Let's begin with the offensive executive order that started this outrage.  Executive Order 2009-22 is about expenditure restrictions to balance the FY 2009 budget as required by the Michigan Constitution, Article 5, Section 20; and I think that's a swell concept on its face.  I don't know about you, but when I've got less money coming in than I thought I was going to have, I have to cut back on my spending or I'm going to have problems.  (Of course, unlike government most normal people don't spend money that isn't already in their bank account, but that's a whole different matter.)  My problem is where the cuts are being made in the first place.

Looking at page 2 (of a 23-page order, so much for a paperless society), there are some pretty big numbers there.  In fact, the cuts to the DMVA don't look all that big by comparison.  But when you look on pages 13 and 14, and see where the cuts from Military and Veterans Affairs are actually being made, you realize that just under half of the $2,029,200 (at least $1,000,000 for those slow on the math) of this cut comes from the state Veteran Service Officer network.  Given that the total state funding for the VSO network is just over four million, this amounts to about a 25% reduction in the operating funds for the service officers.  That cut is deep enough that almost all state VSOs have been required to severely curtail their operations . . . where they haven't been forced to close down entirely.

As an example, I'll cite Steve Pruitt, the DAV service officer operating out of the Grand Rapids VA Outpatient Clinic.  Prior to this order, he was in his office five days a week from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (except for a one-hour lunch break).  On Tuesdays, he'd spend his mornings either in his Holland office or at the Grand Rapids Home for Veterans, but he was always back at the clinic office after lunch.  Now, with his funding curtailed, Steve is in his clinic office only 20 hours per week, which means that on Tuesdays he's not there at all.  Every morning that he is there, he has to walk past a line of veterans seeking his assistance just to get his door open for the day.  And Mr. Pruitt's caseload has doubled since the order went into effect, because the other service officers operating out of the clinic were forced to close their doors, starting on May 15th.

I'll also mention the American Legion service officer (I don't have his name at the moment), who nominally operates out of his office in Marquette, but in reality is traveling four days a week to see veterans anywhere in the Upper Peninsula (Sault Sainte Marie to Ironwood, and Keweenaw to Iron Mountain - the whole peninsula).  Now, as a result of the order, he's operating strictly out of his office and, like Mr. Pruitt, only 20 hours a week.  Veterans who need his assistance have to drive from wherever they're at to come to him.  That wouldn't seem like such a big thing, but remember that the reason for seeing a service officer in the first place is because the veteran is either dealing with a disability or in an emergency financial situation (or both), and can't usually just get up and go.

Now, while that two million odd dollars being cut from the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs still looks small, look again at page 2 of the order (and don't be afraid to dig into the details) at where big cuts aren't being made.  At this point I'll restate my assertion that Governor Granholm is using the state's veterans (as well as the disabled, prisoners, the unemployed, state troopers, and families-in-poverty) as human shields to justify a planned tax-increase request.  I kid you not, expect this August or September to hear some line about how the state just has to be able to provide critical services, and thus must raise taxes again in order to obtain the necessary revenue.

Never mind that we've got a state bureaucracy that's entirely too big to be useful.  (How about a 3 percent across-the-board pay cut for state employees?  How about shutting some departments down entirely?)  Never mind that we've got the second-highest paid state legislature in the nation.  (How about a 10 percent pay cut for elected officials that takes effect now, instead of a year and a half from now?)  Never mind that the Governor's husband is drawing a $300,000 taxpayer-funded paycheck for no useful purpose.  (If he's that good of a talk-show host, how come he can't get a job in the private sector?)  Nope, she's got to make deep cuts where no sensible person would tolerate them, and is likely praying - assuming she knows how - that we just aren't paying attention.

And to make this even more disgusting, as a part of my research I spoke with one of the executives in charge of the state veterans homes (in Grand Rapids and Marquette).  He told me that the unions representing the veterans' home employees had agreed to a 3% across the board pay cut in order to avoid the funding cuts laid out in the executive order.  (Even more amazing is that they agreed to this without demanding a quid pro quo concession.)  However, when he approached Governor Granholm with this information, she would have none of it.  Apparently she was hell-bent on slashing DMVA funding.

