Posted on 11/11/2002 8:16:53 AM PST by matrix
Edited on 05/07/2004 9:33:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- When House members and senators return Tuesday to begin a lame duck session, veterans will greet them with a simple question: Are they going to continue to make military retirees pay for their service-connected disabilities?
"It's an equity issue," said Norb Ryan, a retired vice admiral and president of The Retired Officers Association.
(Excerpt) Read more at theolympian.com ...
But the US can give away billions to corrupt governments in S. America and Africa in the name of 'national security'.
And I bet not too many of these 'top defense officials' ever served in our military, much less are disabled. I really despise politicians.
"Go pound sand. I don't care if you were wounded in combat. I'll send you to fight my wars, and when you come back I'll make sure you are screwed over for sacrificing for this country. You volunteered for this, so tough sh**. I have more important priorities than taking care of disabled vets."
As if the press were real friends of the military.
My prediction? This ploy won't work either.
Because they disagree on a particular issue doesn't mean they disagree on the big picture.
WASHINGTON (Oct. 31, 2002)
- "I just don't get it!" American Legion National Commander Ronald F. Conley said, referring to the failure of congressional conferees to ignore the specter of a presidential veto and to approve concurrent-receipt legislation before Election Day.
"President George W. Bush said we have billions of dollars to rebuild Baghdad, not to mention Afghanistan," said Conley, whose 2.8-million member Legion is the nation's largest veterans organization. "At the same time, his non-veteran advisors are saying they will encourage him to veto any legislation that corrects the inequity of concurrent receipt, because it is a budget buster. Well, 402 House members and 82 Senators did not think so when they voted for correcting a 100-year-old travesty. The travesty is that service-disabled military retirees, by law, are the only group of Americans who have to give up their retirement pay dollar-for-dollar to collect their disability pay."
The 2003 National Defense Authorization that conferees will deal with after the election contains concurrent-receipt provisions that would allow service-disabled military retirees to receive their full military retired pay as well as their disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under a federal law passed in the 1890s, service-disabled military retirees receive a cut in their retired pay equivalent to their VA disability compensation.
Consider the case of two service members in the same wartime military unit. One is injured during military service, leaves the military after a five-year enlistment and is awarded VA disability compensation while working a federal civilian job, and continues to collect full disability after retirement.
The other is injured also, and is given a disability rating by VA after retiring with 20 years of military service. Both veterans are federal retirees. But the military retiree is the only federal retiree that receives a cut in retired pay equal to the amount of disability compensation.
"Obviously this is wrong," Conley said. "I'll tell you something else that's wrong. Two weeks before a major national election, the power brokers in Congress stalled the conference committee, so that no version of concurrent receipt could reach the president's desk prior to November 5th.
"These same non-veteran advisors to the president claim that paying disability and retirement would jeopardize national defense. My response to that is this: There is money budgeted in the House version and even if there wasn't, no civilized nation can afford to send its young men and women to war, and then play the budget shell game with them after 20 or 30 years of service defending our nation.
"What signal does this send our brave young men and women who are now going to war? Is it, 'Don't get wounded, don't get shot, and don't get ill, because we didn't budget for that?' If we didn't budget for concurrent receipt, then perhaps we should rebuild the Baghdads of this world tomorrow and take care of our veterans today.
"It is the same old story as told by the English poet Rudyard Kipling, when speaking about the British soldiers referred to as Tommys when he said: 'Tommy this and Tommy that. Chuck him out, the brute. But he is the savior of his country when the guns begin to shoot.'"
copied from the American Legion Website.
The guy's a disgrace. That he's less of a disgrace than Clinton doesn't change the fact.
"Go pound sand. I don't care if you were wounded in combat. I'll send you to fight my wars, and when you come back I'll make sure you are screwed over for sacrificing for this country. You volunteered for this, so tough sh**. I have more important priorities than taking care of disabled vets."
Your post seems to sum up the feelings of quite a few on this forum...but I find it nearly impossible to believe this would be the President's view, considering everything else we (think we) know about him...
Perhaps I'm being naive here, but I'm convinced we're missing some crucial information about this issue/bill/veto thus far...
BUT...if the concept of disability pay is one of just compensation in lieu of the regular compensation one may receive over the course of a career, I've changed my mind. In that case, it would appear to be double-dipping. One does not continue to receive their salary when they begin to draw a pension.
So, there's my question: What is the rationale behind paying vets disability?
In any case, EVERY single other federal agency allows concurrent receipt. Military vets are the ONLY ones who are enduring this unjust system.
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.