Posted on 11/26/2003 3:37:35 AM PST by visualops
The Truth About Veterans, Bush and DemocratsAntonio WilliamsAmerica is a promise, a promise that hard work and sacrifice will be rewarded in the end. No one should hold this promise higher than our government, and no one deserves more than those who've donned the uniform of the United States military. While we went to work and slept peaceably in our beds, they freed Europe, conquered communism, and brought justice to the unjust. Through two World Wars, Vietnam, Korea, the Cold War, and today in the war in terror, our military fought for liberty and delivered the promise of freedom. But those who have sacrifice the most, military retirees injured in the line of duty, have been denied full pay by the century-old legislation of concurrent receipt. Concurrent receipt prohibits disabled military retirees from receiving the full amount of their retirement pay while still receiving the full amount of their full disability compensation. In turn it forces our nation's greatest heroes to pay for their own disability. These are two pays for two different earned entitlements: longevity of service and service-connected disabilities. This is wrong; these are two different earned entitlements, and we owe it to our veterans to ensure they receive both. Looking to right a century of wrong, President Bush and a Republican-led Congress rolled back concurrent receipt, providing thousands of military retirees with the retirement and benefits they earned. It was a historic opportunity, and President Bush and Congress showed their commitment to our nation's military by moving forward on an issue that no Congress, Republican or Democrat, had taken on in more than a century. What They Say and What They Didn't Do
Unfortunately this monumental occasion was overshadowed by the political opportunism of the Democratic Party. As veterans celebrated the first movement on this issue in more than a century, Democrats railed against the bill, calling it divisive and accusing President Bush of back-pedaling on his promise to our men and women in uniform. Such political opportunism saddens and dismays me. This isn’t about getting more votes, or cozying up to the military before an election year. It’s about doing what’s right, and that’s what President Bush and our Congress did. But things are different in Washington, D.C., this is an election year, and Democrats want to distract from real issues and talk about what Bush failed to do. So if this is all about political opportunism, let's set the record straight. In more than a decade of a Democrat-controlled House and eight years of a Democrat presidency, there was no legislation on concurrent receipt, our military shrunk by more than 500,000 personnel and $50 billion, military pay sagged behind that of the private sector, and the Department of Veterans Affairs became better known for what it couldn’t and didn’t do than for what it did. In just six years of Republican control, funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs increased every year for the past five years, and this year VA received the largest budget increase in its history, military pay was raised for the fifth straight year narrowing the gap between military and civilian pay, and the issue of concurrent receipt was tackled, giving thousands of seriously disabled veterans both their pension and their retirement pay. Ladies and gentlemen, the record is clear. When it comes to our men and women in uniform President Bush and this Congress have delivered on America’s promise and will continue to do so.
A native of Washington, D.C., Antonio Williams is a graduate of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn., and works for the Department of Veterans Affairs as a speechwriter and public affairs specialist. |
The 107th congress and eighteen previous congerssional session addressed concurrent receipt (HR 303 is a prime example). In the 107th, 94% of the House and 86% of the Senate cosponsored and supported this legislation. Speaker Hastert and Bush and his DOD cronies blocked its passage. Bush and Hatert, along with Sen. Waner of WV, instead offered the combat related provisoin...a provision that, at best, would address less than 30,000 disabled vets.
Now we have this "wonderful" correction of a wrong? hardly! One must be rated 50% or more disabled and the restoration of retired pay is phased in over ten years!
We remind this congess and our fellow citizens that our disabilties were not "phased in"!
For those who do not understand this issue, a retiree may have effects of injury or illness well after leaving the service (Ageny Ornage cancers are one!) The retired pay is forefited dollar for dollar if VA compensation is awarded. That is usually something the retiree needs in oder to receive care, because retiree care in miliatary facilities is "space available" and there are few cancer docs because cancer patients are medically retired (and shuffled to the VA). So...if retired pay is, say $1,000/month and the vet is 100% disabled, he forfeits retired pay and accpets VA compensation (not to exceed the amount of retired pay)...no other segment of society has to forfeit retired pay if service connected disabled...not one!
It must be poined ut that the retired disabled vet is NOT asking for "more"...just his earned retired pay! That pay is deposited each year in the Military retirement Account Fund (MRTF)...BUT, Sec. of Defesnse can use that money (since it is never disbursed and is forfeited) for "discretionary spending"...virtually withot congressinal oversight and totally unaccountable! So...funding this legislation is a non-issue! The funds are already i the MRTF, but raided by OSD/DOD! (Hence the ten year phase in?)
Say you retire from General Motors. Three years later, you develop a cancer that is directly connected to your operation of a machine, exposure to a chemical, whatever, from your employment. Is it fair for the emploter to now take away your retired pay becuase you became disabled? tat's what the denial of reired pay has been and that is all the retired military disabled demand...our eraned reired pay!
Flame away, but the facts are facts and the case is as noted here. And by the way...Clinton signed PL 107-107 before he left office...that "cenury old law" is no longer in effect and hasn't been for three eyars...this author of this article has not researched anything and misrepresnts the issue...remeber, too, that our 10 t0 40% service connected retirees are left out!
How can this congress, in any "good news" story, assign a percentage to the disabled...either you are disabled, or you're not! This legislation sucks and this reporting is dismally skewed!
http://www.crlegislation.com/ is the most authorative website or source for information on this issue.
Republicans can admit shame on this singular issue!
Clinton signed PL 107-107 because it was passed by the Congress (at least one body was controlled by the Republicans) and he signed it so Al Gore could have something positive to run on when it came to the military, but he refused to fund it.
So lets be fair and give Bush and the Pubbies some credit for eliminating some of the Retired Disabled Vet Tax. And lets all work next year to include the 10-40% Retired Disabled Vets.
IMHO, most grassroots vet websites have become nothing but Bush/Republican bash boards. I support vets and I'll join the Veterans Party, but I won't vote for a vet just because he's a vet, (John F. Kerry for example)or anyone Dem or otherwise because they see an political opportunity in supporting veteran affairs.
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.