Unfortunately, the Governess signed the executive order on May 5th, and it's been approved by the Appropriations Committees of both legislative chambers, so this thing is a fait accompli.  And the ugly part is that as bad as this is, Granholm may simply be a bit player in a much larger game.  (Although, just because this seems an appropriate spot to put it, there are several veterans that I've spoken to who assert that she should be placed on the sex offender registry as punishment for screwing this state as thoroughly as she has.)

Senate Introduced Bill 250

Senate Bill 250, the other prong in this attack, is nominally intended to make appropriations for the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs for FY 2009-2010.  The bill, as originally introduced, has State Senator Valde Garcia (R-22, Howell) as its only sponsor.  Now I get that appropriations have to be provided for, but let's do a bit of digging here, shall we?

Section 108 of this bill (starting on line 23 of page 5) establishes a Veterans' Affairs Directorate to oversee the county VBC and VTF network and provides for eight full-time positions (two in "directorate administration" and six in "fund administration") with an initial gross appropriation of $9,304,300 . . . about half of which will come from the Michigan Veterans Trust Fund.

Sections 703 through 707, where the devil is in the details, starts on line 23 of page 18 and runs through line 11 of page 22.

Section 703 requires a detailed FY 08-09 report to the subcommittees for state police, military, and veterans affairs and state budget office.  Granted, this report is likely an annual formality, but I find it interesting that the bill asks for detailed information on the emergency grants program (including methodology of allocations, selection of authorized agents, and breakdown of trust fund expenditures) as well as a plan to reduce administrative costs and return MVTF corpus to $50,000,000.

Well, here's a thought:  The Michigan Veterans' Trust Fund is intended to provide emergency relief to veterans who may find themselves in dire need of temporary assistance due to emergency or hardship.  Can you think of any particular reason (say, in the past six years or so) that the instances of emergency or hardship for Michigan's Veteran population would have gone up dramatically?  Here's another thought:  Do you honestly think that establishing a state bureaucracy would reduce administrative costs?  And here's a plan:  Quit screwing the state's economy into the ground and the money to rebuild that corpus with might just show up.

Section 704 requires that the directorate administration must take steps to ensure that the county veterans' counselors receive the training necessary for their duties.  Now maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that the existing county VBC/VTF network has already had the necessary training; so I see two possibilities:  One, this new and improved government program is going to require additional bureaucracy training above and beyond what the counselors already have; or Two, the existing network isn't going to be used by the new and improved government program.  (Any other ideas?)

Section 705 intends that the directorate create incentives for all counties to have at least one full-time County Veterans' Counselor.  The incentives suggested don't make much sense, and it still raises the question as to why this is necessary.  Keep in mind that the existing network is, to the best of my knowledge, already on the payroll of their respective counties.  The fact that some counties cannot currently afford for that counselor to be full-time isn't likely to change, and all the incentives that the directorate has to offer won't likely matter a hill of beans.

Section 707-1 provides just enough funding ($2,014,750) to keep the current VSO network functional through 31 March of 2010, at which time the current VSO network is to assist with an orderly transition to the state directorate VBC network, effective 01 April of 2010.  Really?  The Governess takes away, and Senator Garcia restores, and then he takes away again.

The current VSO network in Michigan works just fine; it provides for an 85-to-1 return on state dollars disbursed to veterans, and resolves benefit claims in a fairly timely fashion (6 to 9 months on average, I've seen emergency assistance claims get resolved as quickly as one hour).  If it ain't broke, why are we fixing it?  Have we forgotten that the government does absolutely nothing as effectively, efficiently, or economically as the private sector?  But of course if something makes sense, then the government is likely to do the exact opposite.

