Jeb Bush's letter supporting Concurrent Receipt for Retired Disabled Vets

Jeb, Call your brother!

I'M BACK!!!

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

WIPE THE SMILE OFF OF THIS MAN'S FACE.

VOTE THE RATS
OUT!! DONATE TODAY
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate here by secure server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

And thank you Governor for your support of the men and women of the US Armed Forces, active,reserve,cadets, retired and their families.

A paper I wrote two years ago...it tells the truth, plain, straight...open (feel free to copy and send ASAP!):

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Clearly, this is no longer relevant and should be repealed!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.

Thank you for your service

Thank you for your CR support

Thank you for the paper, I have it saved for future use.

I do have some questions borne out of ignorance:

How many military retirees are we talking about, that are also disabled ?

How does one fullfill a 20 to 30 year hitch and also be disabled ?

Wouldn't a severe disability require a seperation from service ?

thank you

Click for more information on Concurrent Receipt.

FR Threads:

Enduring Freedom and Concurrent Receipt

Forbes Magazine Hit Piece about Concurrent Receipt

Help Retired Disabled Veterans

Links:

crlegislation.com

USDR.org

Military Coalition.org

It is quite easy, as the back or knees start to give out from the years of humpn' or exiting airplanes from 1250 ft, you can find yourself with limited range of motion or with degenrative disks in your back. A good portion of people will and do get out with some sort of disability pay awarded from the VA.

To bed able to complete a full 20 to 30 year requirement for military service, you do not have to serve it as an "active" service-person. Many of us who were disabled continued to serve our country as a civilian working for the government.

Depending on the MOS you had in the service, the government would welcome you back with open arms. Also realize that some places (ie: Post Office, VA Hospitals, etc), will give priority to US Servicepeople and time working in these places can be adapted to be added to your "Active Service" time for retirement purposes.

Some disabilities are the direct result of injury or illness such as the loss of a limb or the imparement of range of motion. Some disabilities are hidden and not discovered until the point at which a serviceman retires.

Unless otherwise ordered physical exams are only administered pending reeinlistment and some condintions may go undisgnosed such as a hearing loss.

Upon retirement most if not all retirees seek VA health care as, though promised, medical and dental care is not available except thru the VA. A VA comprehensive physical post retirement will often reveal conditions not discovered on active duty which individually or collectively result in the determination that an individual qualifies as having a percentage of disability.

This is premised on the principle that you entered active service physically and mentally whole or you would not have been permitted to enter on active service. You leave active less than whole and are entitled to compensation for that diminishment.

Suggested letter to President Bush:

I am writing to urge you not to veto the FY 2003 Defense Authorization Bill over Congress' support for concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability compensation.

Military retired pay and veterans' disability compensation are two entirely different things. Each is earned in its own right--retired pay for a career of arduous service and disability compensation for the pain, suffering, and lost future earnings due to service-connected disabilities.

In many cases, military members with decades of service must forfeit most or all of their earned retired pay to receive the same disability compensation paid to a similarly disabled member with just a few years of service.

90% of House members and 83% of senators support fixing this inequity and have made it a national priority.

With so many servicemembers' lives and well-being again at risk around the world, I cannot conceive that you would veto the defense bill to deny disabled military retirees their earned retired pay.

I urge you most strongly to end the great disservice our disabled military retirees now suffer by signing this bill when it reaches your desk.

Ping.

Again...Agent Orange cancers crop up long after exposure...that simple.

How many retirees are disabled? According to DOD, about 555K...

As well there is the issue of PTSD as a service connected disability. MAny cases go unreported as folks are either not aware or in denial self medicating all the way till they hit bottom.

The following is a copy of the letter Rep. Michael Bilirakis sent to an
Assistant Secretary of Defense as a rebuttal to ASD Abell's position on
concurrent receipt. Rep. Bilirakis, the House champion of concurrent
receipt is also sending President Bush a similar letter. We applaud and
thank Rep. Bilirakis and Ms. Rebecca Hyder, his Legislative Assistant, for
their hard work and unparalleled perseverance on behalf of the disabled
military retired community.

October 1, 2002
The Honorable Charles Abell
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy)
Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301-1155

Dear Secretary Abell:

As you know, I am the chief proponent of the concurrent receipt issue in the
House of Representatives.   I saw an article by James Garamone on concurrent
receipt posted on the American Forces Press Service. I was quite
disappointed by some of the comments and arguments raised by you and the
Department of Defense in the article.

According to the article, "DOD research shows that the small number veterans
who would benefit from such a repeal are already doing well financially."
Based on my contacts with disabled military retirees over the last 17 years,
I question the validity of that statement. Since I first began working on
this issue, I have heard from thousands of disabled retirees who are
negatively impacted by the current offset and are struggling to get by each
month. Some of these retirees have been forced to undertake drastic
measures, such as selling their homes, in order to meet their monthly
obligations. For many of them, their retired pay amounts to less than
$1,000 per month. In many of these cases, the amount of the VA offset
exceeds the retiree's total retired pay, meaning the individual receives
none of the retired pay from the Department of Defense that they have
rightfully earned. Even with their VA disability compensation, most of
these individuals had total monthly incomes of $1,000 or less, and I
seriously doubt that any of these retirees would consider themselves "doing
well financially."

