RedStatesUSA.com - The Majority, Silent No Longer

March 15, 2007

In Washington, It's Always The Year Of The Rat

By: Ann Coulter

Democrats have leapt on reports of mold, rats and bureaucratic hurdles at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as further proof of President George Bush's failed war policies.

To the contrary, the problems at Walter Reed are further proof of the Democrats' failed domestic policies — to wit, the civil service rules that prevent government employees from ever being fired. (A policy that also may account for Robert Byrd's longevity as a U.S. senator.)

Thanks to the Democrats, government employees have the world's most complicated set of job protection rules outside of the old East Germany. Oddly enough, this has not led to a dynamic workforce in the nation's capital.

Noticeably, the problems at Walter Reed are not with the doctors or medical care. The problems are with basic maintenance at the facility.

Unless U.S. Army generals are supposed to be spraying fungicide on the walls and crawling under beds to set rattraps, the slovenly conditions at Walter Reed are not their fault. The military is nominally in charge of Walter Reed, but — because of civil service rules put into place by Democrats — the maintenance crew can't be fired.

If the general "in charge" can't fire the people not doing their jobs, I don't know why he is being held responsible for them not doing their jobs.

You will find the exact same problems anyplace market forces have been artificially removed by the government and there is a total absence of incentives, competition, effective oversight, cost controls and so on. It's almost like a cause-and-effect thing.

The Washington Post could have done the same report on any government facility in the Washington, D.C., area.

In a typical story from the nation's capital, last year, a 38-year-old woman died at the hospital after her blood pressure dropped and a D.C. ambulance took 90 minutes to pick her up and take her to a hospital that was five minutes away. For 90 minutes, the 911 operator repeatedly assured the woman's sister that the ambulance was on its way.

You read these stories every few months in Washington.

New York Times reporter David Rosenbaum also died in Washington last year after being treated to the famed work ethic of the average government employee. Rosenbaum was mugged near his house and hit on the head with a pipe. A neighbor found him lying on the sidewalk and immediately called 911.

First, the ambulance got lost on the way to Rosenbaum. Then, instead of taking him to the closest emergency room, the ambulance took him to Howard University Hospital, nearly 30 minutes away, because one of the "emergency medical technicians" had personal business in the area.

Once he finally arrived at the hospital, Rosenbaum was left unattended on a gurney for 90 minutes because the "emergency medical technicians" had completely missed his head injury and listed him as "drunk" and "low priority."

Months later, the deputy mayor for public safety told The Washington Post that "to the best of his knowledge, no one involved in the incident had been fired."

No one has any authority over civil service employees in the nation's capital. Bush probably lives in terror of White House janitors. The White House bathroom could be flooding and he'd be told: "I'll get to you when I get to you. Listen, fella, you're fifth on my list. I'm not making any promises, just don't flush for the next week."

It's especially adorable how Democrats and the media are acting like these are the first rats ever sighted in the Washington, D.C., area. There are rats in the Capitol building. There are rats in The Washington Post building. Bush has seen rats. But let's leave Chuck Hagel out of this for now.

On "ABC News" last year, a CBS radio reporter described a rat jumping off the camera in the White House press briefing room in the middle of a press conference. (And a shrew sits right in the front!) The Washington Post called the White House press room — located between the residence and the Oval Office — "a broken-down, rat-infested fire trap." During David Gregory's stand-up report on MSNBC about the damage done to Republicans by conditions at Walter Reed, rats appeared to be scurrying on the ground behind him.

Instead of an investigative report on the problems at Walter Reed, how about an investigative report on what happens when the head of janitorial services at Walter Reed is told about the dirt, mold and rats at the facility? If it's before 2:30 in the afternoon and he's still at work and he hasn't taken a "sick day," a "vacation day," a "personal day" or a "mental health day," I predict the answer will be: "I'm on my break."

The Democrats' response is: We must pass even more stringent rules to ensure that all government employees get every single break so that public-sector unions will continue giving massive campaign donations to the Democrats.

This was, you will recall, the precise issue that led to a partisan battle over the Homeland Security bill a few years ago: Whether employees at an emergency terrorist response agency could be fired — as Republicans wanted — or if they would be subject to civil service rules and unfireable — as the Democrats wanted.

HELLO? HOMELAND SECURITY? THERE'S A BOMB IN THE WELL OF THE SENATE!

Sorry, not my job. Try the Department of Public Works.

