*Legislative Update on Veterans Issues*

The Retired Officer Association ^ | 13 September 2000 | TROA Staff

[matrix]

Issue 1    Defense Bill May be Done This Month.

House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders have been having flurries of meetings in their efforts to resolve the many differences between the versions of the FY2003 Defense Authorization Bill passed by their respective chambers. 

Senate leaders announced that their goal was to complete action by September 20.  Other observers think that may prove optimistic, but agree that action likely will be completed before the end of the month or perhaps early in October.

The main thing is that Committee leaders appear determined not to let action on their bill drag into a post-election lame-duck session.

House Speaker Thomas Hastert (R-IL) has acknowledged the near-certainty that Congress won’t be able to finish work on the 13 appropriations bills, Medicare and other issues before having to recess in October.  In that case, Congress will have to return to finish its work after the November 5 elections.

But Congress seems to be putting the Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bills toward the top of the agenda, which is excellent news for the uniformed services community.

---

Issue 2    Concurrent Receipt On NBC Nightly News.

NBC will air its fourth report on concurrent receipt on “NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw” on Monday evening, September 16 (7:00-7:30 p.m., EDT).  Entitled “Promises Kept,” the segment follows up on earlier NBC “Fleecing of America” reports describing how disabled retirees are being forced to give part or all of their earned retired pay to receive disability compensation from the VA.  Reporter Fred Francis has highlighted disabled retirees’ efforts to win legislative relief.   

 TROA applauds NBC News, Tom Brokaw and Fred Francis for their continuing coverage of the concurrent receipt issue.  As the American public learns more about this longstanding inequity, Congress is finally closing in on positive action to address it.

---

[matrix]

Ping.

[Bringbackthedraft]

Hopefully they'll do something about Tri Care???

[gunnedah]

The problem with every bill in Congress comes from those crooks up there being able to add pet projects,pork and anything else they wish to add before time to vote.
This ploy has been used for years and they all are in collusion at it.They use it to answer for the reason a bill did not pass,they use it to get political IOUs from one another and they use it to reward their fat cat friends at home.
I know it is time consuming but all bills should have to stand on their own without attachments that dont pertain to them.
Government has become a great wasteland filled with special interest,partisan politics and downright discrimination against the average working stiff in this country.
There is no such thing as government oversight and they waste and misplace enough money in 5 years tp pay off the national debt.We do not have leaders any longer,we have hanger ons,leeches and downright corrupt people running this government and it is totally out of control to the point the whole country is headed the same way.
America needs to be saved from herself!

[matrix]

You can read about TriCare updates at the link above.

[matrix]

You are correct, of course.

This time, there are enough pissed off veterans around that Congress ought to sit up and listen. Here in SW FL, many vets are serious about sending a message to Jeb's big brother by electing Democrap McBribe to be governor! Dubya has threatened a veto of the Defense Approp. Bill if it contains a "concurrent receipt" provision! I think Congress will override the veto, but Dubya disappoints me on this one.

[gunnedah]

I am a veteran but not retired from the military.I am a retired Police Officer.The problems with bills in congress is that both sides of the isle play games and blame it on each other.You never know who to believe anymore.I couldnt vote for Jesus if he ran as a Democrat.I was a Democrat for many years and was elected once as a Democrat but after the way the Democrats and Clinton have acted and the show they are putting on now I could vote for Saddam easier.
America no longer has leaders who care for the country they are interested in their own as--- and purely partisan politics. The citizen no longer matters. If you are not party orientated and march in lockstep, the Dems dont want you and the Republicans are weak willed and becoming as bad as the Democrats.

[matrix]

Ping.

[Jumper]

I'm retired enlisted and have followed this issue and participated actively for years now. I was surprised when I retired and they "took" my retirement to pay my disability. But even more shocking is the attitute of non-retired veterans with whom I work in the Federal Govt who think I'm double diping by still working... yet they feel it is okay for them to get their 20% VA payments for disability without any Federal Offset to their paychecks. I for one would support fleecing all recipients of Federal Monies to make the offset of Retiree's retirement fair.

It appears that there are only 600,000 veterans receiving disability payments; 80,000 retirees with over 60% disability, so the numbers are set at 60% and above for compensation and relief on the offset rules; this is a partial victory.

The arguement that the Govt has given that retirees as a group do no suffer a loss of income is statistical crap - since when did veterans/retirees as a group get their total family incomes computed into the "average family income". As a retired NCO, I get half the retirement of an officer.... So if I get 15000, the officer gets 30,000. Then if either my wife or myself works we have more income and our Grateful Nation thinks should be making around 64,000 year from all sources. Social situtational ethics are at work when a government spokesman comes forth with facts based on half-truths and generalizatons, cutting out "statistical groupings of veterans with 100% disablity, etc., and then presenting the arguement that Retirees do not deserve their retirement pay checks plus disability. If this flawed logic is allowed to win the day for the government, they may successfully argue prescedent from here forth that no American citizen deserves "over" a certain amount of payments from combined government sources - it very well may be a future arguement used to fleece Social Security from Seniors who are well to do, or widows with insurance, or anyone with a 401K/IRA, etc. of a certain value.

[matrix]

Great post!

"so the numbers are set at 60% and above for compensation and relief on the offset rules; this is a partial victory."

Actually this is the House version. The Senate's version would provide concurrent receipt for all disabled retired vets, not just those over 60%. The House and Senate sub-committees are now working out the differences. I'm hopeful that at least some relief will come out of this.

Another problem is that Bush has threatened a veto of the Defense Appropriations Bill if there are concurrent receipt provisions in it. Needless to say, I'm disappointed in Bush about this! However, there appear to be enough votes to override the veto. 83 Senators are co-sponsors, and a majority of the House members favor it.

[NMFXSTC]

POINT PAPER
CONCURRENT RECEIPT
MILITARY RETIRED/LONGEVITY PAY
VETERANS AFFIARS DISABILITY COMPENSATION


1. Current Public Law and Sections of Title 38 US Code prohibit concurrent receipt of longevity retirement pay and VA disability compensation.

Discussion:

Military retired are the ONLY segment of the disabled who are denied compensation without dollar for dollar offset by means of deduction from retired pay.

The parent directive for this denial is:

Late in the nineteenth century, Congress was looking
at military retired pay and disability pensions and
found the administration of the programs in shambles.
There were instances of persons receiving military
disability pensions while still on active duty. In an effort
to correct the problem, Congress inserted language in
the FY 1892 appropriations legislation prohibiting an
individual from receiving both military retired pay and a
disability pension. Currently, the prohibition is
described in 38 USC 5304(a)(1) and reads as follows:

§ 5304 (a) (1) Except to the extent that retirement pay is waived
under other provisions of law, not more than one award of
pension, compensation, emergency officers', regular, or reserve
retirement pay, or initial award of naval pension granted after July
13, 1943, shall be made concurrently to any person based on
such person's own service or concurrently to any person based
on the service of any other person.

Clearly, this is no longer relevant and should be repealed! This condition no longer exists, nor is it likely nor plausible that any situation like that mentioned would occur in today's military and society.

2. Military retired who are service connected disabled are discriminated against unfairly and aside from all other groups.

There can be no reasonable question that this is, indeed, a discriminatory practice well within the scope and prowess of the congress to address and correct.

The retiree is the sole member of the disabled population who is denied just compensation…even federal civil service employees are not penalized for their career of choice and service to the nation.

Other service connected disabled are afforded full compensation, regardless of their retirement status and without off set of any kind.

3. Longevity retirement pay and disability compensation are distinctly different and separable compensations.

Military longevity retired pay is pay for service rendered. Many of us spent our early years in a military career without significant income, without the possibility of home ownership, and without tax advantages afforded our civilian counterparts. Retirement remained an enticement and goal. Never was disability a serious consideration…nor is it a consideration among other industries and government agencies in regards to disability compensation.

Disability compensation (especially a service connected disability!) is intended to remedy and assist with the likely lessened earning capacity of the disabled member. No where should (nor does, in the case of anyone other than the military retired!) longevity "pension" be factored as a formula in determining compensation.

4. Addressing Disability.

One significant and pointed question arises here: How is the military retired member's disability somehow less incapacitating than that of his identical counter part who is NOT retired from the military (but may well be retired with better longevity compensation from another endeavor and career)?

If compensation is afforded to address a reduced earning capacity, then there can be no mistake that the denial of concurrent receipt is unjust and unfair!

The notion that a military retiree is somehow less disabled id preposterous, yet the constraints in effect clearly imply that notion.

I simply ask this of you: Can you emphatically and unequivocally state that the military retiree is less disabled? If the answer is "no", then concurrent receipt must be authorized and implemented immediately!

ARGUMENTS AGAINST CONCURRENT RECEIPT

One argument frequently presented is that the more severely disabled would be "over compensated". Nothing could be farther from truth.

Many service connected disabled currently receive disability compensation. Concurrent receipt would have no impact on that group nor on current budget and funding! Those receiving disability compensation who did not complete 20 years or more of service are not included in the concurrent receipt issue at all.

Many with high disability ratings incurred them and retired before completing 20 years of service, and thus are retired for disability rather than longevity. Without longevity retirement, there seems no basis for concurrent receipt, since all their compensation is for disability.

The argument that awarding and authorizing concurrent receipt "costs too much" simply is unacceptable. Who more than the career military who suffer a rated disability more deserves just compensation…not a mere tax exemption for some portion of their longevity pension? The statement that "it costs too much" is just inexcusable, especially in an era where we have a surplus of funds!

With the issue here being solely the retired military disabled, the right thing to do is remove the concurrent receipt restraint now! It is discriminatory, degrading, unjust and unwarranted in every regard!

Example

One example is illustrated here. The two parties cited are assumed to be 70% disabled…one a non military retired receiving full allowance, the other a military retired disabled. The difference is striking…and appalling!


RETIRED MILITARY DISABLED CIVILIAN DISABLED

Base pay (taxable): $2194/mo Base pay (taxable): $2194
Less VA 70% rate with two Tax: - 147
dependents (1114) Gross w/o VA Comp 2047
Taxable Balance: 1088 VA Comp Added: 1114
Tax (1/2 of full tax on
the full longevity for Net Pay: 3161
simplicity: -75

Net pay: 1013
Added VA Comp: 1114
Total Net Pay: $2127
Difference between military retired
Pay w/o Comp and counterpart non military retired
but with tax: $2047
$1034
Difference with VA
Compensation and No
Concurrent Receipt: $ 80


This example clearly demonstrates the disparity and irrationality of this concurrent receipt denial for our military retired disabled. If compensation is afforded to address reduced earning capacity, it is inequitable as long as concurrent receipt constraint remains in effect. Again, can you state that the military retired is somehow less disabled and less deserving of adequate and fair compensation? Does this disparity and discrimination seem just in any manner? The illustration makes it graphically clear that denial of concurrent receipt makes no sense, is not necessary for the reasons it was initiated in 1892, and must be afforded our military retired now!

In the 106th congress, the Senate included a modification of S2357 in their budget. This measure affords the military disabled $100, 200 and 300 monthly in "special comp0ensation" for those in the 70, 80/90 and 100% disabled ratings respectively. It in no way addresses concurrent receipt and is viewed as a "stop gap" measure of dubious note.

The House introduced HR 303, a legislation awarding concurrent receipt. To my dismay, this legislation went to subcommittee and remained there for 17 months with no action! Yet, fully half the House "co-sponsored" this legislation!

Why and how does a significant piece of legislation, co-sponsored by half the House remain idle for such a period?

To be brutally frank, we do not need a ghost of "co-sponsors" who sign on for the cause and then remain absent and idle when the opportunity lies in front of them in subcommittee!

As an active military retiree and a disabled veteran, I am asking each and every retiree I know to personally contact the retirees they know, and so on. We will be following this issue closely and actively in the 107th congress.

I ask your full and committed support and active effort in reaching the objective of repealing the constraint that impacts those most deserving and in need of concurrent receipt…the retired military disabled. To do less is a disgrace and insult to these disabled veterans. They paid one of the ultimate prices in service to the nation. They must be afforded compensation commensurate with that afforded their non military retired counterpart!

We do not ask for special compensation or treatment because of a service connected disability. We ask simply that we be unshackled from denial of concurrent receipt. There is no question it is the right thing to do (the rest of the population remains unaffected by such discrimination and targeting), long overdue, and an issue that can shed some positive light on how the Congress views its veteran constituents.

[NMFXSTC]

I'm not sure what you mean by "down range", but if one is savvy enough to be "deployed", one should be savvy enough to expense wisely and prudently.

As far as deployment is concerned, I define that as "deployed" (as in unit, filed, combat)...not TDY/TAD (entirely different scenarios, and a deployment is unit size, not individual (that's a TDY/TAD and that's where one might need to pay for hotels, etc.) No disrespect, but "leaving it at that" doesn't quite explain or exempify credit card use.

[matrix]

Outstanding explanation.

[fogarty]

WTF. What a bunch of lazy scumbags. What is this "We won't be able to get to this business till after the recess" BS.

America is doomed. We have our elected officials working perhaps less than half the year, taking recesses every other month (it seems), meanwhile making four-five times the national average salary and not paying a CENT for social security.

Maybe it's time to throw these bums out, every single one of them. Maybe it's time to just line 'em up an tar and feather the whole lot.

[NMFXSTC]

It's done all the time in business, government, etc., suspend (at least) while investigation of conspiracy takes place.

Perhaps it esacpes you that there was some serious planning involved in 9/11?

It is not a jokng matter and ignoring a threat is suicide!

[NMFXSTC]

It's done all the time in business, government, etc., suspend (at least) while investigation of conspiracy takes place.

Perhaps it esacpes you that there was some serious planning involved in 9/11?

It is not a jokng matter and ignoring a threat is suicide!

[NMFXSTC]

ooppppsss...wrong thread...ingore/ignore...sorry!

[matrix]

Posted by NMFXSTC to matrix
On News/Activism Sep 15 7:01 PM #11 of 17

POINT PAPER
CONCURRENT RECEIPT
MILITARY RETIRED/LONGEVITY PAY
VETERANS AFFIARS DISABILITY COMPENSATION


1. Current Public Law and Sections of Title 38 US Code prohibit concurrent receipt of longevity retirement pay and VA disability compensation.

Discussion:

Military retired are the ONLY segment of the disabled who are denied compensation without dollar for dollar offset by means of deduction from retired pay.

The parent directive for this denial is:

Late in the nineteenth century, Congress was looking
at military retired pay and disability pensions and
found the administration of the programs in shambles.
There were instances of persons receiving military
disability pensions while still on active duty. In an effort
to correct the problem, Congress inserted language in
the FY 1892 appropriations legislation prohibiting an
individual from receiving both military retired pay and a
disability pension. Currently, the prohibition is
described in 38 USC 5304(a)(1) and reads as follows:

§ 5304 (a) (1) Except to the extent that retirement pay is waived
under other provisions of law, not more than one award of
pension, compensation, emergency officers', regular, or reserve
retirement pay, or initial award of naval pension granted after July
13, 1943, shall be made concurrently to any person based on
such person's own service or concurrently to any person based
on the service of any other person.

Clearly, this is no longer relevant and should be repealed! This condition no longer exists, nor is it likely nor plausible that any situation like that mentioned would occur in today's military and society.

2. Military retired who are service connected disabled are discriminated against unfairly and aside from all other groups.

There can be no reasonable question that this is, indeed, a discriminatory practice well within the scope and prowess of the congress to address and correct.

The retiree is the sole member of the disabled population who is denied just compensation…even federal civil service employees are not penalized for their career of choice and service to the nation.

Other service connected disabled are afforded full compensation, regardless of their retirement status and without off set of any kind.

3. Longevity retirement pay and disability compensation are distinctly different and separable compensations.

Military longevity retired pay is pay for service rendered. Many of us spent our early years in a military career without significant income, without the possibility of home ownership, and without tax advantages afforded our civilian counterparts. Retirement remained an enticement and goal. Never was disability a serious consideration…nor is it a consideration among other industries and government agencies in regards to disability compensation.

Disability compensation (especially a service connected disability!) is intended to remedy and assist with the likely lessened earning capacity of the disabled member. No where should (nor does, in the case of anyone other than the military retired!) longevity "pension" be factored as a formula in determining compensation.

4. Addressing Disability.

One significant and pointed question arises here: How is the military retired member's disability somehow less incapacitating than that of his identical counter part who is NOT retired from the military (but may well be retired with better longevity compensation from another endeavor and career)?

If compensation is afforded to address a reduced earning capacity, then there can be no mistake that the denial of concurrent receipt is unjust and unfair!

The notion that a military retiree is somehow less disabled id preposterous, yet the constraints in effect clearly imply that notion.

I simply ask this of you: Can you emphatically and unequivocally state that the military retiree is less disabled? If the answer is "no", then concurrent receipt must be authorized and implemented immediately!

ARGUMENTS AGAINST CONCURRENT RECEIPT

One argument frequently presented is that the more severely disabled would be "over compensated". Nothing could be farther from truth.

Many service connected disabled currently receive disability compensation. Concurrent receipt would have no impact on that group nor on current budget and funding! Those receiving disability compensation who did not complete 20 years or more of service are not included in the concurrent receipt issue at all.

Many with high disability ratings incurred them and retired before completing 20 years of service, and thus are retired for disability rather than longevity. Without longevity retirement, there seems no basis for concurrent receipt, since all their compensation is for disability.

The argument that awarding and authorizing concurrent receipt "costs too much" simply is unacceptable. Who more than the career military who suffer a rated disability more deserves just compensation…not a mere tax exemption for some portion of their longevity pension? The statement that "it costs too much" is just inexcusable, especially in an era where we have a surplus of funds!

With the issue here being solely the retired military disabled, the right thing to do is remove the concurrent receipt restraint now! It is discriminatory, degrading, unjust and unwarranted in every regard!

Example

One example is illustrated here. The two parties cited are assumed to be 70% disabled…one a non military retired receiving full allowance, the other a military retired disabled. The difference is striking…and appalling!


RETIRED MILITARY DISABLED CIVILIAN DISABLED

Base pay (taxable): $2194/mo Base pay (taxable): $2194
Less VA 70% rate with two Tax: - 147
dependents (1114) Gross w/o VA Comp 2047
Taxable Balance: 1088 VA Comp Added: 1114
Tax (1/2 of full tax on
the full longevity for Net Pay: 3161
simplicity: -75

Net pay: 1013
Added VA Comp: 1114
Total Net Pay: $2127
Difference between military retired
Pay w/o Comp and counterpart non military retired
but with tax: $2047
$1034
Difference with VA
Compensation and No
Concurrent Receipt: $ 80


This example clearly demonstrates the disparity and irrationality of this concurrent receipt denial for our military retired disabled. If compensation is afforded to address reduced earning capacity, it is inequitable as long as concurrent receipt constraint remains in effect. Again, can you state that the military retired is somehow less disabled and less deserving of adequate and fair compensation? Does this disparity and discrimination seem just in any manner? The illustration makes it graphically clear that denial of concurrent receipt makes no sense, is not necessary for the reasons it was initiated in 1892, and must be afforded our military retired now!

In the 106th congress, the Senate included a modification of S2357 in their budget. This measure affords the military disabled $100, 200 and 300 monthly in "special comp0ensation" for those in the 70, 80/90 and 100% disabled ratings respectively. It in no way addresses concurrent receipt and is viewed as a "stop gap" measure of dubious note.

The House introduced HR 303, a legislation awarding concurrent receipt. To my dismay, this legislation went to subcommittee and remained there for 17 months with no action! Yet, fully half the House "co-sponsored" this legislation!

Why and how does a significant piece of legislation, co-sponsored by half the House remain idle for such a period?

To be brutally frank, we do not need a ghost of "co-sponsors" who sign on for the cause and then remain absent and idle when the opportunity lies in front of them in subcommittee!

As an active military retiree and a disabled veteran, I am asking each and every retiree I know to personally contact the retirees they know, and so on. We will be following this issue closely and actively in the 107th congress.

I ask your full and committed support and active effort in reaching the objective of repealing the constraint that impacts those most deserving and in need of concurrent receipt…the retired military disabled. To do less is a disgrace and insult to these disabled veterans. They paid one of the ultimate prices in service to the nation. They must be afforded compensation commensurate with that afforded their non military retired counterpart!

We do not ask for special compensation or treatment because of a service connected disability. We ask simply that we be unshackled from denial of concurrent receipt. There is no question it is the right thing to do (the rest of the population remains unaffected by such discrimination and targeting), long overdue, and an issue that can shed some positive light on how the Congress views its veteran constituents.