Be afraid...........be VERY afraid!

[Gimpy]

Of the Bush Administration and their "plans" for your "future" if you're a "disabled veteran"!

Don't believe me?

If anybody doubts the tenacity of this Administrations goal to undermine the very people it is using to gain their agenda to make the rich richer and the poor poorer just read below.

How can this amount of money being taken from the Veterans themselves that have fought for the so called Democracy of other Countries as well as their own, mean that much to the Bush Administration. The proposed savings for 2006 if this is enacted would be 1.5 Billion.


Trying to put this into perspective for the hundreds of thousands Vets that have gone to service for this country and obviously applied for and received benefits, no I should say, entitlements for disabilities received during that service, I can?t begin to fathom this administrations arrogance!

I can?t even imagine that this Administration can stand there and promote Patriotism so loudly and then after they are done with you, stick it to you when you need it most. This is clearly a back door approach to undermine the very people that this Country is about.


I bring your attention to the 2nd to the last sentence in this proposal that really scares the hell out of me. ?However, opponents view this option as subjecting veterans' disability benefits to a form of means-testing (they are currently considered an entitlement) ? Its another example of how underhanded this Government is becoming. Perhaps these (currently) entitlements may become gifts or alms to the poor.

I mean after all, I did nothing to earn my disability benefits, did you?


Be afraid my friends.....be VERY, VERY AFRAID of this administration and this republican led Congress and their "targets" for cutting "spending" in the Federal budget!

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

From the Congressional Budget Office:


This volume--one of the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) regular reports to the House and Senate Committees on the Budget--presents options for altering federal spending and revenues. The volume aims to help policymakers in their annual tasks of making budgetary choices, setting priorities, and adapting to changes in circumstances.

The options discussed in this report stem from various sources. They are derived from legislative proposals, the President's budget, Congressional and CBO staff, other government entities, and private groups.


Veterans Benefits and Services


700-01 Narrow the Eligibility for Veterans' Disability Compensation to Include Only Veterans with High-Rated Disabilities


700-02 Narrow the Eligibility for Veterans' Disability Compensation to Veterans Whose Disabilities Are Related to Their Military Duties


700-03 Increase Beneficiaries' Cost Sharing for Care at Nursing Facilities Operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs


700-04 Reduce Veterans' Disability Compensation to Account for Social Security Disability Insurance Payments


04--Mandatory

Reduce Veterans' Disability Compensation to Account for Social Security Disability Insurance Payments

http://www.cbo.gov/bo2005/bo2005_sh...fm?index=700-04

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Millions of dollars) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in Outlays -1,451 -1,505 -1,556 -1,610 -1,669 -7,792 -17,114

Approximately 2.6 million veterans--about 1.7 million of whom are under age 65--receive compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for disabilities associated with their military service. The amount of compensation is based on a rating of an impairment's average effect on a person's earning ability. Additional allowances are paid to veterans whose disabilities are rated 30 percent or higher and who have dependent spouses, children, or parents.

Veterans with disabilities may also qualify for cash payments from other sources, including workers' compensation; means-tested programs such as Supplemental Security Income; private disability insurance; and, for veterans under 65, Social Security's Disability Insurance (DI) program. An estimated 120,000 veterans who receive disability compensation from VA also receive DI payments from the Social Security Administration.


When Social Security beneficiaries are eligible for disability benefits from multiple sources, ceilings usually limit their combined disability benefits from public sources to 80 percent of their average earnings before they were disabled. Those DI payments--after any reduction, if applicable--are adjusted periodically for changes in the cost of living and the average wage level nationwide. Veterans' compensation payments for disabilities, however, are not included and do not apply toward the limit, nor do means-tested benefits and certain benefits based on public employment .


This option would limit veterans' disability compensation for individuals receiving both that compensation and DI payments. Under the option, disability compensation would be reduced by the amount of the DI benefit. Applying that change to both current and future recipients of veterans' compensation would affect an estimated 126,000 recipients in 2006, saving almost $1.5 billion that year and an estimated $7.8 billion over the 2006-2010 period. Applying that change only to veterans who were newly awarded compensation payments or DI payments would affect an estimated 2,500 recipients in 2006, saving $30 million in outlays that year and an estimated $850 million over the 2006-2010 period.


This option would eliminate duplicate payment of public compensation for a single disability. However, opponents view this option as subjecting veterans' disability benefits to a form of means-testing (they are currently considered an entitlement).

Moreover, to the extent that this option applied to current recipients of DI benefits, some disabled veterans would see their income drop.
################

NOW.....................do you SEE what they're going to try next???

If this passes, and you are receiving Social Security disability and your VA disability compensation...............you will LOSE the amount paid to you from Social Security by having it "deducted" from your VA disability compensation!

And you thought Bush and the Republicans were "supporters" of sick & disabled veterans, huh??

Don't you think it's about time you WOKE UP and see the TRUTH for a change???


__________________

[Gimpy]

to write you Senators and Representatives about!

More "news" from the Congressional Budget Office and their "recommendations" for the Presidents new VA Budget Proposals!


This volume--one of the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) regular reports to the House and Senate Committees on the Budget--presents options for altering federal spending and revenues. The volume aims to help policymakers in their annual tasks of making budgetary choices, setting priorities, and adapting to changes in circumstances.


The options discussed in this report stem from various sources. They are derived from legislative proposals, the President's budget, Congressional and CBO staff, other government entities, and private groups.


Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

Veterans Benefits and Services


700-01--Mandatory

Narrow the Eligibility for Veterans' Disability Compensation to Include Only Veterans with High-Rated Disabilities


(Millions of dollars) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015
Change in Spending Budget authority -76 - 138 - 183 - 256 -320 - 973 - 3,608
Outlays ------------------------------ 73 - 133 - 177 - 250 -315 - 948 - 3,559


Approximately 2.6 million veterans who have service-connected disabilities receive disability compensation benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The amount of compensation is based on a rating of an individual's impairment that is intended to reflect the resulting reduction, on average, in earnings capacity.

Veterans' disability ratings range from zero to 100 percent (the most severe). Veterans who are unable to maintain gainful employment and who have ratings of at least 60 percent are eligible to be paid at the 100 percent disability rate. Veterans who have disabilities rated 30 percent or higher and who have dependent spouses, children, or parents are paid special allowances because of their dependents.


The Congressional Budget Office expects at least 45,000 more veterans with disability ratings below 30 percent to begin receiving compensation of $70 to $200 per month each year over the 2006-2015 period. This option would, for all future cases, narrow the eligibility for compensation to include only veterans with disability ratings of 30 percent or higher. That change would reduce federal outlays by $948 million over the 2006-2010 period.


By not awarding new compensation to veterans with disability ratings below 30 percent, VA could concentrate spending on the most impaired veterans. Furthermore, the need for compensating the least impaired veterans may be lessening. Performance in civilian jobs depends less now on physical labor than it did when the disability ratings were originally determined in 1924, and improved reconstructive techniques are now available.

Thus, physical impairments rated below 30 percent may not substantively reduce veterans' earnings. Examples of low-rated impairments include conditions such as mild arthritis, moderately flat feet, or amputation of part of a finger--conditions that would not preclude working in many occupations today.


However, veterans' compensation could be viewed as career or lifetime indemnity payments that the federal government owes to people who were disabled to any degree while serving in the armed forces.

Moreover, some disabled veterans might find it difficult to increase their working hours or otherwise make up for the loss of expected compensation payments.

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

Get ready my friends................it's coming, just like I've been saying all along !


__________________

[exlrrp]

You are my hero
If I was a Southerner, I'd want to be just like you
Once again, "dittoes" to everything you put down
Thanks again
Stay good
james

[SuperScout]

Certainly not to question those who are legitimately receiving PTSD compensation or other VA benefits, one could wonder how much fraud and abuse there is in the current system. For example, I had two wannabees call me, claiming to have been with me and the Scouts, 2-47th Inf (Mech), but couldn't recall any other people, their names, their nicknames, their track number, their track nickname, their section sergeant, their platoon sergeant, or any operations that we were allegedly on together. They wanted me to write a letter for them to the VA, testifying to their alleged wounds, how they have been injured yada yada yada..... When they couldn't provide any answers to my very simple questions, I informed them that I was forwarding their call to the FBI for attempting to commit fraud against the United States government. The speed of their disconnecting phones was exceeded only by the rise in my blood pressure, just entertaining the thought of some scumbag trying to leech off the system that is not now doing, nor never has ever done enough for truly disabled veterans.

There does seem to be some philosophical contradictions at work here. On the one hand, the current administration is being accused of every bad thing since the first shot was fired in anger, but it was this very same administration that finally cobbled together a benefit package that vaguely resembles the concurrent receipt benefit that had been languishing in Congress for the past forty years.

[Gimpy]

Originally posted by SuperScout Certainly not to question those who are legitimately receiving PTSD compensation or other VA benefits, one could wonder how much fraud and abuse there is in the current system. For example, I had two wannabees call me, claiming to have been with me and the Scouts, 2-47th Inf (Mech), but couldn't recall any other people, their names, their nicknames, their track number, their track nickname, their section sergeant, their platoon sergeant, or any operations that we were allegedly on together. They wanted me to write a letter for them to the VA, testifying to their alleged wounds, how they have been injured yada yada yada..... When they couldn't provide any answers to my very simple questions, I informed them that I was forwarding their call to the FBI for attempting to commit fraud against the United States government. The speed of their disconnecting phones was exceeded only by the rise in my blood pressure, just entertaining the thought of some scumbag trying to leech off the system that is not now doing, nor never has ever done enough for truly disabled veterans.

I concur with your actions and your statements regarding these 'scumbags' as you so appropiately named them Super. I truly believe these are the 'exceptions' rather than the commonplace however.------Gimp

There does seem to be some philosophical contradictions at work here. On the one hand, the current administration is being accused of every bad thing since the first shot was fired in anger, but it was this very same administration that finally cobbled together a benefit package that vaguely resembles the concurrent receipt benefit that had been languishing in Congress for the past forty years.

Here is where we 'part company' however. I recently posted, on another thread, the 'history' of the 'battle' for "Concurrent Receipt" and showed in great detail and with documented cronological history where your pronouncement of ...."concurrent receipt benefit that had been languishing in Congress for the past forty years " is in fact not true. And, is totally absent of accurate authority for being mentioned in this manner. The REAL 'battle' didn't even start until the mid to late 1980's!


This administration had to be DRAGGED to the table KICKING, HOLLERING & SCREAMING all the way by the Military Service Organizations or be publicly humiliated and admonished for their efforts to undermine the very nature and mission of assisting military veterans and their dependents as written into law via the U.S.Code of Federal Regulations. I'll be more than glad to go back and re-post all that for you if you prefer?----Gimp

[Gimpy]

That goes 'both' ways my friend!

If I were a 'Californian" I'd want to be just like you also!

Thanks again!..........................

Guess all the promosies made by these adam henerys is the typical promises politicans make just to get elected and once in they find way to fu

[SuperScout]

"The REAL 'battle' didn't even start until the mid to late 1980's!"? [Your quote] What were the Democrats waiting for? Didn't retired veterans with disabilities exist before that time, when the Democrats were in control of Congress, with Democrat presidents helping them? Why wasn't it a hot item then when they had the power to fix it, but now that the problem has been partially addressed, you want to whine and complain? You can't bend history just to suit your obvious bias.

[Gimpy]

you go again!

