Each month, a MOAA lobbyist will take an hour to answer live and previously e-mailed questions from members about our legislative issues. Please keep in mind that we may not be able to answer all the emails, but we will attempt to get through as many as possible. Our intent is to provide an additional avenue for a member to talk directly with MOAA's Government Relations lobbyists.
Below is the chat from June 27 with Col Steve Strobridge, Director of Government Relations. We covered it all from SBP paid up to the All Volunteer Force, enjoy!
View February Chat
View March Chat
View April Chat
View May Chat
|
|
Col Steve Strobridge USAF (Ret) began his career as a Basic Military School training officer and commander, and as a military personnel officer. He subsequently served as a compensation and legislation analyst at HQ U.S. Air Force and in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as Director, Officer and Enlisted Personnel Management, with intervening assignments in Thailand and Germany.
His final assignment was as Chief of the Entitlements Division at HQ US Air Force, with policy responsibility for military compensation, retirement and survivor benefits, and all legislative matters affecting the military community. He is a graduate of the Armed Forces Staff College and National War College. He retired in January 1994 to become MOAA's Deputy Director for Government Relations, and was appointed Director of Government Relations and elected Co-Chairman of The Military Coalition in March 2001.
|
Disclaimer: MOAA moderators retain editorial control over live online discussions and choose the most relevant questions to answer for members.
----------------------------------
(12:00) Wilmarth W.: What is the status of eliminating the SBP insurance payments for us older retirees?
Steve S.: To be honest, Wilmarth, I'd have to say it's not looking great. We've been working with Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), will offer an amendment to add the paid-up SBP provision to the Senate defense bill next month. If that's successful, we'll have a couple of months to try to convince the House to agree. For each of the last two years, we've gotten the fix in the Senate bill, only to have it fall out during negotiations with the House. We're hoping for better luck this year, since this is really our last shot. You can help by using the alert on MOAA's web site (http://capwiz.com/moaa/issues/alert/?alertid=9925301&type=CO) to urge your senators to vote for the Nelson amendment.
-----------------------------------
(12:03) John A.: Why hasn't MOAA taken a position to have the increased compensation of 2.5% per year for each year over 30 years service effective 1 Jan 2007 for all who have over 30 years service, not just those retiring after 1 Jan 2007?
Steve S.: John, most legislation that changes pay and retirement formulas is prospective. The rationale, generally, is that such changes are enacted primarily to motivate continued service among current active duty force members. Another reason, of course, is that applying the rule change to members already retired would vastly increase the cost. In the end, we have to make judgments about whether any level of MOAA effort has a chance of winning any change to Congress' action. In this case, we don't see any chance, so we think we serve our members better by focusing on other issues that have at least some support in Congress.
----------------------------------
(12:06) Max N.: The war on terrorism and wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Demand we have a military draft now. Why doesn't MOAA support this?
Steve S.: We support the All Volunteer Force (AVF) because we think it works and works well…if the government will let it. When we've had recruiting or retention problems, in MOAA's view, that's been because the Administration and Congress have scrimped on commitments to the troops and/or refused to grow the force enough to meet the military missions imposed on it. No matter what you or I think, there is zero support in the Defense Department or in Congress for the draft.
----------------------------------
(12:08) James B.: I received a press release from Congressman Rick Larsen's office on his bill (H.R. 2247) that would remove the 10-year limit on using GI Bill benefits. To date, I have not seen anything on MOAA's web site about it. Is this not a topic you wish to emphasize at this time?
Steve S.: We definitely support that, James, but it's only one of a bunch of GI Bill changes that are needed. We think there are even greater inequities -- such as the fact that a Guard or Reserve member can serve two or three tours in Iraq and not be allowed to use his earned GI Bill benefits at all after completing his term of service and separating.
----------------------------------
(12:11) Jerry M.: Sen. Reid initiated a bill last year that was unanimously passed to bring full concurrent to IU's [disabled veterans rated "unemployable by the VA] before the 2009 proposed full concurrent receipt would become active. He even promised that we would be paid retroactive to Jan 1, 2005. Now that he is the Senate Majority Leader, I guess he's just forgotten us. Thanks for listening and keep up the good work.
Steve S.: Jerry, Sen Reid's S. 439 would eliminate the offset for unemployables and other disabled retirees immediately. There are just so many inequities with the concurrent receipt laws that it's hard for Congress to focus on more than one at a time. This year, the Walter Reed problems have them focused on the combat-wounded vets being forced out of service and treated so unfairly. We have to agree that wounded folks with less than 20 years have an even greater inequity, since they get no relief at all from the disability offset.
-------------------------------
(12:14) Mike H.: I heard that companies can't pay for my supplemental insurance any more, is that true?
Steve S.: Mike, a new law says civilian employers can't pay employees to take TRICARE instead of the company's health plan, as of January 1, 2008. That includes paying for an employee's TRICARE supplemental insurance. The Defense Department will have to write rules on how this law will be interpreted and enforced. We're hearing ( informally) that a company would be within the law with a policy that says, "We'll pay $X a month to any employee - TRICARE, Blue Cross, Federal Employees Health Plan or otherwise -- who is eligible for another plan through a spouse's coverage or a previous employer's coverage and who chooses to use that coverage rather than our company's health plan." So you may want to talk to your employer about changing to that kind of plan.
---------------------------------
(12:17) John C.: I'm not very happy with the watered down reserve retirement bill from Chambliss. I haven't heard anything from MOAA what do you guys think?
Steve S.: Sen. Chambliss' provision would lower the reserve retirement age by 3 months for every cumulative 90 days served on active duty after the date of the law change. This is a change from what he proposed last year, which would have covered all time mobilized to active duty since 9/11. We're working with other associations to try to find a sponsor who will offer an amendment to make it more like last year's provision. Failing that, we'd still support the new provision as better than nothing at all, and then try to fix it later.
---------------------------------
(12:20) Bob Y.: In my opinion, you have had a terrific record the last eight years in protecting our benefits and gaining new ones. Can MOAA maintain this momentum in the future?
Steve S.: Thanks, Bob. We still have some inequities to fix, and certainly hope to make some additional headway this year. Looking ahead a few years, we do worry that congressional interest in military benefits issues seems to go in cycles. After the last Iraq war, we had to work hard to defend against some strong attacks against military benefits, and it wouldn't surprise us to see that trend return in the future. Hopefully, Congress won't forget the sacrifices that have been highlighted on the front pages of every newspaper for the past 6 years, and won't forget that generations of military people have made similar sacrifices in the past. As long as our members keep generating strong grassroots inputs to their legislators, I think we'll continue to hold our own.
----------------------------------
(12:23) Don S.:
How about you make Congress pay social security like the rest of us!!!
Steve S.: Almost all members of Congress do pay Social Security, Don. The only exceptions are those who were elected before 1984, and their numbers are dwindling (and those folks have to make hefty contributions to their congressional retirement. Legislators' benefits pretty much track those of other federal employees. I suspect you probably read an e-mail somewhere that made outrageous claims about huge congressional benefits. That e-mail has been floating around for years, and most of the information in it is bogus.
----------------------------------
(12:26) Patricia K.: Is congress likely to remove the DIC offset to us widows of 100% disabled veterans?
Steve S.: Patricia, glad to see you are joining us again for the chat. Our main hope is Sen. Nelson's amendment in the Senate. We did win a very small provision in the House-passed defense bill that would provide a $40/month annuity to widows affected by the SBP/DIC offset. That's better than nothing as a "foot in the door", but we're certainly hoping for considerably more than that. Again, you can help us by sending your senators the alert message at
http://capwiz.com/moaa/issues/alert/?alertid=9925301&type=CO
-------------------------------
(12:29) Rudy:
What happened to the proposal for those of us who entered service prior to a date in July 1956 to be exempt from paying for part B Medicare.
Steve S.: There's still a bill out there that would do that, Rudy. It's Rep Van Hollen's (D-MD) H.R. 1223. You can use MOAA's web site to ask your legislators to support it by visiting http://capwiz.com/moaa/issues/bills/?bill=9647151
---------------------------------
(12:32) Andrew P.: Now that the Supreme Court has denied a hearing on USFPA Is MOAA going to lead the effort to get Congress to change this unfair law?
Steve S.: Andrew, MOAA has continued to preach that we feel the best and only way to make changes to USFSPA is through Congress. We've had sponsors who have introduced bills for us in the past, but sadly we haven't been able to find one for the past couple of Congresses. We're certainly not giving up, and we're encouraged that even the Department of Defense has acknowledged that at least some changes are needed to correct inequities in the USFSPA law. We intend to keep pushing until we can get it fixed.
-------------------------------
(12:35) Mike C.: I hope your reps are pointing out to the "powers that be" that when they use the raises to active duty pay over the past decade or so to justify a radical increase in Tricare premiums they are missing the fact that those of us who retired in the mid-90s have enjoyed neither the high COLAs that were characteristic of the 1980s nor the high pay raises.
Steve S.: That's one of our biggest points, Mike. Retirees under age 65 have had their retired pay reduced by an average of 10% as a result of government decisions to cap their annual pay raises throughout the 1980s and 1990s while they were on active duty. That's a $3,000 to $5,000 loss every year, depending on grade. No one's proposing any "catch-up" in their retired pay to make up for those losses. It seems more than a little one-sided to us to try to come after them now for 10 years of "catch-up" TRICARE fee increases.
----------------------------
(12:38)Ted L.:
Does proposed legislation address concurrent receipt for retired disabled vets with less than 20 years service?
Steve S.: Yes, we have a pretty good shot at some progress on that this year. The Senate defense bill would cover all whose combat-related disabilities forced them into medical retirement before attaining 20 years of service. The House bill would cover those with at least 15 but less than 20 years of service who also have at least a 60+% combat-related disability. We're hoping the final outcome will look more like the Senate bill than the House's, but either version will provide important progress.
---------------------------
(12:41) Render C.: I live in a small town in Idaho with only one pharmacy. The pharmacist refuses to honor my Tri Care for Life prescription plan, isn't there a law that makes him?
Steve S.: There's no law mandating that pharmacies participate in TRICARE's drug plan. You can still pay the pharmacist up front and submit a paper claim to TRICARE. If you have maintenance medications, we recommend using TRICARE's mail-order pharmacy. Check out http://www.tricare.mil/pharmacy/tmop.cfm for more info. In the meantime, if you'll send us a separate message (send to legis@moaa.org) giving us the name of your local pharmacy, we'll see if we can get the TRICARE pharmacy contractor to give another try at convincing him to sign up to participate.
-------------------------
(12:44) Pat A.: Any chance that this congress will pass some kind of permanent legislation barring DoD from drastic increases in TRICARE? Or, are we destined to the same fight year after year?
Steve S.: Pat, you've asked the $64 question. The Armed Services Committees have rejected DoD's fee proposals two years in a row, so they clearly don't agree with the standards they've been using to propose fee increases, and we don't see Congress agreeing this year, either. One sticking point on a permanent fix is that there's still a task force out there that's supposed to deliver final recommendations on TRICARE fee issues in December. We're making the case that we need to put some guidelines in law that at least put some limits on the Pentagon's current discretion to raise TRICARE fees.
-----------------------
(12:47) Leon D.: What can we do to have the politicians approve legislation to provide surviving spouses with full SBP benefits instead of the forty dollars per month that has been proposed by our disgraceful politicians?
Steve S.: Sen. Bill Nelson will introduce an amendment to the Senate defense bill that would repeal the full SBP-DIC offset, and that's what we're pushing. While we're certainly not thrilled with the House's $40 a month plan, this is the first time the House has done a single thing on SBP/DIC, so they're at least acknowledging the inequity, which is the first step toward a fix.
-----------------------
(12:49) Matt M.: Sen Craig introduced S.225 and there is a corresponding HB.585 to expand TSGLI back to 2001 regardless of location. How likely are these to pass? I believe Sen Craig's numbers that this would cover are several hundred so based on the average $50K pay out the rough cost would be $15-$20M. Is this just too much for congress despite that it is absolutely the right thing to do and will fix such a gross unfairness?
Steve S.: I think that has a decent chance of passing, and we agree it's the right thing to do. Congress always seems more sensitive to combat wounds, but we try to make the point that, once you're disabled from a service connected disability, your quality of life and your potential earnings loss are the same, whether the disability was incurred in combat or not.
---------------------
(12:52) Charles N.:
In view of the demonstrated failures of Secretary Jim Nicholson to get control of the monstrous claims backlogs at the VA, is there any movement in Congress to get rid of him?
Steve S.: We don't see any serious effort, Charles. These terrible backlogs existed under previous secretaries as well. In the end, the President is the only one who makes the decisions on whether his cabinet officials stay or go.
----------------------
(12:55) Mike A.: About two years the CFAY (Commander Fleet Activities Yokosuka) base commander took the right of retirees to use the galley away, what's up with that?
Steve S.: We've heard many accounts of retirees complaining that base commanders are limiting their use of base functions like libraries, gyms, dining facilities, etc. We've testified before Congress that base operating and support budgets are continually underfunded and "robbed" to help fund current mission needs. The Armed Services Committees share our concern, but it's hard for them to legislate individual eligibility for each base activity.
----------------------
(12:58) Don Y.: What is the status of the VDBC (Veterans Disability Benefits Commission) report now?
Steve S.: Their final report is due Oct. 1, 2007. So far, we're pleased that the VDBC has tended to validate many of our concerns about the need for benefit fixes. The commission has put off making interim recommendations about the SBP-DIC offset and concurrent receipt, but we're looking forward to their final report for those.
---------------------
(1:00) Wayne V.: Can you tell us the status of the efforts by VA and DFAS to pay veterans who are entitled to VA RETRO and/or CRSC BACK PAY?
Steve S.: Unfortunately, we don't have any new insider information. DFAS has told us what they tell everyone else -- they're processing the easiest accounts first and hand calculating (in some cases) the more difficult cases. But DFAS gets thousands of new "retro" cases each month as more disabled retirees get their ratings adjusted. They've already finished pay tens of thousands of retro cases, but have thousands of the hardest ones to go, so it will probably be some months still.
---------------------
Steve S.: That was the last one, thanks everyone for joining.
