View Full Version : Military Lifers Screwed Again/Yet!
TROA's Special Legislative Alert for Tuesday, November 19, 2002.
TROA's Special Legislative Alert for Tuesday, November 19, 2002.
by Dick G
Dick G (Login Dick Gaines)
Forum Owner
TROA's Special Legislative Alert for Tuesday, November 19, 2002.
Federal Appeals Court Renders Its Decision on Class Act Group's Law Suit.
Late yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited opinion in the Class Act Group's health-care lawsuit. Regrettably, the decision was not favorable to the Class Act Group.
Colonel "Bud" Day, Attorney for the Group, contends that members who entered service before June 7, 1956, (the date of the first statutory reference to "space available" care), were wrongly denied lifetime free health care promised to career servicemembers in numerous recruiting and retention briefings, brochures and other documents.
However, the full court, having heard oral arguments from Colonel Day and government defenders on March 6, 2002, decided by a vote of 9 to 4 in favor of the government. The court found that the government had "orally promised recruits that if they served on active duty for at least 20 years, they would receive free lifetime medical care for themselves and their dependents. The government concedes such promises were made in good faith and relied upon."
The court continued, however: "The principal question before us is whether the promises made to the plaintiffs . . . were within the authority of [the Service Secretaries] . . . in view of annual congressional appropriations for military medicine, as the plaintiffs assert. Because [federal law] at most authorizes space-available treatment, and not free health insurance for life, we hold that the [Service Secretaries] lacked the authority . . . to promise free and full medical care."
In rendering its decision, the court concluded: "We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim.
"Federal judges have a duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws, even if that means making unpleasant or unpopular decisions. Congress, on the other hand, has the power to make law, not simply to interpret and apply it. As our predecessor court said:
'Congress has the power and authority under the Constitution to establish a system for the payment of retired pay [for military service members] and to change the system from time to time . . . We understand and appreciate the dissatisfaction of the plaintiffs with the change in the retirement pay system, as they have rendered long and faithful service to our country in time of peace and war. However, if they are to get any relief, it must come from Congress, as this is not within [a court's] jurisdiction.' "
TROA is deeply disappointed with the outcome of the court's decision. We have followed this case very closely since its inception in 1996, and we will continue to follow it to its conclusion. Should Colonel Day decide to appeal this decision to the U. S. Supreme Court, TROA, as stated long ago, will file an amicus brief in support of the Class Act Group's position. An amicus brief, also known as a "friend-of-the-court" brief, is filed by an entity that is not involved in the case, but has strong views on the issue (usually supporting one side or the other). Through an amicus brief, TROA will ask the court to find in favor of the Class Act Group.
We believe the retiree community owes a debt of gratitude to the Class Act Group for helping to highlight retiree health care inequities for both policymakers and the American public.
The complete opinion (more than 90 pages, including the two dissenting opinions) is on the Federal Circuit's Web site at www.fedcir.gov/opinions/99-1402.doc.
Subscription Information
Posted on Nov 19, 2002, 6:58 PM
from IP address 209.130.221.8
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=54364&messageid=955886440
Here's The Reason They Know They Can Get Away With It Forever!
Here's Why They Know They Can get Away With It!
by Dick G
Dick G (Login Dick Gaines)
Forum Owner
THE BONUS ARMY OF 1932
--by Brian R. Train--
(welcome to the students of History 151 at UMASS!)
Hard economic times always incur a certain amount of social dislocation and consequently create opportunities for politically extreme movements. The global economic event that began in 1929, known as the Great Depression, allowed radical movements of the Left and Right to make headway in Europe during the 1930's. As one of the major industrial powers and one of the hardest hit by the Great Depression, radical groups like these could have posed a serious challenge to public order inthe United States. There were many instances of labour unrest and strikes that turned violent, incidents that prompted temporary mobilisations of state National Guards. There were also instances where regular Army troops were called out in aid of the civil power. The worst incident of this type was the Bonus Army March in Washington in the summer of 1932.
