GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Double-dip retirement measure may become law

• 14494
  

  Good Article! The greatest scam perpetuated on America by our servicepersons are illness, injuries, and other disabilities which occurred while on active duty and, God forbid, claimed after they separated from active duty.

  Taken from Charles Dickens' "David Copperfield", Jim Garamone suggests all veterans retired or otherwise beg for it. His "More, You want more" attitude belies a perspective that undercuts the essential fairness of an all volunteer force.

  The choice is up to the lawmakers, not bureaucrats or pundits. We have an all volunteer service. A nation that treats its men and women who perform the task of defending freedom, owes it to the same men and women to treat them fairly when their service ends; especially when there are problems resulting from their service. We don't beg, we ask for fairness. If the government can't be fair to those who have given the most, then to whom is fairness due?

  Jim Philips Posted January 30, 2006 8:51 AM
• 11820
  

  Just to keep this short, I am a former Marine that is 100% medically retired. I also am 100% disabled with the VA. But I can tell you this the 9 years I spent in the serviced; I lived in substandard quarters and work in hangars where the roof leaks or try to perform the mission without all the spare parts. I also work for the Air Force now and it is still that way today. So this bill is not going to take the military there because it is already there.

  Johnny Posted August 25, 2005 12:08 PM
• 64
  

  I was astonished at the tone of this article dealing with proposed legislation that would authorize military retirees to collect disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) without reducing their military retirement by an equal amount. It begins by saying this is a "little-known pay measure," and then moves to a first quote from Assistant Defense Secretary Charles Abell saying that this would be "two pays for the same event," and closes with Abell stating, "In our view this is not good government."

  First of all, this is NOT a "little known pay measure" to the nation's congressionally chartered veterans organizations that have been fighting for it ceaselessly for decades. For Assistant Secretary Abell to imply that this would be a windfall for undeserving veterans, slyly maneuvered into a bill in the dead of night by unscrupulous forces out to hoodwink a naive Congress, is simply nonsense. This bill will allow military retirees to receive compensation for disabilities incurred on the job - JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER AMERICAN including civilian federal retirees who receive VA disability compensation for disabilities incurred during their honorable military service. Indeed, for me and many other veterans this bill would have no impact since we will one day retire from civilian federal service.

  To deny concurrent receipt of VA disability payments to military retirees treats them as second class citizens in the nation they suffered to serve, and is patently unjust. The truth of this is finally on the verge of winning over a majority of the members of Congress and should be applauded by all thinking Americans who honor the sacrifices many of our veterans have made and are making to defend the freedoms we hold so dear.

  There is one and only one reason that members of both political parties have allowed this wrong to exist for over a century - MONEY. It has had nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the arguments on either side. Mr. Garamone's article is correct that authorizing concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and VA disability compensation will be costly to the government. The TRUE cost of waging war does not end when the last shot is fired.

  The major flaw with this bill is not that it may pass at long last, but that it only proposes to authorize concurrent receipt for honorably discharged military retirees who are rated with 60 percent or greater service-connected disabilities by the VA. This means that those military retirees with less than 60 percent disability ratings - including some with serious disabilities and many Purple Heart recipients - would still have their military retirement checks reduced by the amount of their VA disability payments. What's the rationale for this? You guessed it: MONEY not ethics.

  America is not about money alone. It is about doing right and being fair. Concurrent receipt for military retirees is both.

  Jamie Thompson Posted February 24, 2003 4:43 PM
• 63
  

  First of all, I am not a military retiree, I am not disabled, and although I will someday retire as a veteran from the United States Army Reserve, I pray I will not be entitled to disability compensation.

  In my opinion, it is inherently unjust to treat military retirees with service-connected disabilities as "double dippers." Members of Congress and other federal retirees with work-related disabilities receive no reduction in their retirement pay, so why should military retirees? I think its absurd to consider disability pay as double dipping. These veterans did not voluntarily become disabled while serving in our armed forces. They were injured as a result of the hazards of service and bear an additional burden that retirement pay was not intended to compensate. The sacrifices our veterans make on behalf of our nation are at least equal to that of Congress and other federal employees.

  If the concurrent receipt issue isn't passed, everyone else in the federal government, including members of Congress, who retire with a disability should also receive a dollar-for-dollar reduction from their retirement. We need to stop treating our veterans as second-class citizens. I'm reminded of a quote I read by our first commander-in-chief, President George Washington. To paraphrase, 'The way a nation treats its military veterans is a reflection of the value it places on their service and that, in turn, will reflect the attitude of future generations on the value of military service to this nation.'

  Terry John Mitchell Posted February 24, 2003 4:42 PM
• 62
  

  Well, I guess the opinion of the author is plain. Hopefully you will not be considered an expert by the public. Double dipping is a derisive term used to describe someone that receives two retirement payments. It doesn't describe someone that receives a disability payment for being injured while serving his country either in times of war or peace, and the injury is directly connected to that performance of duty.

  I really enjoy the way you tell veterans that they are singled out because they chose to serve our country. Not only do they have to suffer so you can be free but they have to accept the loss of legs, arms, eyes, etc., and move on with no reimbursement for their loss. Typical!

  Anonymous Posted February 24, 2003 4:41 PM
• 61
  

  Your story is biased to the side of those that do NOT want to relieve our disabled veterans of the 100+ yr injustice of concurrent receipt.

  • Retired Military Veterans are the ONLY Federal Workers denied Full disability receipt and Earned retirement pay.

  • Concurrent Receipt is NOT the Same Pay for the Same Thing - Military retirement pay is EARNED Service pay - VA Disability COMPENSATION is just that - COMPENSATION for INJURIES suffered, and that continue to affect Veterans' abilities to Financially PROVIDE for themselves and those they may also support due to their additional physical/mental injuries!!

  • Concurrent receipt is NOT referred to as double dipping. That term refers to retired military or other government personnel, having a paid civil service position or other public tax funded job after their initial retirement.

  • The bias of your story serves only to point out that you failed to contact any of the many veterans' organizations to get a "real" tilt on the subject. The cost projections thrown around are bogus, and concurrent receipt will be directly funded by Congress, when they live up to their promises, and not come out of the DoD Budget that would reduce the Active Forces funding share! Such a statement is seriously misleading to the uninformed public.

  You people should be ashamed of yourselves for printing such non-factual information that further downplays the sacrifices our Country's Defenders have made and will continue to make.

  Dave Palmer Posted February 24, 2003 4:41 PM