Section 707-2 provides that a nearly like amount ($2,014,850) shall be used to establish a new program within the directorate to assist veterans with filing benefit claims.  It also provides for an additional layer of state bureaucracy (because two just isn't enough) to serve as benefits counselors by geographic region (no clue as to how those regions will be determined).  But here's the real kicker, all counselors hired must be required to be eligible to file claims with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs on behalf of veterans.  And Section 707-3 requires that the directorate shall take steps to become eligible to file claims with the USDVA on behalf of veterans.

Well, duh!  Has no one noticed that the existing VSO network in this state is already certified to file such claims?  That's kind of a prerequisite to being able to serve as a Veterans Benefits Counselor.  Note that the VSOs are required to familiarize themselves with Title 38 CFR (the hardcopy version is about two inches thick) and prove that familiarity as part of their certification.  Apparently Senator Garcia seems to be of the mind that the government can certainly do the private sector's job better than they can - which seems to be a recurring problem these days.  And I think by now we've answered the question that I posed in the discussion of Section 704.

Section 707-4 requires the directorate to develop a case management system for clients to include simple and secure access (online and/or telephone) for clients to track the status of their claim.  Under the current VSO system, veterans and their families don't need to track their claims.  The service organization selected by the veteran as his "power of attorney" for the claim monitors and tracks (and babysits where necessary) the claim from initial filing through final resolution.  (Again, this process typically takes 6 to 9 months.)

It's kind of like the reason that I'm signed up with LifeLock.  Sure, I could get my name removed from mass marketing lists (direct-mail, telemarketing, and the like), have identity theft flags put on my credit report, and do all of those other things - including renewing the whole wad every three months.  But if I can have a reputable and reliable private organization do it for me, then that's just one less hassle to bother with.  Part of the beauty of the current veterans' benefit claim system is that, as far as the veteran is concerned, the paperwork is "file and forget."  Evidently, the good senator is content to establish a "hands off" approach to monitoring a veteran's claim.

Section 707-5 stipulates that the directorate is responsible for all program administrative costs (including payroll and expenses).  That's fairly self-explanatory and straightforward.  But keep in mind that we're talking about a new bureaucracy, being founded and funded at taxpayer expense, which by government fait will replace a perfectly functional semi-private sector operation.  Taxation will be required to pay for this.

Section 707-6 makes the directorate responsible for coordinating all training and certification of the state Veterans Benefits Counselors (which must take place in-state).  I guess that the "in-state" part is intended to seem as a cost-saving measure, which completely ignores the reality that all of this spending to set up a new bureaucracy isn't necessary in the first place.  (Go back and re-read my discussion on Sections 707-2 and 707-3.)

Section 707-7 is somewhat amusing, if only because by this point I now have proof that the only difference between human genius and human stupidity is that genius has its limits.  This section requires that the entire department (not just the directorate) initiate an information campaign to promote the existence of the state program, including advertising a simple-as-possible process of accessing veterans' services.  First of all, simple-as-possible is only possible after the complete dissolution of the existing VSO network.  Secondly, can you just see the advertising pitch now?

"For the veterans and their families who don't have the means to leave Michigan, we now have a way to make your life an even bigger hassle."

But that assumes that the government will adhere to truth-in-advertising laws.

Section 707-8 likewise speaks to the power of stupid people in large groups (which includes most career politicians by definition).  The directorate is to design and operate the state counseling program to coordinate with other organizations (including county coordinators), ensure referrals occur when warranted, and provide veterans with the most cost-effective and comprehensive services possible.

A government program that's designed to coordinate with other government programs and provide the most cost-effective and comprehensive service possible . . . I'm seeing an oxymoron alert here.  The most cost-effective and comprehensive option possible would be to leave the current VSO network in place at its full funding level, but that doesn't give government bureaucrats any justification for their jobs.  And heaven forbid that we de-justify the need for a new triple-tiered state bureaucracy.

Section 707-9 requires progress reports from the directorate to the subcommittees on a roughly semi-annual basis.  And this is because we need to be able to show the entire population what a swell job the new bureaucracy is doing.

So let's recap for a bit at this point:

• The State of Michigan Veterans Service Officer network has been effectively de-funded for the bulk of the current fiscal year thanks to Executive Order 2009-22.