When Republican Saxby Chambliss challenged Democrat Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia Senate race, he ran an ad attacking Cleland for demanding civil service protections for workers at the Homeland Security Department. Naturally, Republicans were accused of hating veterans for mentioning Cleland's vote on the Homeland Security bill.

Now that the Democrats are once again pretending to give a damn about the troops by wailing about conditions at Walter Reed, how about some Republican — maybe Chambliss! — introduce a bill to remove civil service protections from employees at Walter Reed and all veterans' hospitals? You know, a bill that would actually address the problem.

And don't worry about the useless, slothful government employees who can only hold jobs from which they cannot be fired. We'll get them jobs at the EPA and Department of Education.

Posted by redguy at March 15, 2007 07:34 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.redstatesusa.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/703

Comments

There are more telling things of interest then just those in the column today.

The notoriously camera-shy Sen. Chuck Schumer when being grilled on a radio show about Walter Reed admitted that he had never been to the facility in all of his years in congress. Starting out with his smug, self-righteous indignation about to excoriate the current administration for not working over time to set rat traps, he was set up and knocked down. To be fair, Chuckie-Baby is hardly the only member of congress not to set foot in Walter Reed. But, you can be assured that when he does, there will be an armada of cameras.

No one seems to wish to give the Clinton administration any credit for this mess. A cursory look at the budgets of BJ’s years will show the genesis of the decline of funding and the attendant services for the hospital.

Of course, the Birkenstockista’s in the interest of a good old witch-hunt are favorably disposed to blame anyone but the guilty. The collective tenure at Walter Reed of those in the military who have “resigned” as a result of this “scandal” would be scarcely sufficient to receive an associate’s degree at the local Junior College. Nicely done!

A small but interesting bit of linkage to this horror story is the bill passed the other day in the Senate that would allow the TSA to unionize. A union of baggage screeners, already doing a less than yeoman’s job, would allow them putatively do even less.

Imagine for a moment that someone is trying to sneak some sort of explosive on a plane. The baggage screener lets it pass because his union job description calls for his screening of liquid explosives and the terrorist is carrying some sort of plastic explosive. The shop steward allows the pass, as the plastic explosive screener is at a grievance hearing complaining that her job is dangerous because of the possibility of her handling plastic explosives, in other words, her job.

But, since the job description for the liquid explosive screener precludes his screening for plastics, he cites his job description and, as there were no stand-by plastic explosive screeners who shaped that morning, the article goes unchecked, the terrorist gets on the plane and you can guess the rest.

Far fetched? Hardly. Consider for a moment the “wall of separation” between the CIA and the FBI as an example. (Thank you Janet Reno and the always introspective Jamie Gorelick.) If you think the federal governments ability to keep one agency from doing the job of another is tough and stringent, then you have never had had to work with a union.

It is just beginning!

God Bless and God Speed
John

Posted by: Jaksavin at March 16, 2007 07:40 AM

I agree wholeheartedly with the facts Ann lists in her article. However, I do fear that we have entered another "era" of the rats in which facts and truth will be obscured by controlling forces of evil that have regained power within the beltway. This is reminiscent for me of the '60's and '70's.

The main differences now, hopefully, are a wide array of communication outlets including the internet, talk radio, and TV media outlets that research facts without a predetermined political bias, and then report them objectively.

Posted by: teecee7 at March 16, 2007 08:46 AM

I may be wrong but it is my understanding that the Walter Reed facility was contracted out a couple of years ago and the contractor is responsible for the management of maintenance of the facility, not government employees.

Posted by: DAN at March 16, 2007 08:52 AM

Dear Miss Coulter,
Thanks for the very informative low down on the Walter Reed incident. If competent Republicans could solve the rat problem we would have a lot less government. I can't help but think that the French were on to something with the guillotine. In the meantime let's keep beating that drum, "Small government is good government."

Posted by: taxigringo at March 16, 2007 01:22 PM

Ann Coulter is a discredited bigot who doesn't deserve your few minutes of reading. I saw her byline and skipped the article.

As soon as I see "Ann Coulter" in a byline I think "Voter felon who hates America".

Coulter. Traitor. Synonymous. She belongs in Gitmo as a security guard where before long she'd be taking the place of the kiddies soldiers photographing prisoners on leashes while pointig and smiling.

Go have a bunch more alcohol you wide-eyed, strung out bitch, and turn your irrational anger to inanimate punching bags where it belongs, you skinny sexless c--t.

