ShareThis Page

The VA needs a new leader

| Thursday, April 11, 2013, 8:55 p.m.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is in a quagmire as it struggles to provide benefits quickly to veterans of all generations. From whistle-blowers to unfavorable watchdog reports to wasted money, evidence of VA dysfunction is staggering.

We have been strong supporters of the department's efforts to improve operations, but the time for good intentions is over. Veterans are not getting the service they deserve.

During confirmation hearings on his nomination to lead the VA, Gen. Eric Shinseki pledged to streamline the claims process and bring the department into the digital age — laudable goals. But the VA is projected soon to hit a grim landmark of 1 million unprocessed benefits claims, with roughly 600,000 of those more than 125 days old.

By the secretary's own admission, this failure is not for a lack of resources. Congress has provided the VA with $25 billion in additional funding since 2009 and exempted it from sequestration-related cuts. Clearly, throwing money at the problem hasn't worked.

In the past four years, the VA has spent more than $500 million to migrate its claims process online, but an estimated 97 percent of veterans claims are still filed on paper. Worse, despite a costly attempt to streamline data systems, Defense Department databases still do not communicate with VA systems.

The VA claims that the average time for processing benefits applications is 273 days, more than nine months. But a recent report from the Center for Investigative Reporting, drawing on internal VA documents, found that the VA's ability to provide service to veterans has “virtually collapsed” since 2009 and that wait times are, on average, closer to a year. And in too many cases, veterans are dying before their claims are adjudicated — 53 each day on average.

Some defenders of the VA say that the backlog is growing because new veterans are entering the system and access for veterans of previous generations has been expanded. Even so, the VA should have seen this crisis coming. Veterans returning home from war and more veterans accessing the system mean more claims. The department failed to plan sufficiently.

It is painfully clear that VA leadership is not up to the task. Shinseki is a patriot and an honorable man, but his tenure at the Department of Veterans Affairs has not produced results. We believe that new leadership at the VA — from top to bottom, in Washington and across the country — is necessary.

We recognize that replacing a Cabinet secretary is a dramatic step. But few things are more important than honoring the commitments our nation has made to its veterans. The president and VA officials have said all the right things, but they have not delivered. Good intentions and rhetoric are not enough; results are what matter.

Since the problems at the VA did not arise overnight, merely replacing the secretary would not fix the underlying issues. The department needs a dynamic and uncompromising leader who will make bold reforms to a bloated and calcified bureaucracy and rethink the way we interact with and serve veterans of all generations.

We need to learn from the private sector about customer service and efficiency and hold VA officials accountable to deliver on their mission.

Duncan Hunter, a Republican, represents California's 50th District in the House. He served in Iraq and Afghanistan with the Marine Corps. Pete Hegseth is chief executive of Concerned Veterans for America and served in Iraq and Afghanistan with the Army.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.