• Senate Bill 250 restores the funding at the beginning of the next fiscal year, but only through the year's midpoint; at which time a new triple-tiered state directorate will take over the veterans' benefits process, the apparently unstated consequence being that the VSO network will be effectively dissolved (or so gutted of funding as to cripple its effectiveness).

• Mind you, that's on the assumption that said directorate (all the way down to the county level) is appropriately certified by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to represent veterans in the claims process.  (I have no clue what they do if the directorate isn't ready to go by the April Fools Day deadline.)

You're going to wish you hadn't asked.

Enter the Lawyers

The current VA claims process works fairly simply.  A veteran who has a benefit claim approaches a service officer and the two sit down and talk over the potential claim.  This involves a review of Title 38 CFR and determining if the claim meets the appropriate criteria.  If it does, then the two (veteran and VSO) pull out the appropriate form - from a library of 384 forms, I kid you not - and fill it out.  The veteran decides which veterans' organization is going to have his "power of attorney" for the benefit claim, and the claim is filed.  Six to nine months later (on average) the claim is completely resolved, almost without exception in favor of the veteran in question.

As an example, when I was out-processing from the Navy in March of 2002, I did my medical screening at the VA Hospital in North Chicago, which happens to be adjacent to the Great Lakes Naval Training Center.  My baseline claim was filed on 10 April, with the DAV identified as my power of attorney.  Twelve weeks later (on 28 June, two days before my discharge) the VA sent me a letter notifying me of their rating decision.

• Four of my potential service connected conditions were denied.  This was not because the conditions didn't exist, but rather because no identifiable disability existed that could be connected to those conditions.  The documentation in the rating decision serves as evidence of a service connection in the event that a subsequent disability develops from any of those conditions.

• Three of my potential service connected conditions were approved but rated at zero because, even though a potentially disabling condition does exist for each, right now those conditions have not progressed to the point of being a bona fide disability.  Again, the documentation in the rating decision serves as evidence of a service connection in the event that any of these conditions do develop into bona fide disabilities.

• One condition (a degenerative disc disorder in my lumbo-sacral spine) was identified as being a bona fide disability having a service connection (to a series of back injuries in the late eighties to early nineties), and as such was assigned a disability rating.  Because this is considered an irreversible condition, I will have at least that rating for the rest of my life.

However, I can think of at least one industry (and I am using the term loosely, "racket" might be more appropriate) that, by design, doesn't see it my way.

Back in November of 1988, the Veterans' Judicial Review Act created what is now known as U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).  This was as a way to provide for independent judicial review of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) claims process.  Since the DVA had for about 125 years been insulated from oversight, this was probably a good idea on its face, as no government agency should operate without an appropriate auditing and review mechanism.  Now the CVAC exists to provide an appeal mechanism for veterans who disagree with the decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA).

The problem lies in the Veterans' Programs Enhancement Act of 1998, which lifted the bar to paid legal representation while the claim is before the VA.  Prior to this act, there was a limit to what attorneys could charge veterans and when they could get involved in the process.  Now, it's starting to morph into a clone of another disability claims system that doesn't work very well.

My ex-wife, Katie, has a particular medical condition that has plagued her since infancy.  Because of this condition, she has a near-total disability that well qualifies her for SSI.  When she filed her initial claim, she was informed that in all likelihood it would be rejected and that this would take 6 to 12 months.  At that point, and not sooner, she could retain an attorney who would file and handle her appeal.  The appeal would require 24 to 36 months to resolve, and the attorney would take his filing fee out of her initial claim check, as well as a percentage of that check.  (Keep in mind that the initial check includes back-pay all the way to the date of the original filing, so the attorney has no incentive to resolve the case in a timely fashion.)

After a little bit of research, Katie learned that this process was implemented by the American Trial Lawyers Association, with the full cooperation of the Social Security Administration.  However, since there was no way around the government-sponsored monopoly, she was forced to play along in order to get disability money that was by right hers to begin with.  This caused both of us no end of frustration.

