DAV message on concurrent receipt

[Gimpy]

From: "Lisa Bogle"
Subject: Message on Concurrent Receipt
To: dav_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net


THE FIGHT FOR CONCURRENT RECEIPT CAN ONLY BE WON WITH A FIRM AND FULL RESOLVE TO ACHIEVE JUSTICE FOR ALL DISABLED LONGEVITY MILITARY RETIRED VETERANS: A MESSAGE FROM THE DAV NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR Take Action Now!

For years, military retired veterans who suffer from service-connected disabilities have been pushing for repeal of the law that reduces military longevity retired pay a dollar for every dollar received as disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In recent years, the push for this repeal has gained momentum by reason of intensified lobbying and collaboration by the major veterans? organizations and military associations.

For some time, the issue has been at the top of the DAV?s legislative agenda, not because it would benefit a majority of our members (only a fraction of our members are military longevity retired), but because it is a compelling issue from the standpoint of correcting an injustice. With increasing pressure on Congress, there has been increased resistance from those in government who simply do not want to commit the resources to correct this injustice.

That resistance has taken several forms. The two most prominent forms of resistance are threats of veto by President Bush and warnings to veterans? and military organizations that their push for a complete end to the injustice will kill provisions to partially end it. Both forms of intimidation have succeeded in perpetuating this injustice and discouraging some veterans from seeking the full measure of fairness for their comrades.

In reaction to the threat of a Presidential veto of the annual defense authorization bills, the House has effectively killed concurrent receipt during final negotiations of the defense authorization bill each year. Key House members seek to squelch the pressure from the veterans? and military organizations by making the familiar threat that, by pressing for full concurrent receipt legislation as opposed to some watered down half-measure, the organizations are likely to get nothing.

Unfortunately, some na?ve groups have bought in to this threat, and themselves undermine the campaign for concurrent receipt legislation by condemning DAV and other organizations? efforts to remove the injustice for all disabled military retirees affected by it. These groups argue that pressing for full concurrent receipt jeopardizes more reasonable compromises offered by legislators who are in a difficult place because of budget constraints.

Despite the DAV and others holding out for full concurrent receipt for all disabled military retirees, Congress has enacted various measures. These measures range from a purely symbolic, meaningless provision that Congress and some called a ?good first step,? to the program of ?combat-related special compensation? that benefits a very few. With the President and the current House leadership dead set against any concurrent receipt legislation, the only reason Congress enacted even these minimal measures is the constant and heavy pressure applied by the DAV and other organizations. Did our defiance of their threats that Congress would do nothing if we persisted result in nothing? Absolutely not.

Those who warn against what they call the ?all or none? approach are the novices in the legislative arena. They misunderstand that legislation of this nature results from leverage, not congressional benevolence, and that we only get something by pushing for everything. The politicians give us something to relieve the political pressure on them to act. Unless the pressure were having some effect, they would do nothing. They are certainly not going to make the pressure on them worse and more uncomfortable by doing nothing merely to retaliate in the face of unwanted political pressure.

Some of these same novices also apparently subscribe to the excuse that Congress could not fully repeal the bar against concurrent receipt even if every member sincerely wanted to because there is simply not enough money in the Federal treasury to do so. Is this excuse valid? Certainly not! Congress wastes billions of dollars on pork-barrel spending every year. Let?s distinguish pork-barrel spending from more legitimate government spending. Congress provides Federal funding for legitimate projects and programs by a deliberative, though competitive and decidedly political, process in which consideration is given to factors of necessity and other merits that make such projects a priority. Pork-barrel spending is not authorized as a result of thoughtful deliberations that take into account the most beneficial and deserving among the numerous requests for Federal funding. Massive amounts of pork are included in appropriations bills to reward individual legislators for their support of the bill, to help them in close elections in their districts, because of the power they wield in Congress, and for a variety of other reasons unrelated to the merits of the spending itself. Moreover, when it has the political will to do so, Congress enacts bills that include massive amounts of spending for which there is no actual money in its budget. Notable among these are relatively recent transportation and farm subsidy bills. If Congress had the desire, and if restoration of fairness to disabled military retirees were truly something the majority in Congress wanted to do, concurrent receipt legislation could have been enacted long ago. Congress does not have a genuine desire to enact this legislation, and fairness to disabled military retirees is not a congressional priority. Thus, we cannot depend on a benevolent Congress to do the right thing without being pressured; we cannot allow ourselves to be misled by excuses that concurrent receipt legislation costs more than the Government can possibly afford; ! and we c annot be dissuaded from pressuring Congress by intimidation from politicians.

Do we hurt our own cause by what is erroneously called an ?all or none? approach? We can illustrate by analogy. Assume you wanted to sell your automobile yourself and you considered its fair market value to be $12,000, but you would reluctantly go as low as $10,000 if absolutely necessary to get rid of it and have the money for other things. If you were a wise and effective bargainer, you would not advertise openly that while you would really like to have $12,000 for the vehicle, you would accept as little as $10,000. The result would be that a savvy bargainer would start the negotiations with the thought that $10,000 is the absolute maximum he or she would pay and would make an initial offer well below $10,000. You would be fortunate indeed if you were able to get $10,000 for the vehicle.

Although this analogy serves well enough to make a simple point, it is not entirely representative of our situation. Our firm goal is concurrent receipt for all disabled longevity military retirees. We are not engaged in commercial barter; we are fighting for justice for disabled veterans. The rights of some cannot properly be bargained away in negotiations with Congress to get concurrent receipt for others. We must continue to fight with our full resolve and strength for concurrent receipt for all and accept less only if that were all Congress would give us in response to the pressure we have exacted. Until we apply enough pressure to get justice for all adversely affected veterans, we should not stop. Rather than risk getting nothing because we fight for all, we get something only because we fight seriously for everything. We share these simple points with you only because we see correspondence from a few who do not fully understand the reality of the situation ?on the ground.?

Remember, Congress does not want to do this at all. To the extent that we offer compromises up front and aid politicians by repeating their intimidating warnings about the failed strategy of ?all or none? approaches, we foolishly undermine our own strength and defeat our own cause.

Keep the faith. Keep up the good fight for full concurrent receipt and justice for all disabled longevity retired veterans.

############################

[Arrow]

Thanks for posting this Gimpy...I got it in my mail this morning...

I just want it noted here that I strongly disagree with this administration (one that I voted into office) in regard to their actions towards the Veterans of this country.

I also strongly disagree with any and all administrations that have wastedbillions of dollarson complete andutter nonsense in lieu of taking care of our Military and their families, both active duty, retired, and disabled.

It is a national disgrace to take for granted the faithful hearts of families loyal to the Flag and to the Republic for which she stands.

Like me or not,agree with me or not,we owe the best of everything we have to the people that have always given the most and payed the highest price to carry out the will of this Republic.

[Gimpy]

Welcome Lil Sis.

And,-------------agree with you? I do. And,---------like you? Who in the world doesn't? Anyone who has had the opportunity to listen to your heartfelt & intelligent comments and responses would have to say YES to both questions.

Thanks for your tireless efforts!!