Feinstein, the wh*re, stealing from vets.

[Seadog]

It was in the news that Diane Feinstein stuck a rider in the Veterans Administration bill to steal 4 billion dollars from veteran care to give to a park in Beverly Hills. I just love how the democrudes are 'supporting out troops'.

[burbanite]

It was in the news that Diane Feinstein stuck a rider in the Veterans Administration bill to steal 4 million dollars from veteran care to give to a park in Beverly Hills. I just love how the democrudes are 'supporting out troops'.
She's as honest as she is good looking...
http://www.hotboatpics.com/pics/data/500/6dianne_feinstein_01.jpg
WALL STREET JOURNAL
Rambo's View
Dianne Feinstein's $4 billion earmark for Beverly Hills comes at the expense of America's veterans.
By Kimberly Strassel
September 7, 2007
Move over Bridge to Nowhere. Congress is back in town, and clearly back to business even uglier than usual.
It takes hard work to come up with an earmark more egregious than that infamous Alaskan bridge, but California's Dianne Feinstein is an industrious gal. Her latest pork--let's call it Rambo's View--deserves to be the poster child for everything wrong with today's greedy earmark process.
The senator's $4 billion handout (yes, you read that right) to wealthy West L.A. (yes, you read that right, too) is the ultimate example of how powerful members use earmarks to put their own parochial interests above national ones--in this case the needs of veterans. It's a case study in how Congress uses the appropriations process to substitute its petty wants for the considered judgments of agency professionals. And it's just the latest proof that, no matter how much outrage the American public might display over these deals--and no matter how often Congress promises to clean up its act--the elected have no intention of reforming the process.
The pork here revolves around the West Los Angeles Medical Center, though this is no average veterans' facility. Donated to the government in 1888, the center is 387 sprawling, prime real-estate acres in the middle of tony West L.A. More than twice the size of the National Mall, it is surrounded by the mansions and playgrounds of the city's elite, including the Bel Air Country Club and the Beverly Hills estates of Sylvester Stallone, Barry Bonds and Tim McGraw (to name a few).
Huge portions of the facility are also a veritable ghost town. It isn't just that 387 acres is an enormous space, and far larger than any one veteran's community in today's America might ever need. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Los Angeles County also falls on the lowest end in terms of the percentage of veterans living in the area. Nationally, veterans make up about 12.7% of people over the age of 18; the county's average is below 8.5%. Of 91 buildings on campus, 21 are today partially or wholly vacant. Meanwhile, the number of enrolled veterans in that facility is expected to decline by nearly a quarter over the next 20 years.
Which is why, when the Department of Veteran's Affairs set up a process in 2002 to study its infrastructure and rationalize its facilities, it designated the West L.A. center as one of 18 sites that might be downsized, any extra land being used to produce more revenue for veterans' needs. Under law, 108 acres of the L.A. site can't be touched, but the remaining 200-plus acres sit in the middle of a highly desirable real estate area and could yield significant financial gain. The VA has yet to make any decisions, but according to government estimates, even a modest reuse of the property--say leasing out excess acreage--could result in an extraordinary $4 billion for better care for veterans everywhere.
Given the recent uproar over Walter Reed, and Congress's many calls that we do more for the men and women returning home wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan, you'd think no elected representative could possibly have the chutzpah to impede the VA's considered attempts to inject efficiency into its facilities and provide better care for its constituents. Think ever so much again. It turns out the well-to-do in West L.A. consider the veteran's center grounds their own little rolling, personal park, and they want it to stay that way--thank you very much.
The area has in fact revved up a powerful lobby machine to ensure America's veterans don't get anything extra at the expense of their backyard. Ms. Feinstein, California Congressman Henry Waxman and other luminaries have united to publicly bash the VA's plans, and instead demand the "preservation" of the ground for local use. An overwrought Los Angeles Times weighed in, bemoaning that so few L.A. children live within "walking distance of a public place to play," and demanding this "treasured resource" not be ruined by "thoughtless" development. Word is that some Hollywood luminaries who live in Mr. Stallone's neck of the woods have also complained that any changes would impede views from their 15,000-square-foot manses.
Ms. Feinstein, who in the last election received some of her largest donations from the rich area, has been only too happy to come to its defense. She honed in on the military construction and veterans affairs bill--a sensitive spending vehicle that few Republicans would dare vote against, and that President Bush would be loath to veto. She then slipped in an earmark provision that would bar the VA from disposing or leasing any of the ground. Thus a potential $4 billion worth of help and aid for our nation's veterans goes bye-bye in the name of preserving a view for those Hollywood actors who play veterans in the movies.
The indefatigable earmark warrior, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, offered an amendment this week to strip Ms. Feinstein's earmark. California Sen. Barbara Boxer rose in righteous indignation on the Senate floor, and fizzed that she would never dream of leveling such a direct "attack" against South Carolina. The point of this speech was to remind her Senate colleagues that what's hers is hers, and that the penalty for voting against her and Ms. Feinstein's California pork would be the targeting of projects in their own states. They got the message. In the final vote, only 25 senators had the courage to put the nation's veterans above Ms. Feinstein's scenery, including just one Democrat (Sen. Russ Feingold).
Gory details aside, Ms. Feinstein has set a concerning new precedent. Up to now, Congress has had a healthy respect for the decisions of the VA's infrastructure review. That may well change, as more in Congress see Ms. Feinstein's success as an invitation to bring their own parochial concerns to the VA's decision-making process.
There is still one hope that some brave soul will take up this cause and attempt to get Rambo's View stripped from this bill during the House-Senate conference. Democrats have already reneged, and reneged again, on campaign pledges to clean up the earmark swamp, and in any event aren't likely to rally against a powerful member of their own party. But if Republicans had a collective IQ of even 70, they'd be making this particularly offensive pork item a rallying cry that they could use to demonstrate a renewed commitment to spending reform.
What is clear is that if this pork stands, no senator should again be allowed to bemoan a lack of veterans' funds without having this week's vote waved in his face.

