Rep. Neugebauer (TX) on Veterans Benefits

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    I have read your latest newsletter with your particular emphasis on our appreciation for the service of our military veterans.
    All true, and as a veteran fortunate enough to having not been wounded in combat, I extend my appreciation to those who have not been so fortunate. This was also a nice campaigning move on your part.
    I am continually bombarded on TV by a Wounded Warrior Project requesting that I donate $19 a month to take care of wounded warriors. I find this ridiculous! It apparently only finds its basis in the deficiency of the Veterans Administration (VA).
    Men and women enter military service, either as volunteers or in times of war, as draftees. In either case, they literally devote their lives to the preservation of the United States of America. In return, they individually receive housing, food, medical care and generally all items of normal living, plus a small salary. If in the course of duty they are wounded in combat, they also receive medical attention to return them to previous health, as well as possible. In some cases, the bodily devastation is such that a normal return is not possible, and they continue their lives as paralyzed invalids or subject of posttraumatic stress.
    The Wounded Warrior Project says, "Your generous, tax-deductible donation in wounded warrior projects (WWP) enables us to help thousands of injured veterans returning from the battlefield and helps provide assistance to their families."
    Isn't this the sort of thing that we should already be supplying to our wounded veterans? I believe it is, because it should be one of the benefits that they really originally received under contract on original enlistment. There are certainly ramifications, which have bearing on the situation. One of them is that I find it ridiculous that thousands of our military personnel have been killed or severely wounded from the use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), which are small hidden bombs. In World War II, we called them "Booby Traps". With the present state of high technology available, it is almost inconceivable to me that military leadership has been unable to cope with this. However whether there is still low or high damage to military personnel, it should be part of military's responsibility to appropriately handle the damage. This would include as much reasonable medical treatment as possible, followed by the use of subsequent devices, such as artificial limbs, mobile chairs, walking devices, etc.. In addition, any earning limitation placed on the wounded veteran after retirement carries through into his family's economic health and requires adequate adjustment.    Post Traumatic Syndrome is completely different. It is a mental condition which is difficult to diagnose, but still must be handled. I've written previously that military retirees, by nature of their previous service, have not accumulated the necessary experience to adequately participate in normal civilian life. Many veterans are able to make the adjustment but some are not, which is why we end up with a number of homeless veterans requiring care. Whether it could be considered that these veterans suffer from post traumatic distress is conjectural, but whether they do or don't, if is again part of the military obligation that they be taken care of, including the basic needs of their families.
    It might be assumed that if retirement benefits to military retirees and earlier wounded veterans are too generous, there could be considerable cheating. While that is true, I believe it is a risk we must take. Many veterans will not even take advantage of present benefits available to them. For example, I spent two years is a noncombat draftee during World War II, with combat infantry training and subsequent transfer to Special Engineering. I was partially responsible for the killing of a few million Japanese. I suppose I could have posttraumatic distress, but I don't. I am now 92 years old and could get my medication from the VA. I don't. I pay for it out-of-pocket. I also know that there many others like me, even though many may require retirement assistance.
    We have a Veterans Administration (VA). It should be doing the job of completely taking care of the basic needs of veterans, paralyzed or otherwise incapacitated, with the resulting detriments to their families. It should be doing its job such that the claim of the Wounded Warrior Project of "helping thousands of injured veterans returning from the battlefield and providing assistance to their families" is without merit. I would much rather see advertisements by such private organizations saying we should help veterans by supplying special reading devices, such as Kindles, or tickets to baseball games, which might make their lives more pleasant.
    Rep. Neugebauer, I encourage you to look into the Veterans Administration activities on the basis I have described above, and arrange with your associates any required changes in the Veterans Administration's program.

