Posted on 09/26/2009 9:16:33 AM PDT by Species8472
WASHINGTON -- In a strongly worded message to Congress outlining presidential priorities for a military spending bill, the Obama administration said Friday it disapproved of including money for pensions for 26 elderly members of the World War II-era Alaska Territorial Guard.
The White House move drew swift rebuke from the state's two senators, Republican Lisa Murkowski and Democrat Mark Begich, who had together sponsored the pension fix.
The legislation honors 26 elderly Alaskans who are the few remaining survivors of a military unit that served the country with valor, Murkowski said, calling the administration's direction "deeply disappointing, bordering on insensitive."
A Senate military spending bill up for a vote in the Senate allows the former Guard members to count their service as part of active military duty, and it reinstates the pension payments.
State lawmakers passed a bill earlier this year to fill the pay gap until Congress made a permanent fix, but the White House said Friday it didn't think it was "appropriate to establish a precedent of treating service performed by a state employee as active duty for purposes of the computation of retired pay."
"We are talking about 26 brave, elderly Alaska Natives who served honorably for this country during World War II," Begich said in a statement. "I, frankly, find it puzzling how the administration could object to giving these men the recognition they deserve. The federal government deserted these men at the end of the war, and I hope the Congress and my colleagues in the Senate won't let that happen again."
(Excerpt) Read more at adn.com ...
It took the Coast Guard of WWII how many years to be recognized. It was years later that they were offered some veterans compensation. Of course, about 95% of them were dead when that came about.
Well, the obvious problem is that these 26 elderly Alaskans do not have one community organizer among their rank. I am sure if one of them volunteers to become a community organizer, they will get millions from the government overnight. /i-wish-this-was-sarcasm
The longest any of these fellows “served” was from 1942-1947....without even considering whether or not they were “in” our Armed Forces, I cannot possibly imagine how 5 yrs or less service would entitle anyone to “retirement” pay, “pension” or pther than GI education/home-loan benefits, service-connected disabilities excepted, of course.
Here is another that tries to make this case like the one above, but it at least gives more details of what the history is......
http://www.stonekettle.com/2009/01/debt-of-honor-unpaid.html
These guys worked for the FedGov - History shows Alaska as a FedGov province until Statehood in “1959” - these folks worked for the FedGov for 15= years and ‘need’ the wartime serivce to collect a pension.
The prez is a richard (nixon) type.....
“The longest any of these fellows “served” was from 1942-1947”
That’s incorrect. The 26 Alaskan Territorial Guard survivors in question served as members of the ATG from 42 to 47, then served as full members of the US Army for at least another fifteen years. They were assured during their US Army enlistment that time in the ATG would count towards time served in federal service.
The 26 veterans in question retired from the US Army after 20 or more years total service (including time in the ATG) expecting full benefits like any other veteran. They were given certain limited benefits, but denied full pensions because their ATG service was determined NOT to count towards their federal military service.
In 2000, Congress passed a bill granting them honorable discharges from the ATG as US Army Vets specifically so that their time served would could towards full US Military Retired Benefits. In 2008 the Army choose to reinterpret that law (specifically the Army Accounting Office decided to take advantage of a loophole in the law) and deny these men full benefits yet again.
No one, including me, is suggesting that ATG members who served in US Federal Service for less than the full twenty years should be entitled to pension and retirement benefits. However, we are very much demanding that these men who served the United States honorably in time of war, who answered the call at a time when they weren’t even considered Americans, who were instrumental in the defense of American territory, then went on to serve for another fifteen years in the US Army, and then served the territory into statehood, be granted the full benefits of any other veteran.
Chief Warrant Officer Jim Wright USN (ret)
Stonekettle Station
Palmer, Alaska
well, the webpage I linked above doesn’t say that.....it says 42-47 ATG......but it DOES have a ditty from Wright on the right column......maybe you should have Him/them correct it.
IMO, if these 26 have >20 yrs combined ATG and active duty, they should be paid retirement accordingly
BUMP!
Obama Orders Pensions Cut Off
http://www.redstate.com/gary4205/2009/09/28/despicable-barack-obama-orders-pensions-cut-off-to-wwii-veterans/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.