[Seadog]

And let's not forget all the money in military contracts that were given to her husband's company while she headed the committee that awarded them. It at least explains why he married her. I sometimes think we are fighting the wrong enemy. Some idiot republican gets run out of office for something that would appear fishy and possibly illegal, while the big time crook Democrats get elected by the benficiaries of their theft from working Americans and veterans.

[cdog]

:supp: I'd like to poke her eye out with an assult rifle bayonet.

[burtandnancy2]

Right on SeaDog. My wife sends our congresswoman so many letters she's on our mailing list. But you should see the boilerplate that comes back. Our tax dollars at work...

[burbanite]

:supp: I'd like to poke her eye out with an assult rifle bayonet.
Here is the dumb azz biatch waffling on about the dangers of "assault" weapons and she is standing there with her finger on the trigger and sweeping the room...:eek:
http://www.hotboatpics.com/pics/data/500/6ma_feinstein.jpg

[ULTRA26 # 1]

It was in the news that Diane Feinstein stuck a rider in the Veterans Administration bill to steal 4 billion dollars from veteran care to give to a park in Beverly Hills. I just love how the democrudes are 'supporting out troops'.
Wasn't more like she attached an earmark to a Veterans Administration bill that would have no affect of the VET? If I am incorrect please let me know.
Whatever the case, it's not like B Hills needs Federal money so she is stiil an idiot.

[Sleek-Jet]

Here is the dumb azz biatch waffling on about the dangers of "assault" weapons and she is standing there with her finger on the trigger and sweeping the room...:eek:
http://www.hotboatpics.com/pics/data/500/6ma_feinstein.jpg
See... she told you they were dangerous...
Praise be to Sod...

[My Man's Sportin' Wood]

Here is the dumb azz biatch waffling on about the dangers of "assault" weapons and she is standing there with her finger on the trigger and sweeping the room...:eek:
http://www.hotboatpics.com/pics/data/500/6ma_feinstein.jpg
That's from the day when she still had a permit to carry concealed. She didn't want you or I to have guns, but she felt she needed one. Of course, after it came out in the news, she gave up the permit :rolleyes:
We call her Frankenstein in our house.

[My Man's Sportin' Wood]

Praise be to Sod. LMAO, Aaron.

