Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: surely_you_jest
My mistake; the link does not include the final "/" mark, therefore

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ legislative/sap/107-2/S2514-s.html
12 posted on 06/21/2002 11:37:10 AM PDT by surely_you_jest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: surely_you_jest
I read the "Concurrent Receipt" crap on the WH site. Did Bush mean what he said about veterans benifits during the campaign, or not!

I guess he is just another candidate who will say anything to get elected!

Am I disappointed in him?!

14 posted on 06/21/2002 11:51:07 AM PDT by advocate10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: surely_you_jest
WH crap!<P> Concurrent Receipt

The Administration strongly opposes Section 641 of the current version of the bill, which would phase in full concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans disability compensation for military retirees with disabilities rated at sixty percent or higher. The Administration also believes that our current deficit projections necessitate strict adherence to fiscal discipline to ensure the quickest return to a balanced budget. The Administration is concerned that an amendment may be offered on the Senate floor that would expand this objectionable provision even further. Should the final version of the bill include either provision affecting concurrent receipt of retirement and disability benefits, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Section 641 as currently drafted is contrary to the long-standing principle that no one should be able to receive concurrent retirement benefits and disability benefits based upon the same service. All Federal compensation systems aim for an equitable percentage of income replacement in the case of either work-related injury or retirement. The Administration's preliminary estimate is that Section 641 would increase mandatory outlays by $18 billion from 2003 to 2012 and would also increase DoD discretionary costs for retirement accrual by $11 billion from FY 2004 to FY 2012, an impact that would necessarily require tradeoffs with war fighting capabilities. The Administration also strongly opposes any further expansion of Section 641 and understands that the amendment that may be offered would provide immediate full concurrent receipt. This expansion would have an estimated mandatory cost of $58 billion ($42 billion associated with the additional payment of retired pay, and $16 billion associated with payment of additional VA disability compensation under claims that would not otherwise be submitted) and DoD discretionary costs of $20 billion over 10 years.


31 posted on 06/22/2002 9:37:10 AM PDT by advocate10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson