Concurrent Receipt at what price?

[reconeil]

Many Moons ago,...the common talk was that America was going to become a: "Service Economy" and to which I thought was utter nonsense, since without GREAT Industries and a GREAT Agriculture,...how-the-hell could we remain GREAT?

After all, this isn't near like The 2-bit Wasteland and/or Oil Rich Nation of Saudi Arabia, where every Saudi Citizen gets paid like a Stock Broker,...whether such or not. Here, more work in The Fast Food SERVICES than could ever possibly work in The Brokerage SERVICES.

Besides, WHAT GOOD is served for America if forced relying on others for ANY INDUSTRIAL or AGRICULTURAL NEEDS during these troubling times? The already lost and further loss of many good paying jobs aside,...I can see NO GOOD for such a nationally-suicidal lunacy. Can ANYONE?

Neil

[BLUEHAWK]

Me neither Neil -

Sounds like the "paperless office" bought some new file cabinets (from Taiwan), eh?

If memory serves, a rather bizarre coalition of opposing camps tried our best to convince Clinton/Gore (especially) against GATT and NAFTA, and against giving unusual bennies to the high-tech industry in those halcyon days.

We failed.

[billr]

Not sure how this post went from efforts to protect future veteran's rights to receive VA compensation to a discussion of farm subsidies. But I thought I would try and re-focus attention to the issue at hand.

Here are quotes from and links to the Press Releases being put out by the Service Organizations:

AMVETS
"To finance concurrent receipt for currently disabled retirees with monies ?saved? from the denial of disability compensation to those brave men and women in future military service is both underhanded and detrimental to our nation?s best interests. It is total nonsense to rob Peter to pay Paul."

http://www.amvets.org/HTML/news_you_...lease03-20.htm

DAV
"In a callous effort to limit government's obligations to our former, current and future defenders, authors of the provision in the Defense authorization bill took it upon themselves to rewrite the law regarding benefits for disabled veterans, bypassing the relevant congressional committee and without holding public hearings on the matter."

http://www.dav.org/news/news_20030910.html

VFW
"It is a blatant attempt to unfairly pit one group of veterans against another by forcing one group to pay for another's disabilities," said VFW Commander-In-Chief Edward Banas of Voluntown, Ct.

http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=1342

Paralyzed Veterans of America

"PVA is outraged over this proposal that will leave millions of future veterans, and future military retirees, without the benefits and health care currently provided by the VA. PVA is unalterably opposed to any legislation that would change the definition of service-connected disability in order to provide an offset to pay for the provision of concurrent receipt.

We are shocked and outraged that anyone would consider cutting benefits in the future for men and women who are currently sacrificing for this country, and we will make every effort to ensure that benefits for one group of veterans are not sacrificed to pay for the benefits of another group."

[Gimpy]

fellas! Appropiately written letters & e-mails to elected officials, local newspapers & local and national broadcast news media from ALL of us, and as many of our families & friends as we can get, will do a LOT more good than trying to stop "farm subsidies" at this juncture of the "battle"! Not that I don't agree it NEEDS to be revamped---COMPLETELY! But, our "focus" needs to stay "directed" at the issue at hand---BEFORE these jerks try and pass this shit!

[BLUEHAWK]

We were just waitin' for you guys to come back...

[Gimpy]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 10, 2003

CONTACT: Mary Ellen McCarthy at 202-225-9756

House Veterans' Affairs Committee

Evans Opposes Proposal to Drastically Limit Eligibility for Veterans' Service-connected Compensation Benefits

Washington, DC - Rep. Lane Evans of Illinois, the Ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, today reacted strongly to Administration suggestions that dramatic limitations be placed on the ability of veterans to qualify for service-connected compensation benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

According to press reports, the Bush Administration is recommending drastic restrictions which would require veterans to prove that their disabilities were incurred or aggravated during performance of official military duties in order to be compensated. Evans called the suggestion "an insult to the men and women who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the world."

The recommendations appear to be under consideration by the Administration in response to veterans' demands for repeal of the tax on disabled military retirees. Disabled military retirees are required to give up one dollar of military retirement pay for each dollar of VA compensation they receive.

Under current law, servicemembers who are subject to military orders 24 hours a day, seven days a week qualify for service-connected compensation benefits if they have a disability which was incurred during or aggravated by military service. For example, veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam or in other areas qualify for payments if they develop a disease which is scientifically associated with exposure to Agent Orange. It has taken decades for the scientific evidence to progress to the point where these veterans can qualify for compensation.

"If veterans were required to prove that their disability is related to their performance of official military duties, all veterans could be expected to undergo the delays and denials experienced by atomic veterans, Vietnam veterans and those suffering from mysterious illnesses associated with service in the Persian Gulf," said Evans. "Veterans are especially angry that these proposals are being made at a time when the young men and women in the military are serving in harm's way, and rightfully so," said Evans.

Under current law, veterans have the "benefit of the doubt" when there is evidence that the disability could be due to military service or to some other cause. In baseball parlance, it is said that the benefit of the doubt rule provides that "the tie goes to the runner." Evans noted that under the limitations being suggested, "only a home run would count."

Evans said he would oppose any move to restrict the disability criteria in order to pay for the cost of repealing the disabled veterans' tax.

"It is absolutely astounding that this Administration would attempt to take benefits away from disabled veterans in order to appear that they are helping other disabled veterans," said Evans.


# # #

[Gimpy]

Subject: Press Release




NEWS RELEASE

Congress Declares War Against Disabled Veterans

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10?The House majority leadership has shown callous
contempt for the sacrifices of America?s defenders by attempting to
impose overly restrictive conditions that would limit benefits for
disabilities from military service, said the Disabled American Veterans.