[Sleek-Jet]

Praise be to Sod. LMAO, Aaron.
I'm deeply disturbed that there are people on this board who believe that Sod is fake... :(
A thinking man would know that Sod is real...
Praise be to Sod...
:D

[rrrr]

Wasn't more like she attached an earmark to a Veterans Administration bill that would have no affect of the VET? If I am incorrect please let me know.
Whatever the case, it's not like B Hills needs Federal money so she is stiil an idiot.
Jeez. You have to read the article. :rolleyes:
Her earmark would prevent the VA from selling $4 billion worth of unused real estate. Uh, that's $4 billion the VA could use to help other VA needs.
If she gets her way the land becomes a park for rich people.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Don't you people out there vote?

[My Man's Sportin' Wood]

Jeez. You have to read the article. :rolleyes:
Her earmark would prevent the VA from selling $4 billion worth of unused real estate. Uh, that's $4 billion the VA could use to help other VA needs.
If she gets her way the land becomes a park for rich people.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Don't you people out there vote?
For the record, neither SW or I EVER voted for that femmi-nazi. Problem is, this state is overrun with victemcrats. You guys had Ann Richards for a while. You're not immune :D
My conscience is clean.

[burbanite]

:mad: ya gotta wonder where these supposedly well educated people come up with these off the wall retarded ideas !!!:mad:
Self servingitis....
They have definite mental problems that drive them to make their own beds using everything that everyone else has at their disposal, in other words, they are thieves pure and simple. In another society they would be strung up.
Let's extrapolate this a little and take this kind of attitude by our elected representatives a few years down the road and see how far it has gotten out of control....enter the reason for the Second Amendment...

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Jeez. You have to read the article. :rolleyes:
Her earmark would prevent the VA from selling $4 billion worth of unused real estate. Uh, that's $4 billion the VA could use to help other VA needs.
If she gets her way the land becomes a park for rich people.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Don't you people out there vote?
IMO, there is something very wrong with this Country if it needs to sell Govt land to support the VA. The VA should be funded first.
A Federally owned park makes more sense than selling this property to some other Country, don't ya think?

[Rexone]

Jeez. You have to read the article. :rolleyes:
Her earmark would prevent the VA from selling $4 billion worth of unused real estate. Uh, that's $4 billion the VA could use to help other VA needs.
If she gets her way the land becomes a park for rich people.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Don't you people out there vote?
I vote. For anyone other than her and Boxer. So far I've been outnumbered it seems. :rolleyes:
The country in terms of government for the people is going to Hell. Hopefully Sod will intervene.

[burtandnancy2]

rrrr; of course we vote out here. We voted for no Mexican trucks, we voted for no amnesty, we voted for better security of our borders and harbors, we vote for a lot of things that make common sense. Unfortunately, someone voted in the current congress and now we're screwed...

[My Man's Sportin' Wood]

The country in terms of government for the people is going to Hell. Hopefully Sod will intervene.
I'll start praying.

[burbanite]

I vote. For anyone other than her and Boxer. So far I've been outnumbered it seems. :rolleyes:
Yes, you Californians seem to have a big problem if you are of sound mind.
There are limited choices and apparently there is some strange alien lifeforce influence on the rest of the sheeple....

[Seadog]

IMHO, if the Hollywood elite wants to preserve the space, they should buy the property and make it a park that they take care of. Even if the VA did not have an incentive to sell it, the very nature of its location makes it an asset that must be highly maintained. Can you imagine the reaction if the land was allowed to go 'natural'. And of course, the dumbocrats would biatch about the illegals that would be out of work if they were not mowing and weedeating.
It would be nice if the VA had all the money it needs, but as a taxpayer, I would rather see them take something they don't need and apply it to things they do need. That 40 billion dollars could come in very handy to upgrade Walter Reed into a facility worthy of our troops.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

IMHO, if the Hollywood elite wants to preserve the space, they should buy the property and make it a park that they take care of. Even if the VA did not have an incentive to sell it, the very nature of its location makes it an asset that must be highly maintained. Can you imagine the reaction if the land was allowed to go 'natural'. And of course, the dumbocrats would biatch about the illegals that would be out of work if they were not mowing and weedeating.
It would be nice if the VA had all the money it needs, but as a taxpayer, I would rather see them take something they don't need and apply it to things they do need. That 40 billion dollars could come in very handy to upgrade Walter Reed into a facility worthy of our troops.
IMO, the Feds selling off their assets to support this war is wrong. Those who favor our mission in Iraq, should have no problem contributing support through a WAR TAX. Supporting a war by selling off US assets makes no sense, at least not to me.
I have posted this issue in the poltical forum.