Obamacare Use of Web M.D. for Promotion

Open Email to Congress:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
    The Washington Times says Web M.D., a private Internet public advisory service on medicine, was awarded a $4.8 million contract by the Obama administration to promote Obamacare. Both Web M.D. and the Obama Administration apparently tried to keep the deal secret. Web M.D. said it had no obligation to reveal publicly this information.
    Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA) says that details of contracts between the federal government and private industry should be made public. I agree. Since taxpayer funds are involved, I believe taxpayers should have the opportunity to see how their money is being spent. The only possible exception would be contracts involving military security of the US, which might involve details helpful to a possible enemy.

Drone Policy

Open Email to Congress:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
   The Washington Times says drones are now ubiquitous. Many countries have them and use them for surveillance. Only the US, Great Britain and Israel have used drones as an attack weapon with explosives. However, it is also obvious that many other countries will develop attack weapon procedures.
    We need an international policy on drones. It should be as follows:
        1. We should advise the United Nations that we will not tolerate drones in our airspace. As we discover them, we will shoot them down.
        2. We will use drones at our discretion to search for Terrorist Administration complexes, training camps, and storage facilities in any country where we suspect terrorist activity. In each case where we intend to enter another country's airspace with our drones, we will give the Country Administration prior warning that we are doing so with the intention of finding and eliminating terrorist facilities. In that notification, we will ask that the Country Administration remove the threat itself and that our drones will be used immediately only in a surveillance capacity to confirm that the terrorist threat has been eliminated. If the terrorist threat has not been eliminated in a reasonable time, say two weeks or a month, we would use attack drones at our discretion.
        3. This may lead to the foreign Country Administration, shooting down our surveillance or attack drones. We would not consider this an act of war, but would respond with insistence using more advanced technology or a greater quantity of drones to completely eliminate terrorist activity in that country.
        4. If the foreign Country Administration uses such a heavy response as to make impossible our project of eliminating terrorist activities, we would consider the foreign Country Administration as a protector of terrorist activities and an automatic act of war. Our reaction would be then to include destruction of the foreign Country Administration's facilities interfering with our drones.
     This may sound a little heavy-handed and one-sided, but so be it. We have the capability to do it and the need to protect our citizens from terrorist activities.

Congratulations to Sen. Cornyn (TX)

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I saw you on Fox News TV in your conversation with Sebelius concerning the Obamacare website.
    You asked her twice whether a particular statement was true or false. She wheedled around with a lot of talk. You finalized with the statement that the record should show that Sebelius would not answer the question.
    Well done! We need more of that kind of direct encounter with Obama Administration officials. The question is always who is running the government; the White House or the Congress?    I have previously suggested that you be up front, rather than take a back row seat, and I am pleased to see that this is happening.

Unnecessary Federal Science Research

Open Email to Lamar S Smith (TX), Chairman House Science, Space, & Technology Committee:

