restrict how the funds will be used. Do not attempt to educate or explain. ‘Here's the money -- it's yours,’” he said.

When asked how he would handle the donated funds for the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, Feinberg said he would determine who is eligible to receive money and how much, and distribute it within 60 days without restriction and then close the program.

Anthony said her hands are tied. She said the foundation is bound by IRS restrictions and her duty to the donors.

“We have limitations. We can't always do what [the survivors] want us to do. And I think that there needs to be a little bit of respect for trying to understand what the donors wanted. And I don't think you can say that everyone donated money for a specific thing,” she said.

Watson said she is worried about Allen’s future health care needs. He will likely need a lung transplant, and she does not want him to have to fight as hard as she has to get the aid he will need.

“I don't want him to have to go through what I had to go through from him having his trach removed,” she said.

Politics - what I see and what I do not understand

Pages

Saturday, March 2, 2013

iGoogle+

Add This