Don't you EVER get tired of tasting that 'shoe leather'?? :cd:

OK...............I'll post this AGAIN for you to improve your historical 'knowledge' of the 'facts'. You evidently forgot I posted this back in May of this year when the House voted DOWN by a vote of 225 Republicans to 198 Democrats & two (2) Republicans (both from my state BTW) to fully fund concurrent receipt!

It's kinda long------------don't forget to tak a nap about half way through so's you don't overwork that limited amout of cognizant abilities you seldom adequately employ.

###########

I've been following this issue for years now and wanted to share the history of it with the folks on this forum so maybe they can get a better understanding of what has taken place and hopefully get more folks involved in correcting it.

Passing a Bill into law in Congress can be likened to giving birth.

Where the gestation period for an elephant is 22 months, for legislation to become a public law it is often as long as five to 10 years, or longer.

Although it is perhaps the one type of conception where many claim to be the father, it is the antepartum care, as with any pregnancy, that promotes growth. Legislation needs to be nursed through the system to succeed.

After an idea is conceived, a member of Congress must decide to sponsor a bill. Then the bill has to be drafted: Legislation is reviewed, existing laws are researched, and effective language is written. Once in a technical form, the draft bill is reviewed by lawyers and costed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The member of Congress then seeks initial co-sponsorship--essential for the bill's success.

The draft of the bill is then placed into the clerk's "hopper." The clerk assigns a number, and it is publicly printed; the draft has become a bill. The bill is read on the floor and is referred to a committee or subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the area affected by this measure.

Additional cosponsors are solicited; the more cosponsors on a bill, the more visible it becomes.

If the chair schedules the bill, the committee will consider the legislation, and the bill gets "marked-up." The committee may report the bill to the House or Senate as is, or it might be amended or even replaced, by a substitute bill. If not considered, the bill remains in committee, where it dies.

If reported to the floor, the bill is voted upon, but not without debate and further chance of amendment. If a final vote is not taken, the bill is considered at another time or recommitted to the original committee. If a vote is not taken by the end of a congressional session, the bill is lost and must be reintroduced at the next session.

With the majority of either the House or Senate in favor, the bill is sent to the opposite chamber, where the procedure repeats itself. Both chambers must pass identical bills. When they don't, both versions (House and Senate) go to the joint conference committee, which develops a compromise bill that both chambers must then vote upon. Key elements of a bill can be lost "in conference." And this is a normal cycle.

Blame an extended gestation on similar bills, public hearings, budget resolutions, positions by the administration, House and Senate leadership, congressional and DoD studies, party politics and personalities, and elections.

Further delays can occur when a champion of a bill is replaced in Congress or when staff members move between congressional offices. The two-year election cycle for the House and the four-year term for the president have a great impact on how quickly a specific piece of legislation is considered, processed and made available for vote.

The perfect example of this process is the recent attempts to pass Concurrent Receipt (CR). Far from providing full coverage for every disabled military retiree, a bill expanding CR for many became public law 108-136 with the president's signature on 24 November 2003.

It took 17 years, however, to even accomplish what was passed, limited as it is.

Like I've said before, Concurrent Receipt legislation attempts to correct an offset that reduces a disabled military retiree retirement pay by the amount of disability compensation paid to the same retiree for his or her disability.

The offset rule had its genesis 110 years ago after hearings on disability pensions for veterans of the Mexican War (1846-48, NOT after the Civil War as has long been misreported) when Congress learned that some elderly military retirees were drawing both their retired pay and veterans' disability pensions from that war.

In response, the fiscally conservative Congress enacted a law to prohibit the concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and disability compensation.


The current law that is being changed was enacted 27 May 1944 ,P.L. 78-314, (Yes Super, by a Democratic controlled Congress worried about of ALL THINGS.....fiscal responsibility and paying for a World War of all things, can you believe that!) and took a different approach but has a similar net effect.

It stipulates that any disabled veteran receiving uniformed services retired pay would receive disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) only if he or she waives receipt of an equal amount of retired pay.

For the next 35 to 40 years it was a virtual "non-issue" among political circles due to the limited amout of individuals affected by it's enactment (most of those WWII vets affected didn't start retireing until the 60's or 70's)

In the 1980s a group was formed called the Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees (USDR). By 1984 the organization had grown to 2,600 members. USDR then filed a suit in the United States Court of Claims. Known as the Absher lawsuit, it had 2,048 plaintiffs.

In 1985 , the court ruled against the organization and it was appealed to the U.S. Appellate Court, which in 1986 also ruled against USDR. A Petition of Certiorari was forwarded to the U.S. Supreme Court. In April 1987 , the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider a further USDR appeal, effectively closing the door on any relief through the courts. The Absher decision stated that only Congress can fix the problem .

The first Concurrent Receipt reform bills were introduced in 1985 with the principal focus on H.R. 303 , and was sponsored by my very own Congressman here in Tarpon Springs, FL and one of very few Republican politicians I continue to support.......... Rep. Mike Bilirakis (R-Fla.), and its original Senate companion bill, S. 2120, sponsored by the late Sen. Spark Matsunaga (D-Hawaii). An apparent "bi-partisan" effort!

Each proposed eliminating the offset for retirees with 20 or more years of service and rated disabled by the VA. Over the years, Bilirakis reintroduced Concurrent Receipt reform; H.R.303 became synonymous with CR reform.

At a 1988 hearing before the House Veterans' Affairs Compensation, Pension, and Insurance Subcommittee, Bilirakis highlighted the unfairness of the ban on concurrent receipt. During that hearing, 18 associations and six members of Congress testified in support of H.R. 303. The only dissenters were from the Department of Defense (DoD) and the VA. Funding clearly was the biggest hurdle, as House Subcommittee Chairman Douglas Applegate (D-Ohio) chastised the congressional witnesses for not proposing other program cuts to offset the then-estimated $1.2 billion to $1.7 billion annual cost of concurrent receipt.

H.R. 303 won 244 cosponsors but died without action when the 100th Congress adjourned.

In the 101st Congress, Matsunaga introduced a less-expensive alternative (S. 563) referred to as "inverse ratio" concurrent receipt, which reduced the offset depending on the retiree's VA disability rating (100 percent disabled retirees would have no offset; 90 percent disabled, 10 percent offset; 80 percent disabled, 20 percent offset; etc.).

In 1991, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee recommended enactment of "inverse ratio" concurrent receipt authority (S. 190) in memory of Matsunaga, after his death in 1990. The initiative died when Congress adjourned.

In 1992, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Bob Graham (D-Fla.) won Senate approval to require the Pentagon to submit legislation and funding for concurrent receipt. The Senate bill was diluted in final House action to require only a DoD report on alternatives by 1 April 1993.

In 1993, DoD's failure to submit the April report prompted Congress to pass legislation exempting 100 percent disabled retirees from the offset--unless the Pentagon submitted the report by 1 January 1994. DoD submitted the report in September 1993, opposing any change, thus voiding the legislation.

In 1994, Bilirakis offered a discharge petition, which starts the process to force his inverse ratio concurrent receipt bill (H.R. 65) from committee for a House floor vote. His effort failed when only about 50 of the 165 cosponsors of H.R. 65 were willing to sign the discharge petition.

In 1995, McCain offered an amendment to the FY95 Defense Appropriations Act to authorize concurrent receipt for 100 percent disabled retirees. The bill was challenged on a budget point of order; the language was amended to require another DoD report, which again recommended against any change.

In 1996, Bilirakis tried to amend the FY97 Defense Authorization Act to allow a monthly $100 to $300 "special compensation" for certain severely disabled retirees. The amendment was disallowed by the House Rules Committee.

In 1997-98, Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) reintroduced the inverse ratio bill (S. 657) in the Senate. Bilirakis introduced several bills in the House, from H.R. 44 (limited special compensation) to H.R. 303 (full concurrent receipt), but Congress adjourned without action.