The SSI/SSDI system is the same model that the legal profession seems to be intent on imposing upon the VA claims process.  There's quite the public list of licensed practitioners to select from, but there are a couple of drawbacks that neither the court nor the attorneys advertise (until you get in the door, that is).  That "nominal fee" to file your claim is typically $300 up front, plus 15% to 20% of the first claim check.  Additionally (and this you don't find out until well after your claim has been resolved), the veteran only gets the benefits that the attorney filed for.  So if you want additional benefits (including ones you should have had in the first place), then you've got to file another claim and start the whole process over again.

I know about this because, as the incoming Service Officer for my VFW post, I have taken the time to familiarize myself with how this process not only is supposed to work, but how it works in actual practice.  And I am naturally curious as to how the lawyers define a claim as being "dismissed" or "denied" by the DVA/BVA.  Would they consider my rating decision a denial because I only received compensation for one of my eight recorded conditions?  Or, would they consider my claim not denied, because the other seven conditions don't have a current compensable disability attached to them?  I really do want that answer.

And while I'd love to go through and pick apart the entire legal system that's been created strictly to take advantaged of a "lawyerized" claims process, I'm going to get back on track.  This is about a plan that specifically screws over Michigan Veterans, and when I start connecting the dots, anyone who isn't outraged probably wasn't paying attention.

Connecting the dots - where I can

I'll limit my focus to the Northville-based law firm of Fausone and Bohn (you'll see why momentarily).  This firm "serves" veterans and their families in California, Florida, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and South Carolina.  According to their Practice Areas Overview, they assist veterans, their dependents and their families by representing them in the Veteran's Administration (VA) appeal process if the VA has denied their benefits claim.  Again, how do these guys define "denied"?  Additionally, digging a bit further, I notice that this firm does a bang-up job of misrepresenting the entire claims process.

There's a reason that a claim with a weak medical causation linkage is difficult to get.  As with my claim, if a service connection for the disability or condition in question doesn't exist on paper, then it doesn't exist . . . period; that's just the law.  That's why sensible veterans make a point of making a page-for-page copy of their medical record (as well as personnel, pay, dental, and training records) as they are out-processing, and then putting those copies in a safe location where they aren't likely to get lost or damaged.  Otherwise, any claim is going to require the VA Regional Office to obtain the veteran's records from the St. Louis repository.  (Think of it as a poorly organized warehouse.)

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury claims aren't particularly hard to get; they're just time consuming due to the diagnostic processes involved.  PTSD is easily misdiagnosed, even by the most experienced mental health professionals.  TBI is a relatively new development, largely due to the more effective body armor that protects combat troops from what, in previous generations, would normally be mortal injury.  Yes, TBI has been around for awhile, but it's more prevalent than it used to be because veterans are surviving things that used to kill them.

The really big lie, however, is the mischaracterization of the VA claims process.

First off, any time someone cites a statistic (any statistic) I start getting suspicious.  That's especially so here.  What does this law firm consider a "legal technicality"?  For example, veterans acting on their own could easily screw up the paperwork; this, of course, will result in a denial.  And then we're back to the definition of "denial" again.  I aced my Statistics class in college, and I know that figures don't lie.  But I also know that liars can figure, and raw numbers can be read any which way that the guy presenting the data wants them to appear.  I want to know what the source data is for this information.

Secondly, characterizing the claims process as adversarial and anti-claimant (which they do), is just a flat-out, bald-faced lie.  I've been involved in this process as a claimant, and now I'm starting to get involved as a service officer.  The truth of the matter is that this system functions exactly as the VA advertises it, in a pro-claimant, non-adversarial manner, when the veteran actually uses the process as it's in place.  In other words, make sure your supporting documentation is in order, conference with your service officer, and let the service organization do the "heavy lifting" on your claim.  (That's what they're there for.)  It's when veterans step outside the system that they run into trouble.

