Posted on 11/07/2002 6:17:32 AM PST by matrix
By JENNIFER SERGENT
Scripps Howard News Service
November 06, 2002
- For the first time in his adult life, retired Army Master Sgt. John McNatt voted a Democratic ticket in Tuesday's elections.
The Clearwater, Fla., man said he voted against Gov. Jeb Bush as a protest against Bush's brother, who is threatening to veto defense legislation that would increase pension payments to disabled military retirees - veterans with 20 or more years of service.
"Yesterday was the first time I voted for a Democrat, ever," said McNatt, whose service-related heart condition rendered him unable to work at age 46. "I was trying to send a message to the president that his administration's stance on this is wrong."
McNatt is not the only one fighting President Bush. More than 50,000 military retirees spread the word on the Internet to vote Democratic in this year's midterm elections. And if the president follows through with the pension veto, they promise to go after him in 2004.
"I think the veterans' community will voice their displeasure at the ballot box. This is one of the most cohesive issues that I've ever seen as far as bringing veterans together," said retired Army Lt. Col. Larry Wayne, 60, of Knoxville, Tenn. Wayne suffers from Lyme disease, which he contracted during his service and has led to painful arthritis.
At issue is a provision in the 2003 defense authorization bill that would allow disabled military retirees to receive their full pension from the Department of Defense at the same time they get disability pay from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
At present, their pensions are offset dollar for dollar by the amount they receive in disability. Some retirees who have major disabilities must forfeit their entire pension for that reason. The only advantage to the offset is that the disability portion of the payments is tax-free.
Congress enacted a law forbidding "concurrent receipt" of the two payments in 1891, after it discovered that the government was mistakenly paying active-duty soldiers a retirement pension and disability at the same time.
Veterans groups say the policy is outdated and grossly unfair. Soldiers earn their pension with 20 or more years of service; they earn disability if they are injured during that service.
"They are really two different things," said Marvin Harris, a spokesman for The Retired Officers Association near Washington. "They are not overpaid. Their benefits are not generous."
Congress is attempting to respond to that concern. The House and Senate each has a bill designed to help the veterans. The White House rejects both.
In its veto recommendation to President Bush, the Office of Management and Budget said the needs of active duty soldiers and the current war effort outweighs those of veterans.
The pension costs "would necessarily require tradeoffs with war fighting capabilities," a budget office memo said.
The defense bill remains in limbo because of the veto threat. Lawmakers expect to bring up the issue during a post-election session that starts Nov. 12.
Of the nation's 25.7 million veterans, only 643,000 are military retirees whose pensions are offset by disability payments.
David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said that small niche of veterans is taken care of through a generous retirement program, which includes 50 to 75 percent of base pay, free health care and deep grocery discounts at commissaries.
"We think we've done a good job at taking care of that group of people," Chu said. "There isn't the kind of need there that would justify the expense to the taxpayer and the sacrifices others will have to make if either provision passes the Congress."
Daniel McCarthy of Albuquerque, N.M., offered a one-word answer to the claim that soldiers would suffer if military retirees got more money: "Bull."
"It's not taking money from anybody," said McCarthy, 56, a retired senior master sergeant of the Air Force who is disabled from a gunshot wound in the Vietnam War and lingering post-traumatic stress disorder.
Back in Clearwater, McNatt said he isn't going to think about the Bush administration's excuses when the presidential election comes around.
"We would be very disappointed in a president who's willing to send American men and women into battle, knowing they will sustain injuries and wounds that are going to affect them for the rest of their lives, and not having the decency to provide them with their (disability) compensation and their retirement."
These bastards are the same ROADies we all met before we got out. You remember them: The guys who regaled young troops about their “combat” experience, but got very quiet when a real veteran came in. The guys who would get mad if asked questions about their exact duty stations and units during hostilities. The guys who could went to the same sick call as you, but always came out with a pass while you got two Tylenol. The guys who always had a waiver when it came to heavy labor. The guys who told you how to pad your medical records with false claims so you could “get what’s due to you” before you leave. The guy who now tells people how he received a Purple Heart, but the closest he ever got to a combat injury was a magic bullet in Pusan for an unreported STD.
These are the guys who are clamoring for double-dipping. They want standards lowered so everyone is eligible for benefits. They want universal health care. They want equalization of pay. They want to be guaranteed a living. They feel that Uncle Sam should pay for everything for the rest of their days. Now, I am all for taking care of our vets, but I do not support even disabled veterans getting paid twice for their service—as valiant or as unremarkable as it may have been. And for God’s sake, if it does happen, make sure it isn’t universal. It needs to be for documented combat injury or catastrophic problems directly related to a persons’ service.
But there are vets who saw combat and who lost limbs or were maimed while fighting for our freedoms, and they're struggling to make it on a pretty pitiful check (non-officer retiree pay is pretty slim), if they cannot work...those guys deserve to be taken care of.
The article doesn't say Bush is vetoing the bill because of this provision. Is it possible that there is something else wrong with the bill and this measure could be included in a better bill that would get signed?
I know the Dumbocrats have been running the Senate, so I think its unlikely that this issue is as simple as this article makes it sound.