Moreover, the Department of Defense has already acknowledged that its
studies on retiree income included very few severely disabled retirees.
This omission undermines the credibility of the Department's studies.
Furthermore, these studies relied on total household income, including
spousal income and other outside income sources. Outside income sources
have no bearing on whether or not a military retiree is entitled to receive
his or her retired pay -- retirement income earned with 20 years or more of
loyal service to our nation.

I also believe that your assertion that if concurrent receipt passes "1.2
million veterans could qualify" for extra payments is blatantly misleading.
Previous cost estimates based on data provided by the Departments of Defense
and Veterans Affairs show that about 550,000 disabled retirees would qualify
if a full concurrent receipt plan were enacted into law.   Undoubtedly a
change in the current law will encourage additional members to apply for a
disability rating. However, speculation that an additional 700,000 retirees
might apply for and be granted disability ratings is simply overreaching.
It is highly improbable that this many retirees would even apply, much less
be approved, for VA disability compensation.

Finally, your argument that funding for concurrent receipt will hurt current
servicemembers is also misleading. Members of Congress are cognizant of the
sacrifices military service entails. Neither I nor any of my colleagues
would suggest that other personnel funding be cut to pay for concurrent
receipt, and the enactment of a concurrent receipt provision won't
negatively impact military readiness. If there were any question that my
legislation to eliminate the current offset between military retired pay and
VA disability compensation would have such a negative impact, I sincerely
doubt that it would have garnered the support of more than 90 percent of the
House of Representatives and 80 percent of the Senate.

Moreover, earlier this year, I worked very hard with the members of the
House Budget Committee to provide the funding needed to begin the
elimination of the current offset so that readiness would not be negatively
impacted by our actions. I take great offense at the insinuations that I or
my fellow Members of Congress do not support the brave men and women
currently serving in our Armed Forces.

Secretary Abell, I would remind you of a quote by our first
Commander-in-Chief George Washington: "The willingness with which our young
people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be
directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were
treated and appreciated by their nation." At a time when our Nation is
calling upon our Armed Forces to defend democracy and freedom, we must be
careful not to send the wrong signal to our military service members. For
those of them who have selected to make their career in the U.S. military,
they face an additional unknown risk in our fight against terrorism. If
they are injured, they will be forced to forego their earned retired pay in
order to receive their VA disability compensation. In effect, they will be
paying for their own disability benefits from their retirement checks.

I strongly urge you and the Department of Defense to end your misleading
rhetoric against concurrent receipt, do what is right, and support the
elimination of the current offset.
   Sincerely yours,
   Michael Bilirakis
   Member of Congress

Exercise caution this summer when ranting about the Concurrent Receipt issue

As most will recall, on June 27th, the full Senate passed an amendment to the NDAA of 2003 which provides concurrent receipt for all those rated 10%-100%. Unlike the House, the funds for this full Concurrent Receipt amendment are not identified and the Senate proposal costs four times the House Version.

Earlier, the House passed their funded version for those rated 60%-100%.

We keep reading advisories and alerts from wide spread sources to contact the White House because President Bush threatened in a letter on June 19th to veto Concurrent Receipt. The President has not threatened to veto Concurrent Receipt, only someone in the Administration has "recommended" a veto. This communiqué to recommend veto was an unsigned letter dated June 19th from OMB.

The House Bill will likely prevail because the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and Veterans Affairs, Rep. Bob Stump has championed the funds for partial Concurrent Receipt. However, the Senate amendment identifies no budget detail.

Persistently harping for the whole enchilada, is disaffecting those in Congress. The "all or nothing" approach will end up just like that - nothing!

The Senate bill lacks the funding for this "all or nothing" plea and if push comes to shove, those in Congress who are up for reelection this year, will simply fold their cards and send a signal to the President, who is itching for his first veto, to let President Bush be the fall guy for Concurrent Receipt. The President isn't up for reelection for another two years and short term memories exist with the voters.

Concurrent Receipt isn't even out of conference yet, and like Missile Defense, it will be hotly debated between the Congressional Leadership and SECDEF Rumsfeld, who has a forty five year record of getting his way!

Continued mindless rhetoric demanding quadruple the House funding for full Concurrent Receipt will only serve to alienate the very people we are seeking to help.

My partner on the "Hill" speaks to those members in Congress very frequently (just as he did on July 2nd with Sen. McCain's senior staff.) He recently spoke with a six term Representative from Florida who although a cosponsor of HR303, had no idea as to the history or present status of concurrent receipt.

Veterans Service Organizations are their own worst enemies by demanding full Concurrent Receipt. Their endless optimism without a clue of the difficulty of funding an extra $41B to fund Concurrent Receipt down to those with minor disabilities, could result in the final demise for Concurrent Receipt.

Other sources such as a Congressional Research PhD responsible for tracking this issue further recently told my partner that he feels the Veterans stand to lose it all if they keep asking for the $41B package.

Reality sets in as views are shared almost daily because folks are very concerned that the push for $41B could kill the current "nose under the tent" approach.

Hot off the wire for example, is a July 2nd Budget bulletin from the Senate Budget Committee's "Republican staff talks down concurrent receipt." It is basically noting that it isn't funded and faces a veto threat.

Concurrent Receipt was signed into law last December so if we wisely play our cards right, at least partial funding will be seen this October! Next Year, we can continue lobbying for the remainder based on the partial funding precedent.

Don Tyson

CRlegislation.com

BTTT

Ping.

BTTT