[boatsnblondes]

I'm clean....never voted for her once....I always thought she was just a serious dumazzz..........:mad:

['75 Miller]

IMO, the Feds selling off their assets to support this war is wrong. Those who favor our mission in Iraq, should have no problem contributing support through a WAR TAX. Supporting a war by selling off US assets makes no sense, at least not to me.
I have posted this issue in the poltical forum.
Perhaps I'm just a dummy, but would you please point out how selling this land would be done to finance the war.
Thanks.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Perhaps I'm just a dummy, but would you please point out how selling this land would be done to finance the war.
Thanks.
Please see the comment I was responding to
It was in the news that Diane Feinstein stuck a rider in the Veterans Administration bill to steal 4 billion dollars from veteran care to give to a park in Beverly Hills. I just love how the democrudes are 'supporting out troops'.

['75 Miller]

Please see the comment I was responding to
Yeah, I saw it. Just curious how you'd consider the sale of the land in question as being done to finance the war. I read and reread the article and never saw any mention of the pontential sale being considered as a way of financing the war.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Yeah, I saw it. Just curious how you'd consider the sale of the land in question as being done to finance the war. I read and reread the article and never saw any mention of the pontential sale being considered as a way of financing the war.
4 bil would last less than a week. I would hate to see foreign money purchase that piece of property.

[Seadog]

First off, who says this will be purchased by foreigners. That makes an assumption, unsupported by facts, designed to make this an 'us vs them' issue. Just like the carp decades ago about how the Japanese were buying up the United States. That proved to be garbage when they lost their money by buying high and having to sell low. What would happen if investors from other countries buy it? Are they going to turn it into a slum? Are they going to build a prison on it? Whoever buys it will build mansions or high end businesses there. And the city has control over the zoning, so that anything done is done properly. Would you feel better if Paris Hilton bought it?
And you need to get the reality that veterans are not just those fighting in Iraq. A veteran is an ex-soldier. A large number of veterans are being treated for injuries in Vietnam, Dominian Republic, Lebanon, Korea, and WWII, among many other situations. Four billion would pay for many facilities that the VA is lacking now. Go to a major VA hospital and see for yourself the need. You will find most of them are overcrowded, with long lines, and more serious problems than most civilian hospitals.
It is sick that a person cannot separate the war from those who have lost their health in service to their country. Imagine if a person lost a leg or arm while employed with a big company. Wouldn't it be demanded that they got the best care available? Wouldn't they be responsible for taking care of that person as long as they were disabled? Are you saying that the defenders of your nation are not worth the benefits given to every illegal alien working in this country?

[rrrr]

MMSW......
Ann Richards? LMAO!! :D
The schoolmarm knows her history! :D

[Wet Dream]

Keep up the great work of voting, Californians. :D

[GHT]

Crap like this just makes me sick.....:(

[ULTRA26 # 1]