At issue is a proposed modification to the 2004 Defense authorization
bill that would deny disability compensation and priority for health
care to Americans who become disabled while serving their country if their
disabilities are not directly related to performance of their official
duties. Known as a "direct performance of duty" standard, this
provision would overturn current law which authorizes service connection for
disabilities incurred in the line of duty during service in the United
States Armed Forces.

"Disability incurred in the line of duty is sometimes not directly due
to a job injury, but may be due to less obvious factors attributable to
the military environment," said DAV National Commander Alan W. Bowers.
"Proof of a causal relationship may often be difficult or impossible to
establish. Current law equitably relieves disabled veterans from the
onerous burden of establishing performance of duty or other causal
connection as a prerequisite for service connection."

An untold number of men and women will return from Iraq and the war on
terror with disabilities. The military and veterans organizations worry
that many of them will not be able to directly identify or prove the
origin of their ailments, but that certainly does not mean they should be
ignored. "Any suggestion to the contrary is outrageous and shameful,"
Commander Bowers said.

The nation's veterans and military service organizations are adamantly
opposed to any change that would redefine service-connected disability
or restrict the circumstances under which service-connection may be
established. "We are shocked and appalled that any member of Congress or
the Administration would suggest that such a draconian measure," said
Commander Bowers.

"Our nation is engaged in a war with a hostile enemy that would
willingly kill innocent civilians. Yet it seems that some members of our
government would shortchange those who protect us," said the DAV?s National
Commander. "Disabled veterans should not have to fight their own
government for the benefits they earned. In a callous effort to limit
government's obligations to our former, current and future defenders, authors
of the provision in the Defense authorization bill took it upon
themselves to rewrite the law regarding benefits for disabled veterans,
bypassing the relevant congressional committee and without holding public
hearings on the matter."

###

[Gimpy]

House Leadership Assaults Veterans Disability Compensation


Washington, D.C., Sept. 10, 2003--A reported House leadership proposal to dramatically restrict how veterans' disability compensation is provided in order to cover the cost of a plan to phase in concurrent receipt for disabled military retirees was strongly criticized by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S.

"It is a blatant attempt to unfairly pit one group of veterans against another by forcing one group to pay for another's disabilities," said VFW Commander-In-Chief Edward Banas of Voluntown, Ct.

At issue is a House leadership proposal to deny VA compensation for disabilities and illnesses incurred while on active duty unless the service member can demonstrate that it was the result of the "direct performance of duty."

Commander-In-Chief Banas emphasized that, "disabilities incurred as a result of military service are not always clearly due to the performance of duty. All too many of our brave men and women fighting the war on terrorism in Iraq and around the world, for example, would be denied compensation for disease or injuries suffered during 'off-duty' hours under this draconian standard.

"Those who serve this nation in uniform, both at home and abroad, are on constant call, subject to relentless stress and danger. To limit their compensation and access to priority VA health care only to disabilities that can be proven to be the direct result of an on the job injury callously ignores this reality.

The VFW has long stood in the forefront in the battle to correct the long-standing inequity in law that unjustly forces our nation's disabled military retirees to pay for their own disability compensation by having to sacrifice, dollar for dollar, their hard earned retirement pay. But to attempt to address this financial inequity by imposing a grave injustice on all of this nation's defenders--noncareerist and careerist, alike--is cynical and morally wrong.

"The VFW strongly believes that concurrent receipt legislation can and must be enacted without undermining the VA disability compensation process," Banas said. "And we are dismayed and angry that the House leadership would attempt to address this issue in such a way. As unjust as the concurrent receipt problem is, it cannot be corrected by punishing present and future sick and disabled veterans."


###

[the humper]

became acquainted with it in '52 "incurred or aggravated" was it.
Wasn't aware the wording had been amended.
SF
NC

[MORTARDUDE]

Modest proposal...

just kicking this around...

The USA Today is high profile, national distribution.....I am guessing a half page ad probably runs $ 30,000+ or better. I really do not know for sure.

If all of the "veteran's service organizations" ( say the top 10 or so ) earmarked and pooled some funds and ran a scathing ( a la our esteemed "armor plated" Gimpy ) "education / status / alert" piece just once every 3 or 4 weeks on a regular basis....

consider that the election is in 13.5 months ( 405 days )...

or 58 weeks...

also consider there are about 23,000,000+ living military veterans..

and that they are concentrated in the older age ranges..

and that the percentage that consistently vote in Presidential elections is much, much higher than the general populace..

also consider that many veterans ( retirees for example ) are concentrated in certain districts where who they vote for could make a big difference.. ( i.e. tip the balance.... esp. in House races )

also consider if the aforesaid "information piece" was run every 3 weeks...that would be a potential impact of 19 times......

My analysis is that this is just the kind of thing that politicians of any stripe DO NOT WANT TO HAPPEN.....

An in-your-face-expose of what they are doing to the very men and women that have put their lives and fortunes and families on the line for this country for 60+ years....all over the world...

I do not know anyone high enough in the pecking order in these organizations to get this idea where it might get any type of consideration..

If anyone is reading this and feels it has some merit, please run with it..what can it hurt ?

Folks, veterans and non-veterans alike...this is our LAST chance...

as I have said many times...the Boomers from 1946 hit 62 in 2008...the country will be almost bankrupt by then if things keep going the way they are now....

Just trying to help......

Larry

P.S. :

quick and dirty..our protests and complaints are very muted and diluted right now...they need to be concentrated..sort of like a garden hose on drip..drip..drip..versus a fire hose open full up...

DEO VINDICE