At the end of World War One, as the American Expeditionary Force was being demobilised, a grateful U.S. government passed legislation that authorised the payment of cash bonuses to war veterans, adjusted for length of service, in 1945. However, the Crash of 1929 wiped out many veterans' savings and jobs, forcing them out into the streets. Groups of veterans began to organise and petition the government to pay them their cash bonus immediately. In the spring of 1932, during the worst part of Depression, a group of 300 veterans in Portland, Oregon organised by an ex-Sergeant named Walter Walters named itself the 'Bonus Expeditionary Force' or 'Bonus Army,' and began travelling across the country to Washington to lobby the government personally. By the end of May over 3,000 veterans and their families had made their way to the capital. Most of them lived in a collection of makeshift huts and tents on the mud flats by the Anacostia River outside of the city limits. Similar ghettos could be found sheltering the migrant unemployed and poor outside any large city in the United States and were called 'Hoovervilles.' By July, almost 25,000 people lived in Anacostia, making it the largest Hooverville in the country.
In June, the Patman Bonus Bill, which proposed immediate payment of the veterans' cash bonuses, was debated in the House of Representatives. There was stiff resistance from Republicans loyal to President Hoover, as the estimated cost of the bill was over $2 billion and the Hoover Administration was adamant about maintaining a balanced budget. The bill passed in the Congress on June 15, but was defeated in the Senate only two days later. In response, almost 20,000 veterans slowly shuffled up and down Pennsylvania Avenue for three days in a protest local newspapers titled the 'Death March.'
As the weather and the rhetoric grew hotter, concern grew that the Bonus Army Marchers could cause widespread civil disorder and violence. There were scuffles with the police and some Senators' cars were stoned by unruly crowds of veterans. Retired Marine General Smedley Butler, an immensely popular figure among veterans and who had become a vocal opponent of the Hoover Administration, participated in Bonus Army demonstrations and made inflammatory speeches (He would be approached in 1933 by Fascist sympathisers in the American Legion, who would try to involve him in an actual plot to seize power in a coup d'etat.). It was alleged at the time that the March was directed by the Communist Party of the USA in pursuit of a genuine revolution, but it has since been established that the Party's only actual involvement was sending a small number of agitators and speakers. Nevertheless, President Hoover considered the Bonus Army Marchers a threat to public order and his personal safety. Contrary to tradition, he did not attend the closing ceremonies for that session of Congress on July 16 and many members left the Capitol building through underground tunnels to avoid facing the demonstrators outside.
Many of the Marchers left Washington after Congress adjourned, but there were still over 10,000 angry, restless veterans in the streets. On July 28, 1932, two veterans were shot and killed by panicked policemen in a riot at the bottom of Capitol Hill. This provided the final stimulus. Hoover told Ralph Furley, the Secretary of War, to tell General Douglas Macarthur, then the Army Chief of Staff, that he wished the Bonus Army Marchers evicted from Washington. Troops from nearby Forts Myer and Washington were ordered in to remove the Bonus Army Marchers from the streets by force.
One battalion from the 12th Infantry Regiment and two squadrons of the 3rd Cavalry Regiment (under the command of Major George S. Patton, who had taken over as second in command of the Regiment less than three weeks earlier) concentrated at the Ellipse just west of the White House. At 4:00 p.m. the infantrymen donned gas masks and fixed bayonets, the cavalry drew sabres, and the whole force (followed by several light tanks) moved down Pennsylvania Avenue to clear it of people.
Against the advice of his assistant, Major Dwight D. Eisenhower, Macarthur had taken personal command of the operation. President Hoover had ordered Macarthur to clear Pennsylvania Avenue only, but Macarthur immediately began to clear all of downtown Washington, herding the Marchers out and torching their huts and tents. Tear gas was used liberally and many bricks were thrown, but no shots were fired during the entire operation. By 8:00 p.m. the downtown area had been cleared and the bridge across the Anacostia River, leading to the Hooverville where most of the Marchers lived, was blocked by several tanks.
That evening Hoover sent duplicate orders via two officers to Macarthur forbidding him to cross the Anacostia to clear the Marchers' camp, but Macarthur flatly ignored the President's orders, saying that he was 'too busy' and could not be bothered by people coming down and pretending to bring orders.' Macarthur crossed the Anacostia at 11:00 p.m., routed the marchers along with 600 of their wives and children out of the camp, and burned it to the ground. Then, incredibly, he called a press conference at midnight where he praised Hoover for taking the responsibility for giving the order to clear the camp. He said, 'Had the President not acted within 24 hours, he would have been faced with a very grave situation, which would have caused a real battle.... Had he waited another week, I believe the institutions of our government would have been threatened.' Ralph Furley, the Secretary of War, was present at this conference and praised Macarthur for his action in clearing the camp, even though he too was aware that Hoover had given directly contrary orders. It was this sort of insubordination and manipulation that would lead to Macarthur being summarily relieved of his command of the UN forces in Korea in 1951.
The last of the Bonus Army Marchers left Washington by the end of the following day. Hoover could not publicly disagree with his Chief of Staff and Secretary of War, and ended up paying the political cost of this incident. The possibility of widespread civil unrest growing into a popular revolution had been averted, but the forceful eviction of the Bonus Army Marchers, even though not one shot had been fired and only four people killed (the two demonstrators who had been shot by the police and two infants asphyxiated by tear gas), helped to tilt public opinion against Hoover and certainly contributed to his defeat in the 1932 election.
In the end, some money was paid to veterans but not without further difficulties. Within a year of the Bonus Army Incident, President Roosevelt imposed the Economy Act of 1933 which cut veterans disability allowances by 25%. In the effort to cut federal expenses, veterans were viewed as having inordinate special status over civilians. During the 1932 election campaign, he had publicly proclaimed: "No one [merely] because he wore a uniform must therefore be placed in a special class of beneficiaries over and above all other citizens. The fact of wearing a uniform does not mean that he can demand and receive from his government a benefit which no other citizen receives." Congress, nevertheless, quickly restored the cut in benefits. Pressure from veterans' groups continued until a lump-sum bonus law was passed over Roosevelt's veto in 1936. Eventually $2.5 billion was awarded to veterans of World War One.
NOTE TO PLAGIARISTS: If you are going to just copy this text, add your name and submit it as a term paper, be aware that I have placed a small but significant error in this paper. If your teacher is any less lazy than you are, it will be found and you will be caught. However, if your motives are honest and you have read more than one document on the Bonus Army or the Hoover Government, then you will be able to catch the error and correct it.
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACCESSED 6915 TIMES SINCE 6 May 2002
http://www.islandnet.com/~citizenx/bonus.html
[back to Texts]
For Comparison...(Bonus Army)
by Dick G
Dick G (Login Dick Gaines)
Forum Owner
THE BONUS ARMY OF 1932
--By Brian R. Train--
Hard economic times always incur a certain amount of social dislocation and consequently create opportunities for politically extreme movements. The global economic event that began in 1929, known as the Great Depression, allowed radical movements of the Left and Right to make headway in Europe during the 1930's. As one of the major industrial powers and one of the hardest hit by the Great Depression, radical groups like these could have posed a serious challenge to public order in the United States. There were many instances of labor unrest and strikes that turned violent, incidents that prompted temporary mobilizations of state National Guards. There were also instances where regular Army troops were called out in aid of the civil power. The worst incident of this type was the Bonus Army March in Washington in the summer of 1932.
At the end of World War One, as the American Expeditionary Force was being demobilized, a grateful U.S. government passed legislation that authorized the payment of cash bonuses to war veterans, adjusted for length of service, in 1945. However, the Crash of 1929 wiped out many veterans' savings and jobs, forcing them out into the streets. Groups of veterans began to organize and petition the government to pay them their cash bonus immediately. In the spring of 1932, during the worst part of Depression, a group of 300 veterans in Portland, Oregon organized by an ex-Sergeant named Walter Walters named itself the 'Bonus Expeditionary Force' or 'Bonus Army,' and began travelling across the country to Washington to lobby the government personally.
By the end of May over 3,000 veterans and their families had made their way to the capital. Most of them lived in a collection of makeshift huts and tents on the mud flats by the Anacostia River outside of the city limits. Similar ghettos could be found sheltering the migrant unemployed and poor outside any large city in the United States and were called 'Hoovervilles.' By July, almost 25,000 people lived in Anacostia, making it the largest Hooverville in the country. In June, the Patman Bonus Bill, which proposed immediate payment of the veterans' cash bonuses, was debated in the House of Representatives. There was stiff resistance from Republicans loyal to President Hoover, as the estimated cost of the bill was over $2 billion and the Hoover Administration was adamant about maintaining a balanced budget. The bill passed in the Congress on June 15, but was defeated in the Senate only two days later. In response, almost 20,000 veterans slowly shuffled up and down Pennsylvania Avenue for three days in a protest local newspapers titled the 'Death March.'
As the weather and the rhetoric grew hotter, concern grew that the Bonus Army Marchers could cause widespread civil disorder and violence. There were scuffles with the police and some Senators' cars were stoned by unruly crowds of veterans. Retired Marine General Smedley Butler, an immensely popular figure among veterans and who had become a vocal opponent of the Hoover Administration, participated in Bonus Army demonstrations and made inflammatory speeches (He would be approached in 1933 by Fascist sympathisers in the American Legion, who would try to involve him in an actual plot to seize power in a coup d'etat.).
It was alleged at the time that the March was directed by the Communist Party of the USA in pursuit of a genuine revolution, but it has since been established that the Party's only actual involvement was sending a small number of agitators and speakers. Nevertheless, President Hoover considered the Bonus Army Marchers a threat to public order and his personal safety. Contrary to tradition, he did not attend the closing ceremonies for that session of Congress on July 16 and many members left the Capitol building through underground tunnels to avoid facing the demonstrators outside. Many of the Marchers left Washington after Congress adjourned, but there were still over 10,000 angry, restless veterans in the streets.
On July 28, 1932, two veterans were shot and killed by panicked policemen in a riot at the bottom of Capitol Hill. This provided the final stimulus. Hoover told Patrick Hurley, the Secretary of War, to tell General Douglas Macarthur, then the Army Chief of Staff, that he wished the Bonus Army Marchers evicted from Washington. Troops from nearby Forts Myer and Washington were ordered in to remove the Bonus Army Marchers from the streets by force. One battalion from the 12th Infantry Regiment and two squadrons of the 3rd Cavalry Regiment (under the command of Major George S. Patton, who had taken over as second in command of the Regiment less than three weeks earlier) concentrated at the Ellipse just west of the White House. At 4:00 p.m. the infantrymen donned gas masks and fixed bayonets, the cavalry drew sabres, and the whole force (followed by several light tanks) moved down Pennsylvania Avenue to clear it of people.
Against the advice of his assistant, Major Dwight D. Eisenhower, Macarthur had taken personal command of the operation. President Hoover had ordered Macarthur to clear Pennsylvania Avenue only, but Macarthur immediately began to clear all of downtown Washington, herding the Marchers out and torching their huts and tents. Tear gas was used liberally and many bricks were thrown, but no shots were fired during the entire operation. By 8:00 p.m. the downtown area had been cleared and the bridge across the Anacostia River, leading to the Hooverville where most of the Marchers lived, was blocked by several tanks.
That evening Hoover sent duplicate orders via two officers to Macarthur forbidding him to cross the Anacostia to clear the Marchers' camp, but Macarthur flatly ignored the President's orders, saying that he was 'too busy' and could not be bothered by people coming down and pretending to bring orders.' Macarthur crossed the Anacostia at 11:00 p.m., routed the marchers along with 600 of their wives and children out of the camp, and burned it to the ground. Then, incredibly, he called a press conference at midnight where he praised Hoover for taking the responsibility for giving the order to clear the camp. He said, 'Had the President not acted within 24 hours, he would have been faced with a very grave situation, which would have caused a real battle.... Had he waited another week, I believe the institutions of our government would have been threatened.'
Patrick Hurley, the Secretary of War, was present at this conference and praised Macarthur for his action in clearing the camp, even though he too was aware that Hoover had given directly contrary orders. It was this sort of insubordination and manipulation that would lead to Macarthur being summarily relieved of his command of the UN forces in Korea in 1951. The last of the Bonus Army Marchers left Washington by the end of the following day. Hoover could not publicly disagree with his Chief of Staff and Secretary of War, and ended up paying the political cost of this incident.
The possibility of widespread civil unrest growing into a popular revolution had been averted, but the forceful eviction of the Bonus Army Marchers, even though not one shot had been fired and only four people killed (the two demonstrators who had been shot by the police and two infants asphyxiated by tear gas), tilted public opinion against Hoover and ensured that he would lose the upcoming election. Franklin Roosevelt was elected by a landslide that November and, as they say, the rest is history.
<Image5.gif> Bonus Marchers on the Capitol Steps
<Image6.gif>
Children at the Marcher?s "City"
<Image7.gif> <Image8.gif>
Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur and President Herbert Hoover suffered irreversible damage to their reputations after the Affair
The following links take you to the web site where the above article was taken and also provide additional info:
http://www.islandnet.com/~citizenx/bonus.html
http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/bonusm.htm
Back to Mom's Story of the Great Depression
Home
Posted on Nov 19, 2002, 8:50 PM
from IP address 209.130.148.194
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/792366/posts
ladileathrnek
11-20-02, 10:25 AM
They have you sign a contract, a bidding contract with them. If you break any part of your contract they will be sure to let you know....now they have broken their contract with those veterans because of money issues? but the government will continue to feed and house all those Section 8 people, will pay for legal representation of terrorists to make sure they are represented in court and still expects others to join and serve 20 years not knowing whether their contract will be honored. say goodbye to your SSN next and medicare is jsut a matter of time.
Yep, you got it--I am already penalized 70% of my social security for being eligible for another govt pension--back when-they said don't depdnd on ss, it's only a supplement not retirement! So ya provide another retirement for yerself, and they take away 70% of yer ss when the time comes--like ya say--time is the only thing involved-theoutcome is assured--and I don't like it.
Illegitimus non carborundum
DickG
Barndog
11-20-02, 11:22 AM
Hey Gunny - sleep well at night, knowing the companies doing business with our new Homeland Security agency will NOT be paying taxes - since there is an inclusion for them to reside off shore to shelter their taxes.
Oh yeah, and we pay for the terrorists legal representation too.
This is great isn't it?
Remind me again why I vote.
Government by the money - for the money. Those with the most money get the most Government (breaks, tax shelters, kick backs, protection, etc).
Except if you are a Veteran.
Yeah, government--Res Ipsa Loquitur: ''The Thing Speaks For Itself''
DickG
Outraged' Colonel Day Promises Supreme Court Appeal
by Dick G
Dick G (Login Dick Gaines)
Forum Owner
Newport News Daily Press
November 22, 2002
Military Update
`Outraged' Colonel Day Promises Supreme Court Appeal
By Tom Philpott
Lawyer and war hero Col. George ``Bud'' Day was confident of victory last
March following oral arguments on behalf of elderly military retirees before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington D.C.
From their questions and remarks, a majority of judges seemed as angry as
Day that 1.5 million retirees, many of them World War II and Korea War
veterans, had seen the government renege on promises of free lifetime
medical care.
But the court that sounded so sympathetic months ago delivered a resounding
blow to retirees Nov. 18. In a 9-to-4 decision, the judges affirmed a 1998
district court ruling that recruiter promises of free lifetime healthcare
were not backed by statute and therefore were not binding.
Day said he was ``outraged'' by the decision against clients William Schism
and Robert Reinlie, Air Force retirees who began their careers in World War
II. More than 20,000 other retirees, age 65 and older, have made cash
donations to the lawsuit, hoping that Day has a chance to turn it into a
class action if his two named clients win on appeal.
``After having won it at oral argument,'' said Day, ``I'm astounded to find
that it went south.'' He promised an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The lengthy majority opinion, by Judge Paul R. Michel, acknowledged ``moral
claims'' of the plaintiffs but rejected every legal argument on their
behalf, arguments that a three-judge panel of the same court had embraced
last year. On petition from the government, the appeals court had ordered
its earlier decision set aside and heard new arguments before the full
court.
The new ruling concludes that no law or service regulation ever authorized
free, unconditional lifetime medical care for retirees. If recruiters
promised such benefits, even at the direction of service leaders, the
promises are invalid because they were not backed by statute.
Day argued that even if no law spelled out a retiree's right to free
lifetime care, recruiters made that promise, the services encouraged them to
do so, and Congress appropriated the money over several decades. That was a
contract. It wasn't until June 7, 1956, that Congress linked retiree medical
care to the availability of space in service hospitals. Those who entered
service before that date, and completed full careers, had an ``implied''
contract with the government for lifetime care, Day argued.
In 1996, when the military shifted to TRICARE, a managed care program, space
available for many service elderly disappeared. Schism and Reinlie sued for
breach of contract, seeking $10,000 apiece, the ceiling on claims under the
Little Tucker Act.
But the appeals court has ruled that whatever recruiters promised in the way
of pay and benefits was not binding unless supported by statute.
``Congress - and only Congress - can authorize the benefits that a retired
federal employee...is entitled to receive,'' wrote Judge Michel. And
Congress never authorized free, lifetime care, he said.
Even if contract law did apply, Michel wrote, recruiters lacked authority to
promise free lifetime care because the benefit wasn't backed by law or
service regulation. Access to care was always conditional in some way, said
the court. After June of 1956, only ``space available'' care was guaranteed.
The majority opinion is wrong, Day said. If the court needs a statute in
order to rule in favor of retirees, he said, it has one in the Little Tucker
Act which allows claims against the government for breach of contracts made
by its agents. If the court is swayed by references to ``space available''
care, it should understand that promises of free lifetime care came earlier,
as many World War II veterans were entering service.
Dissenting from the majority were the same three judges who ruled
unanimously in favor of retirees in February 2001. Two had military
backgrounds. The original trio was joined by a fourth judge who once worked
as an Air Force civilian patent attorney.
Writing the dissent was Chief Judge H. Robert Mayer, a West Point graduate
and Vietnam combat veteran. The military had promised lifetime medical care
for more than 50 years, he wrote. Congress knew it and appropriated the
money to provide that care. Yet the court majority, said Mayer, now
``countenances the government's breach of the implied contracts and its
taking of the rights vested in these retired servicemen.''
The majority opinion noted that passage of TRICARE-for-Life two years ago
reinforced the argument that Congress had not passed a law before providing
retirees with lifetime care. But Mayer countered that statements made by
lawmakers during the debate over TFL confirm that promises of lifetime care
had been made and broken.
``The government has deprived the retirees of their vested rights,'' Mayer
concluded, ``and they are entitled to recover.''
Judge S. Jay Plager, a Korean War veteran, joined in Mayer's dissent but
filed comments of his own too. ``Perhaps the problem,'' he wrote, ``is that,
with the demise of compulsory military service, too few of our citizens
today have the experience of knowing firsthand what the military is about.''
Is that a swipe at the court majority, with eight of nine judges having no
military background? Day, a Medal of Honor recipient, believes that it is.
``He's saying, `You bunch of dumb *****. If you had been in the military,
you'd have had a clue what went on,' '' Day surmised.
If military experience decides this issue, an appeal to the Supreme Court
might not fare well either. Only three of nine justices are service
veterans.
Posted on Nov 22, 2002, 8:35 AM
from IP address 209.130.219.121
firstsgtmike
11-22-02, 11:30 AM
I have two questions, both of which were probably asked and answered before, because, to me, they are both so obvious.
1. In a suite, why not name the individual recruiters and the appropriate recruiting directors and service secretaries? They, and/or their estates, naturally will claim they were acting under orders. Follow it up the chain.
2. In the early 60's, I followed the progress of a Bill in Congress dealing with a pay raise for the military. I even wrote, and received a response from, Senator Kennedy.
From the Congressional Record, I read speeches, from various Senators, speaking out against a full COLA pay raise for the military. The primary argument given was that the military retirement package AND free lifetime health care had a value that should offset a full COLA payraise.
Therefore, during the 60's, if the annual cost of living increased by x percent, our payraise was based on x minus y percent due to our advantage of retirement benefits and free lifetime health care.
An argument I have always considered was this; IF the benefits veterans received were ever reduced, then the reductions in pay raises which were considered justifiable because of a retirement advantge, should be recomputed.
Therefore, EVERY veteran would be eligible for a check to cover the difference between what he was actually paid AND what he should have been paid if the retirement offset had not been taken into account.
Given that nightmare as a choice, I felt/feel that the government would prefer to deliver all of the promised retirement benefits that were paid for by every serviceman's reduction in basic pay.
I enlisted in '58, so I am not included in Col. Day's suite. However, the same promises were made to me, and as a recruiter, I passed those promises on.
Authorized by Congress or not, those promises were included in recruiting literature AND taght in Recruiter's School for many years after1956. I attended Recruiter's School in 1967 and free lifetime medical care for retirees and their families was still being pushed as a selling point.
Semper Fi
ladileathrnek
11-22-02, 12:05 PM
I AGREED WITH YOU WHOLEHEARTEDLY. ITS GOING TO BE THAT INDIVIDUALS SIGNING A CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT IN WHICH TO SERVE, ARE GOING TO WANT THAT WRITTEN ON THE CONTRACTS THAT THEY SIGN WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND THEN MAKE THEM RAISE THEIR RIGHT HANDS AND MAKE AN OATH TO US.
wrbones
11-22-02, 12:27 PM
ladileathrnek has a good point there.....
Myself, I'm upset because I didn't get kissed!
Recruiters were still spoutin that stuff when I went in....
Just my opinion, again--Col Day seems to be under the impression that there may be some honorable men left in government (the courts being a part of govt)--this could be his greatest error.
DickG
From :
David J Lindstedt <semperfidave@juno.com>
To :
cebs@topica.com,govtwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject :
SCANDAL ROCKS THE PENTAGON
Date :
Sat, 23 Nov 2002 20:05:46 -0500
<http://216.33.240.24/spacer.gif> Reply Reply All Forward Delete Printer Friendly Version
Scandal Rocks the Pentagon!
An Opinion Piece
Questions of Moral Rectitude plague the Joint Chiefs
The U. S. Federal Court of Appeals (Case # 99-1402), in a 9 to 4
ruling
revealed that the service chiefs have exhibited a lack of moral
rectitude
in past dealings with military personnel under their cognizance.
"Promises of lifetime medical care were made for more than 50
years."
stated Chief Judge Mayer. The promises, even though sanctioned
by the various service heads, lacked promulgating statues and,
thus,
are not enforceable. In other words, they were lies.
No Monetary compensation seen. During this time
military personnel were told that diminished active duty pay
would
be enhanced in their retirement by benefits, such as the
promised
health care. Because of these promises, many did not plan ahead
for their future health needs. They instead relied upon the good
faith pronouncements of their senior officers. Now they will pay
for their foolish faith in the Department of Defense and have to
find funds from somewhere to provide for their needs.
Space Available - No Problem: Military retirees are still able
to access care at a Military Training Facility on a space
available
basis. With the closing down of many military installations,
fewer
retirees are able to avail themselves of this. Of course,
retired
chiefs of the services, four star flag officers all, need only
present
themselves at such a facility, and miraculously, space will
become
available for them - space not available for the personnel that
served
loyally under them.
So What! That was then, this is now. True, they have 3d'ed the
greatest generation and the Korean vets (Deceived, Denied,
Delayed).
But the book is still open on the Agent Orange Generation from
Viet Nam and the Gulf War veterans, at least 12,000 strong, so
far,
on their health problems which are now manifesting themselves.
Will Congress Act? The only solution seen by the dissenting
members
of the court would be action by Congress to right this terrible
wrong
by passing appropriate laws. But will they? And what will be the
attitude of the so-called "grateful nation"? Will they rally in
support
for
these men and women who were so badly treated by their own
government? The men and women who fought and won the hot
and cold wars of the last century? Only time will tell.
A Precedence? These revelations follow on the heels of another
misrepresentations by the DOD. Military retirees are the only
federal retirees that have to pay an offset, dollar for dollar,
from
their retired pay to pay for disabilities which they received
while
on active duty. Representatives of DOD falsely labeled this
Restoration of Retired Pay as"double-dipping".
MARVIN L MOBLEY
Msgt USAF retired
AF14452463
MRGRG
4820 Riverside Drive
North Myrtle Beach
South Carolina 29582
m0m01@hotmail.com -=+=-
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an
irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel
Adams
"tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
(Yield not to misfortunes, but advance all the more boldly
against them)
"Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before which
difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air."- John
Quincy Adams
-=+=-
The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve
in any
war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to
how they
perceive the veterans of earlier wars were Treated and
Appreciated by
their
Nation. (George Washington)
-=+=-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
ecomsg68
11-24-02, 11:10 PM
I head that Congress gave themselves a pay increase before they slithered home for the holidays. Is it fair to say that the veterans sacrificed their promised benefits so the politicians could get more money for doing less … and less … and less!
:no:
thedrifter
11-25-02, 08:03 AM
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/comics/updating/day.gif
Jim Day, Las Vegas, Nevada -- The Las Vegas Review Journal.