Posted by: SoxSweepAgain at March 17, 2007 01:55 AM

As for Walter Rees, it's another shameful Bush legacy, no matter how you spin it. More evidence that Bush cares not a whit for the low-level people they've sent to die for their evil and despicable desecration of American ideals. Fuck him and his evil, hateful bigoted personal-gain agenda.

He cares not for you and is a puppet for his war-profiteer fear-mongering global terrorism unit.

Posted by: SoxSweepAgain at March 17, 2007 02:02 AM

I had to laugh reading the comments by "taxigringo.” For some reason, as soon as I saw the word “rat” I thought of the french, but for reasons other than the guillotine. Nonetheless, I could not agree more with his “small government is good government.

Speaking of humor, the comments from “SoxSweepAgain” are hilarious! First of all, the name. What Sox swept what when? I am sure he is not speaking of the White Sox and I am not confident that the Red ones are still considered a major league team. (As we say in New York “Got Rings?”

These comments MUST be some kind of sophomoric farce as even a liberal could not be so jejune as to proffer them as a rational thought. Particularly funny is the “F*** him and his evil, hateful bigoted personal-gain agenda.”

If THAT is not evil, hateful bigoted and part of a personal-gain agenda I do not know what is. So if it IS a joke, well done! If you are serious, thank you! You have reaffirmed my belief that irrespective of anything else, the liberals are still suffering from chronic cranial-rectal-inversion.

God Bless and God Speed
John

Posted by: Jaksavin at March 17, 2007 07:57 AM

taxigringo. I would like to meet you man to rat. For anyone to write such vile trash about a woman as you did deserves a thashing. You may not like Ann but to write such can only be described as LIBERAL. I love the folks who describe us conservatives as being "hate filled" and then write words that I can only describe as "hateful".
But such is the life of a liberal. Someday mr taxigringo you will meet a true conservative and he will take your gringo butt down a notch or two.In the meantime keep up the child like writing that you do so well.

Posted by: paul at March 17, 2007 10:31 AM

PAUL:

I fear that your vitriol is misplaced. “taxigringo” is not the target of your otherwise well put post. The cad who made the salacious remarks is “SoxSweepAgain.” The names of the writers of the postings here is at the end of the post, not at the top.

I would advise re-reading the post by “taxigringo” as well as by “SoxSweepAgain.” I am sure that you will agree the former is a good guy and the latter, well, you may draw your own conclusions.

As far as meeting “taxigringo” if he is who I think he is, he, sir, is most certainly a true conservative.

God Bless and God Speed
John

Posted by: Jaksavin at March 17, 2007 12:15 PM

Sorry, ought to have been "......postings here are at the end of the post" not "postings here is at the end of the post."

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa
John

Posted by: Jaksavin at March 17, 2007 12:19 PM

Per teecee7's comment regarding communications:

It is indeed good that more conservative outlets are available. Unfortunately, the results of the last election would indicate to me that too few people are seeing/listening to them.

If these truths were more widely purveyed, it might make quite a difference.

Posted by: curmugeon at March 17, 2007 02:20 PM

Nice to see that you are back again, PinkSox. I see that you are reinforcing Ann's contention that liberals don't read [books]. Go take your Prozac and take some puffs from your bong so that you don't lose your mind. Take a nap, and you'll feel better in the morning.

Posted by: Loser at March 17, 2007 11:14 PM

Yup...true to form, the pussy-liberals focus on what they WANT to be the problem...not on THE problem. Also true to form, Ann points out the obvious...and still yet true to form...pussy-liberals like SoxSweepAgain revile her for telling the truth. If it doesn't fit their agenda...lie and smear until it BECOMES the truth. That's how Teddy and Nancy and Hillary and Johnny and all the pussy liberals conduct their business...and why they hate Ann. She tells the truth and they can't handle it. Has Bush failed America on immigration and by not facilitating the war STRONGER? Yes. Does that mean all the pussy-liberals are right? BWAHHHAHHAAHHHAHAHAH!!! Hell no it doesn't. Boycott Hollywood!! Don't send them another dime of your money! I know that's not the topic, but I wanted to say that just the same!

