thedrifter
08-31-02, 07:50 PM
Military Update
by Tom Philpott
August 29, 2002
Chu Expands Arguments For Stopping Concurrent Receipt
Congress seems near to ending a century-old ban on ``concurrent receipt of both military retired pay and VA disability compensation. But is the political momentum that carried the issue this far losing ground to rising budget deficits, a presidential veto threat and ``private unease among some lawmakers who publicly support the multi-billion dollar initiative?
David Chu hopes so. As under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, he is the Bush administration s top critic of concurrent receipt. Congress, he argues, doesn t understand the ban and, if removed, will come to regret it.
``This is a bad choice for the American public. It s not really targeted on the veterans who are our greatest concern [and], therefore, the administration opposes it, Chu said in an Aug. 28 interview.
A House-Senate conference committee soon will iron out differences in separate versions of the 2003 defense authorization bills. One will be on concurrent receipt. Under current law, military retirees see their retired pay reduced, dollar-for-dollar, when they draw tax-free disability compensation.
The House voted to phase out the offset over five years for roughly 90,000 retirees with disability ratings of 60 percent or higher from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Senate would end the offset immediately and for all 700,000 career retirees drawing VA disability pay.
About 700,000 non-disabled retirees are expected to apply for VA disability ratings once the retired pay offset ends, lured by dollars involved.
The administration agrees with Congress that disabled retirees must be properly compensated, Chu said. ``Where we disagree is [over] what s necessary to do that.
Proponents for ending the offset say other disabled veterans can leave service, take federal civilian or private industry jobs, and draw both VA compensation and civilian pay or retirement without suffering an offset.
It s an appealing argument, Chu conceded. But it ignores the ``generous military retirement package payable after 20 years and fully protected from inflation. It s generous in part to compensate for the danger and, to some extent, career-related ailments or injuries, Chu said. The law has allowed retirees to replace taxable retired pay with tax-free disability pay but has not allowed, until now, any double payments.
VA compensation was designed, Chu said, for veterans unable to complete careers due to disability.
Congress somehow lost focus on the real question, Chu said, which is, ``Are we taking care of veterans properly? Instead, it moved to satisfy retirees who want to draw both benefits, regardless of financial need.
Chu said he has heard from ``senior officers with distinguished combat service who say Congress is going too far. If there are disabled retirees not properly compensated, Chu said, ``it s a very small group.
Yet if the Senate provision passes, ``two thirds of all military retirees would begin drawing ``a second payment, in a range from a few hundreds dollars a month to $2100 or more for retirees rated 100-percent disabled. ``I don t think anyone really argues that two thirds of our military retirees are in trouble financially, Chu said.
He also noted a 1996 Defense survey that showed average household income among retirees, officer and enlisted, at $60,000. And that average held steady regardless of a retiree s disability rating, suggesting that disabilities aren t keeping them from productive second careers.
``So it s unclear to us what problem we re solving, Chu said.
Mitchell Daniels, director of the Office of Management and Budget, will recommend a presidential veto if either provision is enacted, Chu said. Other factors congressional conferees should weigh is how retiree benefits have been enriched over the last few years, first through repeal of retired pay cuts for persons who entered service after July 31,1986, and later by enacting TRICARE for Life, a valuable health insurance plan for elderly beneficiaries.
``In that context, do we need to make another payment? he asked.
Finally, Chu noted that one third of retirees who stand to gain from concurrent receipt are officers who ``typically stand in the top 10 percent of the American income distribution. This is not a disadvantaged class.
Concurrent receipt advocates usually make their case citing the circumstances of retirees too disabled to work, Chu said. But most disabled retirees do work and even earn civilian retirement benefits.
``They are going to get their Coca Cola pension and their military retirement. The real issue [for Congress] is should they get all three?
If Congress shelves both provisions, Chu said, ``we are prepared to discuss if there is a group who has a need we have not met properly.
Steve Strobridge of The Retired Officers Association, and a concurrent receipt advocate for The Military Coalition, an umbrella group of service associations, said Chu is trying to apply a ``needs test to a dispute over earned benefits. ``According to that logic, we shouldn t pay senators because most of them are millionaires, Strobridge said.
``The issue is: Did people earn their disability compensation? Did they earn their retired pay? If they did, then anything they get for the disability should be in addition to retired pay. They should not be forced to give up their retired pay, Strobridge said.
He hasn t detected a lot of wavering on this issue. Some lawmakers always are ready to drop support for high-priced programs, he said. But with concurrent receipt, ``90 percent of Congress has their name on the line.
Comments and suggestions are welcomed. Write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, Va. 20120-1111, or send e-mail to: milupdate@aol.com
Sempers,
Roger
by Tom Philpott
August 29, 2002
Chu Expands Arguments For Stopping Concurrent Receipt
Congress seems near to ending a century-old ban on ``concurrent receipt of both military retired pay and VA disability compensation. But is the political momentum that carried the issue this far losing ground to rising budget deficits, a presidential veto threat and ``private unease among some lawmakers who publicly support the multi-billion dollar initiative?
David Chu hopes so. As under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, he is the Bush administration s top critic of concurrent receipt. Congress, he argues, doesn t understand the ban and, if removed, will come to regret it.
``This is a bad choice for the American public. It s not really targeted on the veterans who are our greatest concern [and], therefore, the administration opposes it, Chu said in an Aug. 28 interview.
A House-Senate conference committee soon will iron out differences in separate versions of the 2003 defense authorization bills. One will be on concurrent receipt. Under current law, military retirees see their retired pay reduced, dollar-for-dollar, when they draw tax-free disability compensation.
The House voted to phase out the offset over five years for roughly 90,000 retirees with disability ratings of 60 percent or higher from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Senate would end the offset immediately and for all 700,000 career retirees drawing VA disability pay.
About 700,000 non-disabled retirees are expected to apply for VA disability ratings once the retired pay offset ends, lured by dollars involved.
The administration agrees with Congress that disabled retirees must be properly compensated, Chu said. ``Where we disagree is [over] what s necessary to do that.
Proponents for ending the offset say other disabled veterans can leave service, take federal civilian or private industry jobs, and draw both VA compensation and civilian pay or retirement without suffering an offset.
It s an appealing argument, Chu conceded. But it ignores the ``generous military retirement package payable after 20 years and fully protected from inflation. It s generous in part to compensate for the danger and, to some extent, career-related ailments or injuries, Chu said. The law has allowed retirees to replace taxable retired pay with tax-free disability pay but has not allowed, until now, any double payments.
VA compensation was designed, Chu said, for veterans unable to complete careers due to disability.
Congress somehow lost focus on the real question, Chu said, which is, ``Are we taking care of veterans properly? Instead, it moved to satisfy retirees who want to draw both benefits, regardless of financial need.
Chu said he has heard from ``senior officers with distinguished combat service who say Congress is going too far. If there are disabled retirees not properly compensated, Chu said, ``it s a very small group.
Yet if the Senate provision passes, ``two thirds of all military retirees would begin drawing ``a second payment, in a range from a few hundreds dollars a month to $2100 or more for retirees rated 100-percent disabled. ``I don t think anyone really argues that two thirds of our military retirees are in trouble financially, Chu said.
He also noted a 1996 Defense survey that showed average household income among retirees, officer and enlisted, at $60,000. And that average held steady regardless of a retiree s disability rating, suggesting that disabilities aren t keeping them from productive second careers.
``So it s unclear to us what problem we re solving, Chu said.
Mitchell Daniels, director of the Office of Management and Budget, will recommend a presidential veto if either provision is enacted, Chu said. Other factors congressional conferees should weigh is how retiree benefits have been enriched over the last few years, first through repeal of retired pay cuts for persons who entered service after July 31,1986, and later by enacting TRICARE for Life, a valuable health insurance plan for elderly beneficiaries.
``In that context, do we need to make another payment? he asked.
Finally, Chu noted that one third of retirees who stand to gain from concurrent receipt are officers who ``typically stand in the top 10 percent of the American income distribution. This is not a disadvantaged class.
Concurrent receipt advocates usually make their case citing the circumstances of retirees too disabled to work, Chu said. But most disabled retirees do work and even earn civilian retirement benefits.
``They are going to get their Coca Cola pension and their military retirement. The real issue [for Congress] is should they get all three?
If Congress shelves both provisions, Chu said, ``we are prepared to discuss if there is a group who has a need we have not met properly.
Steve Strobridge of The Retired Officers Association, and a concurrent receipt advocate for The Military Coalition, an umbrella group of service associations, said Chu is trying to apply a ``needs test to a dispute over earned benefits. ``According to that logic, we shouldn t pay senators because most of them are millionaires, Strobridge said.
``The issue is: Did people earn their disability compensation? Did they earn their retired pay? If they did, then anything they get for the disability should be in addition to retired pay. They should not be forced to give up their retired pay, Strobridge said.
He hasn t detected a lot of wavering on this issue. Some lawmakers always are ready to drop support for high-priced programs, he said. But with concurrent receipt, ``90 percent of Congress has their name on the line.
Comments and suggestions are welcomed. Write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, Va. 20120-1111, or send e-mail to: milupdate@aol.com
Sempers,
Roger