I also stated that I would support direct disability payments for combat injuries. One of the whiners in the article contracted Lyme disease. Now unless the enemy has developed a tick firing cannon, this is not a combat injury. Are you saying that this is equivalent to someone who was fragged?
To be perfetly clear, the only people I am talking about in my previous post are those who are scam artists and professional liars. They constitute somewhat less than 1% of veterans. You can't tell me you served and never met their type. They dishonor veterans by their very existence and they are the ones the media loves to interview. And, no, I do not support them or thier ilk at all.
|
|
Join the Opinion Alert! TownHall.com |
Oliver North (archive)
(printer-friendly version)
July 26, 2002
It's about keeping promises
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- It's been a lousy summer for President George W. Bush. Republican leaders are grousing that he isn't doing enough to keep GOP control of the House. Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld has his arm in a cast, and the Pentagon press corps is beating him up because we can't find Osama's body. Diplomatic correspondents are howling that the president isn't tough enough on Israel. The business press blames him for the stock market collapse and for being soft on corporate crooks. And now the gossip columnists are piling on over the length of his vacation. No wonder the man wants to spend a month in Crawford. But while he's at the ranch, he had better phone Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mitch Daniels or it could get even worse. If he doesn't, some of his most fervent supporters will start re-thinking their loyalty.
Who are they? America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, veterans and military retirees. The troops' lament: broken promises.
Here's the problem. When he was campaigning for commander in chief, Bush habitually said things like: "To the veteran, we owe gratitude -- shown not just in words of tribute, but in acts of care and attention. ... As president, I will work with Congress to raise the standard of service -- not just for veterans, but for our military retirees. All of them must be treated with the care they have been promised and the dignity they have earned."
Gov. Bush spoke those words to the American Legion in Milwaukee, Wisc., on Sept. 6, 2000, and replicated them throughout his campaign. America's military and veteran families -- more than 26 million of them -- heard and believed. And overwhelmingly, they voted for him -- as was evident after dimpled chads and absentee ballots became big issues in Florida. Many military and veteran families believe that if it weren't for them, George W. Bush wouldn't be president. And they may be right.
To his credit, Bush continued his courtship of veterans after his inaugural. At a Memorial Day breakfast in the East Room on May 28, 2001, he said: "America's veterans ask only that government honor its commitments as they honored theirs. They ask that their interests be protected, as they protected their country's interest in foreign lands. In all matters of concern to veterans -- from health care to program funding -- you have my pledge that those commitments will be kept. My administration will do all it can to assist our veterans and to correct oversights of the past." Great stuff. Too bad that this week the Bush administration's budget boss, OMB Director Mitch Daniels, made all those promises appear hollow.
The issue, like so much else in the federal government, is a little-known inequity with an arcane moniker: "concurrent receipt," a provision of law that prohibits retired military veterans from drawing full retirement checks if they also receive a disability payment. What it means is that those who suffer a disabling wound defending our country will be financially punished if they somehow manage to stay in the armed forces long enough to retire. Sound nuts? It is.
In the interest of full disclosure, let me make this personal. During my 22 years in the Marines, I wasn't always quick or agile enough to get out of the way when our nation's enemies were doing bad things. My fellow Marines pinned a couple of purple hearts on my uniform to remind others of my clumsiness.
When I got around to retiring in 1988, a Navy doctor wrote up a long report describing various wounds and injuries. The Department of Veteran's Affairs took the doctor's evaluation and decided that the damage was worth about $450 per month. What I didn't understand at the time was the ingenious way our government had of paying me roughly $5,400 per year. It comes out of my own pocket. Every month, my retirement check is reduced by precisely the amount of my disability payment. And that's exactly how it's done for roughly 550,000 other disabled, retired veterans.
No one would dare to reduce retirement benefits for postal workers with hernias from hoisting mailbags. Nor would anyone in Congress have the temerity to suggest that Civil Service employees forfeit a portion of their retirement checks to pay for on-the-job injuries like carpal tunnel syndrome. Only those who do the dirty and dangerous work of defending this nation suffer this indignity -- the very ones who believed the president's promise that, "My administration understands America's obligations not only to those who wear the uniform today, but to those who wore the uniform in the past -- our veterans."
Unfortunately, the deficit hawks in Bush's Office of Management and Budget are now ignoring this "obligation" (his word, not mine) because fixing the problem is too expensive. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it would cost approximately $2 billion in fiscal year 2003. Of course, bloated deficits haven't stopped Congress from padding its own payrolls or stuffing 8,341 pork-barrel projects, estimated by Citizens Against Government Waste at $20 billion, in this year's 13 appropriations bills.
What's worse, the Rumsfeld Pentagon doesn't seem to grasp that this punitive policy has an unquantifiable adverse effect on retention and combat effectiveness. Do we really want a military force led by risk-averse, desk-bound officers and NCOs who avoid the possibility of getting wounded because they don't want to financially punish their families?
Bush has said, "Veterans are a priority for this administration." He had better make those in his administration believe it because veterans also believe that old axiom, "You can't just talk the talk -- you have to walk the walk."
Please don't get me started. I know nothing about the burial stuff yet, thank the Lord. But the health care is a curse.
Personally, I would still rather see vets (and active duty) get decent medical care and other benefits that have all but disappeared since X42 and his minions reinvented screwed the military.
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.