In 1999, McCain, Bilirakis, and Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) proposed an extra $100 to $300 a month special compensation for disabled retirees who served at least 20 years on active duty and received Department of Veterans Affairs disability ratings of 70 percent or higher within four years of leaving service. Finally, the provision was included in the FY00 Defense Authorization Act, the first change in the dollar-for-dollar offset law.

In 2000, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) won Senate approval of his full concurrent receipt amendment (S. 2357) to the FY01 Defense Authorization Act. House-Senate conferees dropped the provision, opting only to extend the $100 to $300 special compensation (SCSD) to disabled retirees.

First elected into the Senate in 1986 , Reid championed the cause of concurrent receipt in that chamber, introducing legislation every session .

In 2001, 82 percent of House members and 71 percent of the Senate had cosponsored, respectively, Bilirakis' H.R. 303 and Reid's S. 170. House leaders rejected a Senate proposal to put funding in the FY02 Budget Resolution. Instead, the resolution called for yet another DoD report.

On 28 December 2001, history was made when the 2002 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 107-107) included language to eliminate the concurrent receipt offset for some retired members, contingent on the president proposing, and Congress enacting, funding. This is the first time concurrent receipt language made it into the final version of a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

However, in 2002 President Bush failed to include funding for concurrent receipt in his budget. The House Budget Committee included $516 million in the 2003 budget and the Senate Budget Committee included $17.8 billion over 10 years to provide full concurrent receipt.

The House Budget Committee recommended that any military retirees with VA disability ratings of 60 percent or higher be eligible for concurrent receipt. Senator Reid and Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.) reintroduced legislation (S. 2051) to remove the contingencies placed on previous amendments to the Defense Authorization Act.

Variations of Concurrent Receipt were in both the Senate and House versions of the NDAA. At DoD's urging, the president threatened to veto the Defense Bill. Confrontation between the Congress and the White House was risked. Leaders met. In Concurrent Receipt's place, through the tremendous efforts of Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), Senate Armed Services Committee chair, the Administration agreed to a new program called "Combat-Related Special Compensation" (CRSC). Unfortunately, language all but excluded drilling Guard members and Reservists.

The success in 2003 has been the biggest yet, limited as it was......and ONLY after a much publicized grass roots effort by all the military service organizations....... H.R.303 was reintroduced at the beginning of the 108th Congress by Representative Bilirakis. As the year progressed, 376 members of the House cosponsored the bill.

Yet the republican led committee would not report the bill to the floor. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) introduced a discharge petition for consideration of H.R. 303 on the floor. Requiring 218 signatures, it was signed by only 203 House members(virtually along party lines!) . An intense retiree and association grassroots effort tried without success for the balance of the signatures.

Through an amendment introduced by Senator Reid, senators called for full concurrent receipt in their version of the National Defense Authorization. Recognizing a heated issue, House, Senate and White House officials negotiated a compromise, permitting Concurrent Receipt for those disabled retirees with 50 percent or higher ratings, and expanding CRSC to 100 percent with combat disabilities.

Since 1986, military retiree groups, VSO's and the ROA, as a member of The Military Coalition, have lobbied annually to get Congress to repeal the 1944 statute that revised the original law. It has taken the collective effort of numerous congressional offices (from BOTH partys, but MOSTLY DEMOCRATS as the record clearly indicates), behind-the-scenes arm-twisting at DoD and the White House, and lobbying by many veteran, military and Reserve associations to get where we're at today.

And, now this latest rejection in 2005 by Congress to act on solving this travesty of justice to retired military veterans and their dependents continues as we speak.

[Gimpy]

Well now, four days and NO RESPONSE from the SuperPecosPete huh??

I take it by his silence that my absolutely factual rejoinder may be interpreted as a stopper of his runaway mouth. Do you think he'll apologize for his erroneous ways? Nah, too much of a neo-con SUPER-right-wing radical, eaten up with hatred.