Dear Chairman Smith,
    This concerns the America Competes Act, which is said to authorize most of the country's basic government research spending. The controlling agency for the America Competes Act is the Department of Energy, which is not one of my favorites, since I have previously called for its demise. The DOE has a record of doing more damage to the country than any other single agency, unless it might be the Department of Education.
    It has come to my attention that your committee has proposed to give the DOE's Office of Science its own authorization bill and a 2% funding increase over this year's level.
    The agencies involved under the DOE are the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, and the Department of Energy Office of Science. Democrats are proposing a 5% funding increase for each of the three agencies and continue energy programs [whatever that means]. The Senate has yet to hold a hearing on its proposal.
The National Science Foundation is the only federal agency whose mission includes support for all fields of fundamental science and engineering, except for medical sciences. It is involved in almost every branch of science that one can think of. Each year, NSF supports an average of about 200,000 scientists, engineers, educators and students at universities, laboratories and field sites all over the United States and throughout the world. It does this at a cost to the American taxpayers of $7 billion per year
The mission of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. While it is basically the old Bureau of Standards, which was and still is indispensable, present operations seem to be to spend money to convince the rest of the world how great we are in science. To do this, the NIST spent $750 billion of taxpayer money last year and requested $2.2 billion for this year.
The DOE Office of Science covers about any science one could think of. I couldn't find a mission statement. It supports 25,000 scientists in various endeavors and is spending $4.9 billion this year. It is requesting $5.1 billion for next year Some of the projects are:
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
Basic Energy Sciences
Biological and Environmental Research
Fusion Energy Sciences
High Energy Physics
Nuclear Physics
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists
Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer
Total annual federal expenditures for science research is $41.7 billion. Your share for the Department of Energy is $12.7 billion.
While all the above designations for expenditures are fine, high sounding terms, as a scientist also interested in economics, I am not impressed.
Federal expenditures for fiscal year 2014 are expected to be $3.8 trillion. Revenues are expected to be $3.0 trillion. This leaves a deficit of $800 billion, which must be borrowed. As you know, this deficit in borrowing has been going on for several years and is building up to a level of lower creditworthiness for the country. We can expect that future borrowing costs, as interest, are bound to rise, which will make the problem worse.
You and your committee have exacerbated the situation by proposing for the DOE alone a 2% increase in spending, while Democrats propose a 5% increase in spending. That doesn't make sense to me. We are already in a hole and you want us to dig deeper. 
I would much appreciate your advising me on how you can justify this action with regard to such a conjectural and potentially pie-in-the-sky matter as federal science research.

Sen. Cruz (TX) on Obamacare, Religion, & UN Mandates

Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    I have read your latest newsletter.    In the first part, you have castigated OBAMACARE, which seems justifiable to me. You said we must repeal this train wreck of a law, and restore jobs and economic growth to our great nation, and that I should read "below", with the implication that I would learn how you plan to do this.
    When I read "below", all I saw was reference to Pres. Obama's lies and the great state of Texas. I saw nothing on how we get rid of Obamacare.

    You also had a section on PROTECTING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ACROSS THE WORLD. In this, you went on at great length to describe how we should be protecting Pastor Saeed Abedini, an American citizen, who was imprisonment in Iran for peacefully practicing his Christian faith.
    I respectfully remind you that the First Amendment of the Constitution says that the federal government should not be monkeying with religion. It also seems pretty clear to me that that would apply to international incidents. Secondly,Pastor Saeed Abedini was jailed in Iran, because he was disobeying Iran's laws. You may not like Iran's laws, but that is beside the point. Pastor Saeed Abedini knew what he was doing when he was operating in Iran and he is now paying the penalty. Let it go.

    You also discussed US SOVEREIGNTY VERSUS UNITED NATIONS MANDATES. I agree completely with you that US sovereignty must always take preference over any United Nation's mandate. I will go further and say that any US Representative or Senator, who votes to the contrary is a Communist and should not be in any position of leadership in our Republic.

Sen. Cornyn (TX) on the DC Circuit Court

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I have listened to your video on Pres. Obama's proposed three appointees to the DC Circuit Court.
    Of the various US circuit courts, the DC Court seems to be one of the more important, considering the cases it handles. It is presently understaffed in number comparison with the other circuit courts, but it presently has only about one third the workload.
    You have suggested that since the other circuit courts seem to be over-worked, Pres. Obama's appointees should be directed to those courts rather than the DC Circuit. Pres. Obama and the Democratic Senators are opposed to this, since they would like to pack the DC court with Democratic judges, who will do the bidding of the Obama Administration.
    There must be Senate approval of Pres. Obama's proposed appointees. The present Senate rule is that 60 Senators must approve an appointment. The Senate can also change the rules, so that only 51 Senators would be required for approval. This would make approval of Pres. Obama's proposed appointees much simpler at this time, when the Senate has a Democratic majority. However, you have pointed out that a change in Senate rules for this situation would have subsequent ramifications when Republicans may have future control of the Senate. We will have to see how that plays out with Harry Reid and his Democratic Senators.
    In any event, I heartily congratulate you for your initiative and perseverance in taking on this particular project, especially when there are so many other items that need handling.