First off, who says this will be purchased by foreigners. That makes an assumption, unsupported by facts, designed to make this an 'us vs them' issue. Just like the carp decades ago about how the Japanese were buying up the United States. That proved to be garbage when they lost their money by buying high and having to sell low. What would happen if investors from other countries buy it? Are they going to turn it into a slum? Are they going to build a prison on it? Whoever buys it will build mansions or high end businesses there. And the city has control over the zoning, so that anything done is done properly. Would you feel better if Paris Hilton bought it?
And you need to get the reality that veterans are not just those fighting in Iraq. A veteran is an ex-soldier. A large number of veterans are being treated for injuries in Vietnam, Dominian Republic, Lebanon, Korea, and WWII, among many other situations. Four billion would pay for many facilities that the VA is lacking now. Go to a major VA hospital and see for yourself the need. You will find most of them are overcrowded, with long lines, and more serious problems than most civilian hospitals.
It is sick that a person cannot separate the war from those who have lost their health in service to their country. Imagine if a person lost a leg or arm while employed with a big company. Wouldn't it be demanded that they got the best care available? Wouldn't they be responsible for taking care of that person as long as they were disabled? Are you saying that the defenders of your nation are not worth the benefits given to every illegal alien working in this country?
Please refer to the original post starting this thread that relates this issue to supporting our troops and Feinstein stealing 4 billion dollars from Vets and giving to to a park in Beverly Hills. As I recall this was your comment
It was in the news that Diane Feinstein stuck a rider in the Veterans Administration bill to steal 4 billion dollars from veteran care to give to a park in Beverly Hills. I just love how the democrudes are 'supporting out troops'.
I understand full well what the VA does and in recent times it isn't nearly enough. More of this Country's resources must be focused the care of Veterans. However, I am not of the belief that selling Federal assests, is the way to fund better care for Vets. The sale of this property equates to nothing more than a band-aid, on a problem that requires a long term solution.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Perhaps I'm just a dummy, but would you please point out how selling this land would be done to finance the war.
Thanks.
He won't, and can't, since he "doesn't get paid to investigate 'trivia' ", while being an "investigator" for a living, and nearly everything is to "trivial" to deserve "investigation", he just posts unsupported "feelings". :jawdrop:
He just feels that every source of income to the US govt is funding the war, a war he disagree with, since he doesn't want US soldiers dying to protect him from people who WANT HIM (and you, and I, and our families, and our neighbors, and our co-workers) DEAD!
As far as Feinstein goes, everything she does MUST be above reproach, seeing as she HEADS (is chaiman/chaiperson) the committee on ETHICS after stepping down from the millitary apropriations committee. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Old Texan]

Please refer to the original post starting this thread that relates this issue to supporting our troops and Feinstein stealing 4 billion dollars from Vets and giving to to a park in Beverly Hills. As I recall this was your comment
I understand full well what the VA does and in recent times it isn't nearly enough. More of this Country's resources must be focused the care of Veterans. However, I am not of the belief that selling Federal assests, is the way to fund better care for Vets. The sale of this property equates to nothing more than a band-aid, on a problem that requires a long term solution.
Have you considered the VA would sell the property, keep the money in the VA account, and use it to build new facilities that are aimed at replacing what is old and worn out??????
No mention anywhere of funding a war, that is your assumption.
Feinstein's plan looks like the property value would be removed from VA control and dispersed to her own personal agenda.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

And you need to get the reality that veterans are not just those fighting in Iraq. A veteran is an ex-soldier. A large number of veterans are being treated for injuries in Vietnam, Dominian Republic, Lebanon, Korea, and WWII, among many other situations. Four billion would pay for many facilities that the VA is lacking now. Go to a major VA hospital and see for yourself the need. You will find most of them are overcrowded, with long lines, and more serious problems than most civilian hospitals.
It is sick that a person cannot separate the war from those who have lost their health in service to their country. Imagine if a person lost a leg or arm while employed with a big company. Wouldn't it be demanded that they got the best care available? Wouldn't they be responsible for taking care of that person as long as they were disabled? Are you saying that the defenders of your nation are not worth the benefits given to every illegal alien working in this country?
A good friend of mine, and co-worker (the guy who has taught me most of my new job tasks in Accessory Overhaul) is a 'Nam Vet, and a great guy. Former Marine. We give each other a good deal of crap, from a mutually respected point of view. He's also a guy with an official "Agent Orange" profile, who, every time he so much as sneezes, I tell him to "get to the VA and blame it on Agent Orange". :D
We only work about 3 feet apart, and, unfortunately, the VA does not work that way it should. Vets, EVERY VET IMO, regardless of service length, and regardless of branch of service (including Guard and Reserves), should get FREE medical care, but that will never happen, because it simply costs too much money.
Just like the drive to give retired reservists pensions at 55 instead of at 60, it costs too much $$$$$$$$. 100's of thousand's of reservists, paid 5 years earlier, and 5 years longer, who live longer than average, and BACK-PAID 5 years.
Even active duty personnell have "insurance" they PAY FOR (Tricare) as opposed to free care. I don't rememnber what it cost me for the 2 years I was on it, with a family. It wasn't a whole lot, but it was what it was. Also, most medical care STATESIDE by mil members (non-VA), is done at local civilian hospitals.
The VA retirees I know in Wichita Ks, cannot go to the local Wichita VA Hospital. Every one I have ever met, has to go to Kansas City, and the folks at THIS hospital, are from KC and Oklahoma City. Figure THAT one out.
And some people want to put the US Federal Government in charge OF THIS NATION'S HEALTH CARE!!!!!!!!!!!! :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :sqeyes: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

No mention anywhere of funding a war, that is your assumption.
Since it involves Veterans, or the VA, and involves the VA selling something to get money, and a war is ongoing, it is a sale to fund a war. Simple, direct line of logic.
Crazed and unsupported, but simple and direct.

[SnoC653]

First off the title post said troops, not deployed troops. There are by far more troops not deployed than there are deployed. Not every vet uses his VA privlidges so as to not burden the over burdened VA even more. I pay my chiropractic bills out of pocket as not even TriCare covers it. And if you read her rider she is not only preventing the leasing/sales of the real estate; the VA is still responsible for maintaining the properties and buildings. So instead of riding themselves of an unused parcel of properties or at least turning it into a profit making lease, they have to spend additional VA funds to maintain this park. She didn't even have the decency to add extra funding to defray these costs. This is like saying if you have an extra HOT BOAT that you aren't using and you think about selling it as you aren't using it and don't want to pay upkeep, we as a forum can force you to not only not sell it and use the money on your new project, we can make you spend additional funds to keep the old boat up to our standards.
Maybe we can pettition the VA to send all us Vets to this park to stay in these underused buildings while awaiting treatment. Think West Beverly would like to see a couple thousand vets move in wait for thier treatment?
Since simple logic and reason seem to be out of some people's grasp I hope this gives them a clue. Either that or maybe we need to break out the Clue by fours and beat them till they realize they are wrong. (just kidding, I know they'd never realize they were wrong, just wishful thinking)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Have you considered the VA would sell the property, keep the money in the VA account, and use it to build new facilities that are aimed at replacing what is old and worn out??????
No mention anywhere of funding a war, that is your assumption.
Feinstein's plan looks like the property value would be removed from VA control and dispersed to her own personal agenda.
Tex, funding the troops was part of the original post that started this thread. Seems that the intent of the article was nothing more than left bashing. See ES's repines below. He is very knowledge about the VA
First off the title post said troops, not deployed troops. There are by far more troops not deployed than there are deployed. Not every vet uses his VA privlidges so as to not burden the over burdened VA even more. I pay my chiropractic bills out of pocket as not even TriCare covers it. And if you read her rider she is not only preventing the leasing/sales of the real estate; the VA is still responsible for maintaining the properties and buildings. So instead of riding themselves of an unused parcel of properties or at least turning it into a profit making lease, they have to spend additional VA funds to maintain this park. She didn't even have the decency to add extra funding to defray these costs. This is like saying if you have an extra HOT BOAT that you aren't using and you think about selling it as you aren't using it and don't want to pay upkeep, we as a forum can force you to not only not sell it and use the money on your new project, we can make you spend additional funds to keep the old boat up to our standards.
Maybe we can pettition the VA to send all us Vets to this park to stay in these underused buildings while awaiting treatment. Think West Beverly would like to see a couple thousand vets move in wait for thier treatment?
Since simple logic and reason seem to be out of some people's grasp I hope this gives them a clue. Either that or maybe we need to break out the Clue by fours and beat them till they realize they are wrong. (just kidding, I know they'd never realize they were wrong, just wishful thinking)
It's all just a theoretical debate. The V.A. Doesn't even really own the land WLA is on. It was willed to the VA by Sawtell for use only for veterans. If it is sold for use other than by veterans the whole property reverts back to his heirs. The VA has been trying to find a way to sell off some of that land (they have way more than they can use there) for at least 30 years (including under the Clinton administration) the only thing that is different about this latest attempt is that the press decided to give it more coverage this time.
So there you have it