"Now I’m calling on citizens from all over the world, this is Captain America calling.
I held you up when you were down on your knees, so would you catch me now I’m falling…”
The Kinks

Posted by: Ziggy Spaz at March 17, 2007 11:43 PM

Thanks, Ann for another great column and thanks, John, for giving SoxSweepsAgain his/her due! (Just a small example of the attitude I am surrounded by in this liberal state :-(

One of my biggest pet peeves is how all of this negative Veterans stuff is just another excuse for bashing George W. Bush. It seems that every liberal conveniently forgets that it was former president William Jefferson Clinton who decided to take the $$$ away from any and all military projects and decrease the number of active duty service people. Such convenient memories!!!!

Posted by: CapeConservative at March 19, 2007 03:16 PM

Cape:

Thanks and a tip o’ the hat for the kind words.

You hit on one of the greatest tricks and flaws of the Birkenstockistas with your accurate comment of their “convenient memories.”

Truly, where does it stop!

For instance, in addition to the DoD cuts enabled by the previous Philander-in-Chief (and you will be hearing more about his recent escapades soon), you have:

An outcry by the Dems over the firing of the 8 US attorneys, neglecting the two facts that they are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the president and secondly that when BJ Clinton took office he FIRED ALL 93 attorneys. Despite this, the screeching of Her Thighness can be barely heard over the incessant droning of…

…Chuck Schumer, who demanding (the libs are a demanding bunch, aren’t they?) that there were some improprieties during the Libby trial and others ought be charged with the same crime he committed a few years earlier when he demanded (there is that word again) a “heads up” in a similar situation. I am most certain that the good senator’s memory is clogged by the fact that he was so busy excoriating the administration for the conditions at Walter Reed that he sorta, kinda forgot to go there himself.

Then there is the “Waxman Show Trail” where Plame was allowed to “explain” at length how she was affected by the actions of others and how the current administration had it out for her and her flunky husband. For some reason the voice of the left, the LSM, saw fit in various reports to announce, “so far no Bush administration officials have not been indicted with respect to the outing of Plame.”

There is good reason why no Bush official or ANY official or, for that matter, anyone at all, has been indicted for the outing of Plame.

It is because it is NOT a crime. She was not covered by the “Intelligence Identities Protection Act.” The libs conveniently “fergetted” that it was Richard Armitage who was one of the initial leaks and her swell of a hubby, Joe “Good Ol’ Mr.” Wilson who was crafting her entry for “Who’s Who.”

Mysteriously enough to me, while Plame was given carte blanche to, with hope, perjure herself, Victoria Toensing, one of the architects of the “IIPA” was basically bitch-slapped by the weaselly Waxman and was not allowed to answer questions fully or even give the appearance of her getting a modicum of a fair shake.

One needs to go back to the 9-11 Commission hearings to see a greater travesty of Congressional injustice.

Argh! ‘Tis way to early in the morning for my head to be filled with the voice of Richard Ben-Veniste or the railings of Jamie Gorelick.

I will stop now, but, you get the idea.

God Bless and God Speed
John

Posted by: Jaksavin at March 20, 2007 07:57 AM

Sox:

"Go have a bunch more alcohol you wide-eyed, strung out bitch, and turn your irrational anger to inanimate punching bags where it belongs, you skinny sexless c--t"

Typical liberal: resort to name calling and vulgarity. It's not Ann who has the "irrational anger" - it's liberals, especially you. It is you who needs to “turn your irrational anger to inanimate punching bags where it belongs”. Did you even bother to read what you yourself wrote?

"Ann Coulter is a discredited bigot who doesn't deserve your few minutes of reading. I saw her byline and skipped the article."

Then explain why you bothered to post your comments if you couldn't be bothered to read anything.

Typical liberal: comment on what you haven't read; express your seething anger at what you haven't read; express your seething anger and hatred by attacking people on a personal level that you disagree with or don't like. Don't bother to argue the issues.

Sox, you really need to take a sincere look at yourself before you judge others. In a mere 8 to 10 sentences, you have resorted to unnecessary name calling ("bigot", "bitch", "c--t"), insinuated Ann is either a drug addict or alcoholic ("Go have a bunch more alcohol you wide-eyed, strung out bitch...") and expressed yourself and your anger via profanity ("bitch", "c--t", "fuck").

You are a pathetically vulgar hateful person but do not see it in yourself.

p.s.,
"Fuck him [President Bush] and his evil, hateful bigoted personal-gain agenda." Go for it!

Posted by: LynnJG at March 21, 2007 09:29 AM

March 15, 2007

In Washington, It's Always The Year Of The Rat

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment