FORBES MAGAZINE'S Hit Piece about Concurrent Receipt & Rebuttals from 3 Retired DAVs (Lots of info)

This article will be published 14 October 2002 (I think thats the date) in FORBES Magazine. The journalist rehashes the entire DoD line of lies, half truths, made up numbers.

Three Retired Disabled Vets have replied to Mr. Carnahan and his editor Mr. Forbes about their shoddy reporting

As a side note the email server at Forbes crashed severely after this article was released.

Politicians are understandably eager to lavish money on the military these days. Not all of it is going into antiterrorism efforts. With little debate, 402 House members and 83 senators signed on to bills granting military retirees an expensive new benefit that goes by the euphemism "concurrent receipt." The vernacular is "double-dipping."

Military retirees already collect retirement benefits from the Pentagon. With the new benefit they could also collect hundreds to thousands of dollars a month in tax-free disability payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs--even if the Defense Department didn't find them disabled at discharge. Estimated cost for the Senate version: $78 billion over the next ten years, according to the Office of Management & Budget.

The Bush Administration is threatening to veto the defense spending bill, now in negotiation in a House-Senate conference committee, if, as seems likely, concurrent receipt is included. The Administration says that other military needs are more pressing and that most veterans who would benefit aren't very needy.

"It's not clear what problem we're solving," Undersecretary of Defense David Chu says in an interview. "The beneficiaries of this change are all already drawing full military pensions, completely indexed for inflation, and carrying with them lifetime health care, commissary and other benefits. Our position is, ‘We've already compensated these people.'"

But legislators are no more in a mood to be chintzy about veterans than to tell a New York City fireman his cough is not work-related. Just two years ago President Clinton signed an expansion of health benefits for military retirees that added $290 billion in unfunded liabilities to the federal books by guaranteeing military retirees and their spouses on Medicare--now and in the future--medical care and prescriptions almost for free.

In that case Congress acted after veterans groups claimed military recruiters had promised these benefits. That's a debatable point. A 1956 law made clear there was no such guarantee. A Congressional Research Service study found "courts have repeatedly held that such claims of a ‘promise' have no legal standing" and that "efforts to locate authoritative documentation of such promises have not been successful."

The push for concurrent receipt is not based on any promise. The current system works like this: When a member of the armed forces retires (usually after 20 years, but less if he's seriously injured), the Pentagon determines if he's disabled. At that point 12% of retirees are found to be disabled; most receive a larger monthly check as a result. If the impairment is minor--say, hemorrhoids--there is no extra pay, but rheumatoid arthritis could add $460 to the monthly pension of an Army captain and severe diabetes could add $1,140. If the disability is combat-related, or the retiree joined the service before 1975, the disability money is tax free.

If Defense deems a retiree fit, he can still go to a VA clinic at any time, even 20 years after he's left the service, and apply to get almost any health problem that's cropped up--a bad knee, high blood pressure--classified a "service connected" disability. A finding that he has a 10% or greater service-related disability entitles him to free lifetime medical care for the problem, as well as monthly tax-free disability checks. At present these VA disability payments reduce, dollar for dollar, the soldier's Defense check. Yet the lure of tax-free payments and free medical care is such that even retirees found disabled by Defense usually go to get a VA disability certification, too.

Concurrent receipt, on the other hand, would allow folks who have done their 20 years to get a full Defense pension and then, perhaps years later, apply for a VA disability check, which would not reduce their nondisability pension payments by a cent. Perversely, this would produce a greater extra benefit for those who weren't considered disabled when they retired than for those who retired with serious health problems. Why? The young soldier disabled on the battlefield probably couldn't continue his military career. That means what he receives from the Defense Department is really a disability payment, not a pension. The proposed legislation affects only the latter.

Just how easy is it to get classified disabled by Veterans Affairs? The military hasn't suffered big casualties in a conflict in three decades. Yet 660,000 military retirees, more than a third, are classified as at least partially disabled. With the added incentive of full concurrent receipt, Veterans Affairs estimates that 70% of all retirees who weren't found disabled by Defense would eventually win disabled status from the VA.

The majority of VA disability recipients have common health problems--like ulcers or arthritis--many of which would have arisen over time no matter what job they held. (Tellingly, the VA doesn't track what percentage of disabilities are combat-related.) Any disease or condition that occurred--or was aggravated--while the serviceman was on active duty is considered service-connected. And servicemen are considered to be on active duty 24 hours a day. If a civilian injures his back skiing on vacation, it's not job-related; if a serviceman does, it is.

Even some veterans are appalled. "If you're well enough to stay on active duty and you're well enough to reach retirement, that's great. But you certainly aren't disabled [by your service]," says Rodney Peters, 65, of Waconia, Minn. He spent two decades maintaining airplanes in the Navy.

Ruben A. Pro, a 72-year-old Air Force retiree in New Mexico who suffered a stroke 19 years after leaving the service and is now rated fully service-disabled, says, "I'm very appreciative, but I think our government is just too generous."

No matter. The American Legion says the benefit expansion is necessary because the current system immorally punishes veterans for "getting shot in the defense of democracy."

Unlike civilian disability benefits, VA payments often continue until a veteran dies. The formula for VA payouts, not significantly revised since 1945, doesn't attempt to measure an individual's loss in earning power. The result, the General Accounting Officenotes, is that veterans can receive compensation "even if they are working and regardless of the amount they earn." Indeed, more than a fourth of the retirees receiving VA disability benefits are rated as 10% disabled, which shouldn't keep them from holding most jobs, yet they still qualify for disability pay. So with concurrent receipt, a retiree could hold a full-time job in the private sector, receive a full military pension and get VA disability payments to boot. A triple dip.

When Thomas Fitzgerald, of San Antonio, retired from the Air Force in 1987 with a full pension, his arthritis and bad back would have qualified him for VA disability payments. But he didn't apply, he says, because he was still able to hold a full-time job as a contracting officer for Texas Instruments and believes he would have had the same health problems anywhere. "I sat behind a desk (in the military). I sure as hell wasn't going to walk in and say, ‘I'm disabled.' But a lot of other guys doing similar office work did.''

The letters from the three Retired Disabled Vets follow. Names and address where removed before posting.

Letter #1

Dear Mr. Carnahan,

I was extremely disheartened to read your article "Duty, Honor, Pension" (10.14.02) attacking the Concurrent Receipt issue currently in Congress.

What a slap in the face to Gulf War veterans. Your article selectively lists figures about the Gulf war saying only 148 soldiers were killed and only 467 were wounded in combat. And then in what reads as an anti-veteran article you list 115,000 soldiers from the Gulf War are classified as disabled, as though the Gulf War was fought by a bunch of malingers.

For a more balanced perspective, the more than 100,000 Gulf War veterans that suffer from a host of ailments known collectively as Gulf War Syndrome would have been included. These soldiers fought a war against an enemy that had a host of chemical and biological warfare agents - sarin, mustard gas and much, much more. Under orders, they received experimental vaccines. They helped in the cleanup of Kuwait working in a putrid fog from hundreds of burning oil wells. Support from the DoD has not been swift. It took more than five years before the DoD even admitted that troops may have been exposed to chemical agents.

But these troops suffered and just as so many veterans of wars past, they continue to suffer - not only 467 soldiers, but over 100,000. Are they receiving disability payments from the VA? I certainly hope so.

Something notably missing from your article is the fact that military retirement pay is earned. This benefit is the payback for years at sea away from loved ones or isolated duty on foreign soil; it's the payback for excelling in high responsibility positions while accepting substandard pay; it's the payback for living in tents for long stretches, or having only a rack space of 6X3 to call home and even sharing that when situations call for "hot-racking."

You use the term "triple dip" for someone that may be able to hold a job, receive the military retirement and get VA disability. By your logic, the non-disabled military retiree that is able to hold a job is "double dipping?" Would Forbes champion the cause of eliminating military pensions for any veterans that are able to earn a respectable income in the civilian sector? Or is it just the disabled veterans that should give up their pension?

Undersecretary of Defense David Chu has demonstrated a pattern of distorting the facts on this issue, but his position is clear. "We've already compensated these people" he says.

We are on the verge of another war with Iraq. There are many military members with the experience and background to take us into another victory, more than 20 years worth. They could turn in their papers today and be out and retired quicker than you could say "sarin gas." No one would blame them or attack their courage. They've served. Let the young bucks fight this one. They could then go onto a successful civilian career and supplement their military retirement with civilian pay; if they're lucky, they may even get a second pension.

Or, they can choose to support their country in a time of need. When the President says go, they'll go - with all of their resolve. But on the battlefield, when bullets ring, bombs explode, biological and chemical agents are accidentally released, they may find themselves wounded. They may find themselves with mysterious ailments that the DoD refuses even to acknowledge for years. They may find themselves disabled. They may no longer be able to pursue that second career.

Will America be grateful? Shoot, will the DoD even be grateful? If we listen to Chu, we get our answer - "We've already compensated these people."

I really don't know all the reasons that Forbes magazine chose to take such a one-sided stand on this issue against Veterans. In the future, I would hope that those who have served our country would be considered in a better light by your editorial staff.

Of course I realize I may not be in your target readership and my opinion may not be that important. I saw one of your online feature articles recently - 'The best prisons to go to in the U.S.' As most military retirees, I am happy to say that I don't find myself in the company of those fantasizing about getting into a good prison.

Respectfully,

Letter #2

To the editor:

I am appalled by this article. To begin with, the people that would typically read and participate with FORBES OWE their very success to the military , especially those who made a career of the service. THEY are the people that chose to protect this way of life and not pursue the wealth that so many have in this country. We chose to defend this system. Indeed, we hoped to retire from the military and be able to use that retirement to enable US to participate in this system that would allow us to have some success. We all knew that we could not 'live' on the small military retirement; it would, however, enable us to have some support to help us make our way in this society with a late start. For you to insult this group of people by portraying them as some kind of 'welfare grabbers' is outrageous. Your decision to take a position against concurrent receipt is, as well. weakened by your one-sided use of incomplete information (so typical of people unfamiliar with the military and our "retirement" system), and misleading information by Mr.Chu. We never expected to receive any undying dedication or martyrdom, but neither did we expect to be denigrated by a group who has done so well in this country by whining about our receiving what we earned for our service.

You state with distain that the vast majority of congress favors this return of our retirement pay, and in doing so, you imply that their constituents are wrong. So, do you truly believe that your small group of successful people know better what is 'just' than the majority of the American people? Before I address some specifics, please allow me to give you an example of the injustice of this system, and see if you still think that this is the wrong thing to do.

Private "A" enlisted in the army and been assigned to Fort X near his home. He continues to date his high school sweetheart, and is disabled in an auto accident returning to the base after dinner and a movie with his date. This member is rated 100% disabled, and receives that compensation at that rate from the VA.

Service member "B", a Chief Petty Officer has completed 23 years in the NAVY, and is assigned to an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf. While fighting a fire aboard his ship, he is disabled, cannot work, and is retired. Member "B" will receive the SAME AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION as member "A". Indeed, he will receive less in benefits, since member "A" dependents will be entitled to health care by the VA without co-payments or deductibles, but member "B" dependents, eligible for TRi-care, will be excluded from receiving this benefits. His dependents swill remain under the system that requires expensive co-pays, deductibles, and out of pocket expenses amounting to thousands of dollars. If "B"'s wife requires surgery that costs $16,000, he will be responsible for $4000 of that portion alone, as well as 25% of all the other expenses (lab. x-ray, surgeon, etc).

If you feel that there is an issue here, maybe you should attack the VA compensation system for their method of determining service connection, and go after the money spent on those injured off-duty.

Allow me to address your use of ANY information by Undersecretary CHU. This gentleman has chosen to cite studies that were designed to EXCLUDE disabled retirees in providing numbers that paint a picture of us as "well-to-do" people with "generous" pensions. He has also used a study that was 'purchased' by the DOD to give support to this position. This study was so flawed that data provided in charts was directly in conflict with written explanations. The report has been nearly discounted by ALL as incomplete and inaccurate. I will not go into the details here, but I would expect you to read the rebuttals to Mr. Chu's information.

"The Administration says that other military needs are more pressing....."

They can make this statement since the disabled retired who are unable to work were specifically excluded from the report. The report discounted them on purpose as it wanted to compare income of retirees who were employed. The severely disabled were NOT included in this report - and they have stated so. To use this data now to say that we do not "need" this income borders on lying. Also, to throw it into a needs based venue is improper; we are not discussing need, even though the majority of severely disabled retirees do, indeed, need the additional income. We are discussing funds that were EARNED and set aside every year that are not paid. We earned our retirement by serving more than 20 years in the service, and we are entitled to our VA disability pay because of disabilities we incurred in the service. To say that we are being fully compensated on one hand and then paying the disabled veteran with two years service the same amount does not seem to me to justify use of the terms fully compensated.

I have no idea where you got the numbers that you are broadcasting as to fully find concurrent receipt, but they are certainly more than any that the OMB and congress has published to date. It seems that every time someone wants to argue against concurrent receipt they inflate the amount a few billion. Prior to being influenced by the administration to take a stand against concurrent receipt, the original OMB estimate was just over 40 billion dollars over ten years. In 1998 RAND corporation published a report that showed the military retirement trust fund had accumulated an overage of 330 billion dollars since its beginning in 1984. Part of the reason for this overage is the non-payment of retired pay to disabled retirees who forfeit a dollar of their retirement for every dollar in VA disability that they receive. The retirement system must be fully funded, and since any number of retirees may have their VA payments stopped at any point, the pay for those retirees must be included in calculating funds to be transferred to the MRTF. As to Mr. Chu's assertion that this is two payments for the same service: I earned my retirement by virtue of serving 23 years in the military. I am entitled to VA compensation by virtue of the disability that forced me to retire and keeps me from working. These are two completely different reasons, and continued attempts to say the two pays are for the same thing is a pitiful attempt to find some reason to oppose the issue. The 105th Senate Armed Service Committee report addressed the RAND report and the overage and suggested that RAND's suggestion be adopted to allow the DOD access to these "windfall funds". It was also suggested that those funds be used to redo the entire military retirement system.

".....It's not clear what problem we're solving," Undersecretary of Defense David Chu says in an interview. "The beneficiaries of this change are all already drawing full military pensions, completely indexed for inflation, and carrying with them lifetime health care, commissary and other benefits. Our position is, ‘We've already compensated these people....."

This is so absurd that it would be funny if it were not so sad. There is no reference to the fact the high cost of this "lifetime health care". To say a 2 or sometimes 3 percent increase for inflation each year has somehow kept a meager "pension" an amount that we could live on is reaching pretty far for excuses. Yes, Mr. Chu, we were compensated for our service and then an obscure 19th century law takes that retirement from us if we become disabled. As for use of the term "double-dipping", this is incorrect use of a term that historically referred to a person retiring from the service and returning to the same job as a civil servant. In its broadest terms it has nothing to do with concurrent receipt of military retired pay. To all of those who would say that we receive such a generous pension, I challenge them to live 24 months on that income. Once they have done that, paying mortgages and holding no other job, and paying the health care costs, I do not think they would be so willing to make such an idiotic statement.

It is my opinion that your failure to get all the facts in this case and to accept at face value the statements of a political appointee with some private ax to grind reflects journalism at its worst. For Mssrs. Abell and Chu to start making statements about concurrent receipt taking away from the military's capabilities is equally as idiotic. The amount of money we are speaking of is such a minor percentage of the military budget that it would take a fool to think that it could somehow affect the military's capabilities.

Finally, I would like to ask where you outrage is over the recent change to the RR retirement system? With the drastic decline in the stock market, these changes will likely cost the taxpayer dearly. Is that cost acceptable since funds invested in the stock market ? Does that make the cost to the taxpayer acceptable? Where is your outrage that taxpayers will be paying incarcerated felons their retirement? Where is your outrage that the dependents of these retirees continue to draw that retirement even after the death of the retiree?

I think, sir, that before you take a position that denies disabled retirees the retired pay they earned that you at least fully examine the issue and insure that information you are being given by political appointees is in fact the whole truth. Maybe if you were to listen to the stories of a few of us, you might not be so quick to say that we are trying to do something unethical. Maybe if you were to listen to the stories of a few of us you might say we earned every cent.

I think it is disgraceful that a publication by and for those who have done so well in the United States should take it upon themselves to support a position that disabled military retirees are not entitled to the retired pay they earned. In my opinion, you owe the disabled retirees of this country an apology.

Good day, Sir

Letter #3

This is my two cents I sent by email:

To the Editor:

I have just read the article written by Ira Carnahan about Concurrent Receipt. I'm sure you have already received many letters about this, so I will not rehash all the flaws in his article, but instead I will point out something that he, or you, may not have considered.

Your magazine is based in New York City. We all know what happened on Sept. 11 2001. It was indeed a horrifying event and the loss of life suffered by the New York City Police and Fire Departments was tragic. I feel terrible for those men and women and their families and friends. They have been called heroes and their families will be financially compensated from several sources to help make up for their lifetime loss of income. There are other Police and Firemen that incurred injuries on that day that could turn into disabling conditions someday.

When that happens, will they be allowed to retire and keep their retirement pay, or will they have to give some of that up if they also receive disability pay? I don't know for sure, but I imagine they will be able to receive both because they have EARNED BOTH.

Now I want you to think about another group of men and women that make up our country's military. If my house is on fire or a plane hits my worksite, the New York Fire Department or Police Department will NOT be assisting ME, as I live and work in North Carolina. But our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guard personnel are going into harm's way for ALL OF US no matter if we live in New York or New Mexico. Some of them have already died or been injured in the battles incurred because of Sept. 11. When we attack Iraq again, many more stand to die or become disabled in their service to you and me and all Americans.

I heard a story on National Public Radio yesterday about how some family members of the Sept. 11 victims can't decide whether to take funds from the Victims Fund or to file suit to get more. Their average settlement will be over a million dollars. When a service member dies, no one pays his/her family a million dollars. When a retiree dies, his widow only receives 55% of his retirement pay until she is 62, then is it reduced to 35%.

Military members are the group of people most likely to become disabled in the line of duty, in the course of their jobs, and the only group that must fund their own disabilities. Yet they serve day in and day out because they care; they are proud to serve even if their fellow Americans write articles in major publications about how they don't deserve compensation and retirement pay after earning both. I believe you owe this issue a second thought and you owe our military members and veterans an apology.

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.