I haven't been able to independently corroborate this yet, but the information that I have is that Fausone and Bohn has a current caseload of about 500 benefit claims.  Even if that's just within the State of Michigan (as opposed to throughout the nine states they cover), for two attorneys that's a pretty light caseload.  James G. Fausone, in his profile available on the site, plainly declares that Veterans Law is only 10% of his practice time.  He also mentions that he's married to Carol Fausone, who is the Assistant Adjutant General for Veterans Affairs in Michigan.

And so the plot thickens.

Carol A. Fausone, is a Brigadier General in the USAF/MIANG.  Her online bio is mildly impressive, if you're not familiar with military lingo.  Of significance here are the facts that General Fausone has been on active duty since 31 March 1977, and in her current rank since 01 March 2002; and there's the rub.

See, once achieving the rank of First Lieutenant (Lieutenant Junior Grade in the sea services), any officer must wait two to three years before submitting their record to the Bureau of Personnel (or whatever they call it these days) for consideration for promotion to the next rank; one consideration is permitted per year.  If the officer is passed over three times, then the third rejection letter is either accompanied (or followed within 30 days) by another letter.  This second letter effectively informs the officer that he or she has not more than one year to find another line of work.  Officers with enough seniority are permitted to retire; those that aren't are expected to hand in a letter of resignation.

Just to make sure there is no funny business, a copy of that second letter is sent "eyes only" to the individual's commanding officer.  The alternative to either resigning or retiring is a summary dismissal from the service, which is the officer equivalent of an un-honorable discharge.

General Fausone has been in her current rank for just over seven years; that's more than enough time to have peen passed over the requisite three times for a "get out" letter to have come back.  According to the information that I have (from multiple sources), she's slated to retire this year.

A Brigadier General with over 32 years of service has a fairly nice basic compensation package, which is 75 percent of base pay (about $8,463.38 monthly, according to the current military pay chart).  And that's not including any other benefits of rank or service that that flag officer may be entitled to.

But this is where it gets ugly.

See, according to a source that refuses to go on the record, the Directorate created by SB-250 was done with Carol Fausone in mind.  Apparently, rather than simply take her retirement package and go (I seriously doubt that she and her lawyer husband are having money problems), the good general wants to continue to serve the Michigan Veterans, and sees the best way to do that as becoming a high-profile bureaucrat in charge of all veterans benefits in this state.

It might be useful to know that General Fausone is currently in charge of the Post Fund and the Posthumous Fund, both of which are intended to benefit the member-residents at the state veterans' homes (in Grand Rapids and Marquette).  When those funds were managed locally, they were run efficiently and did in fact benefit the people that they were supposed to benefit.  However, those funds are currently operated from Lansing (by the Assistant Adjutant General's office), and the complaining about mis-management and micro-management from the homes' staffs is a pretty consistent thing.  It's so bad that a local organization - Friends of the Veterans Homes - is operating as a private charity and obtaining donations (sizeable ones, I might add) which they then manage locally to the benefit of the veterans at the homes.

There is also a persistent bit of scuttlebutt (which I have not been able to independently confirm or debunk) that, while EO 2009-22 was being crafted, Carol Fausone had a "policy lunch" with one Daniel Mulhern.  Yes, that Dan Mulhern.  If anyone can give me an independently corroborable thumbs-up or thumbs-down on the factuality of this, then I'd greatly appreciate it.  (Nick, any chance that these two are on your tape of the John Cherry drink-and-schmooze?)

So, as it stands right now, the VSO network in Michigan has been gutted courtesy of EO 2009-22.  (The few VSOs who are still seeing clients are doing so either on a part-time or volunteer basis.)  The directorate, which is scheduled to stand up on April Fools Day of next year, is likely not going to be up and running on schedule if it operates like the typical government program.  And even if it is, then we have no reason to believe that it'll operate any more effectively than any other state bureaucracy.

And that likely leaves the veterans of this state with lawyers as their most effective means of claim representation, never mind that one of those law firms is operating probable direct violation of conflict-of-interest ethics.

Oh wait a minute.  Politicians, lawyers, and ethics . . . what was I thinking?