2008/12/16 00:00:00
By Col. Steve Strobridge, USAF-Ret.
Every year, the January Washington Scene column in Military Officer lays out goals for the year. Those goals run seven pages, and that’s not even a complete list. It’s a good annual reminder that millions of members of the military community have legitimate needs that have gone unmet.
But it’s simply not possible to win action on everything in any year, so we have to do some practical prioritizing.
That means highlighting the most severe inequities, of course. But volume of input to Congress often is critical to success, so we also look at those issues affecting the most people.
In some cases, it means working issues that appear most “winnable” — perhaps because we have strong support from an influential congressional champion, have built up a long list of congressional cosponsors, or have generated a “buzz” from media articles.
In others, it means working with sympathetic staffers behind the scenes to get provisions in the annual defense bill that don’t cost that much but have great impact for the people affected.
This year, there’s a huge, new factor — the national economic crisis that’s already consumed more than a trillion dollars in federal spending on multiple stimulus and bailout packages.
On that score, a few members have inquired whether we still should be seeking military benefits fixes when the country is trying to stave off a depression.
Our answer is an emphatic “Yes!”
It’s times like these that national — and congressional — perspectives can get jumbled in the rush to throw money at big national problems. Time and time again in these huge financial initiatives — whether it’s war spending or bailout packages — billions in waste have been exposed because of lack of oversight, gross inefficiency, or outright fraud.
Our job is to make sure the country doesn’t forget or renege on its clear obligations to those who have sacrificed far more for our country than any other segment of the population — the military and veterans communities.
History has shown repeatedly that if somebody isn’t making a strong case for them, they will be forgotten.
So we apologize to nobody for continuing to emphasize that our country has an obligation to do the right thing by the troops and families who have borne the severe burdens of national service — whether in current conflicts or the hot and cold wars of the past.
One important note: Although we have to list them in some order, we are hard-pressed to cite any single issue as “MOAA’s biggest priority.” That would be like choosing favorites among your children.
Considering all those concerns, here’s our cut at top priorities for 2009. (For expanded lists, see the one-page summary and the Washington Scene column in your January issue of Military Officer.)
- Sustain defense budget funding to meet requirements for both people and weapons programs. Both are essential to readiness, and the former must not be sacrificed to fund the latter.
- Sustain manpower increases projected for the Army and Marine Corps and stop reductions for the other services. Today’s forces are far too small for wartime missions, and the only way to ease terrible burdens on military families is to accelerate force growth, not curtail it.
- Pursue needed fixes for wounded warriors and their families, including better diagnosis and treatment of combat stress and brain injuries, fairer disability retirement guidelines, continuity of health coverage upon disability retirement, and compensation for family caregivers.
- Resist shifting health care costs to beneficiaries. Military health care cost growth is the result of conscious government actions and has been well below nationwide trends. The Pentagon has failed to explore numerous “beneficiary friendly” options to cut costs. Beneficiary cost growth should not exceed the percentage growth in military compensation.
- Reverse Medicare/TRICARE payment cuts. Change the law that now calls for a 20-percent cut in payments to doctors as of January 2010, which would cause many doctors to stop seeing military and elderly patients. The payment system must be revised to protect beneficiaries’ access to care.
- Repeal the requirement to deduct VA survivor benefits from military Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuities. If service caused the servicemember’s death, the VA payment should be added to — not subtracted from — military SBP coverage. Congress has acknowledged the inequity but has extended only a token $50-a-month payment to the affected widows.
- End any deduction of VA disability benefits from military retired pay. Congress has ended (or is phasing out) the deduction for about half of disabled retirees through a hodge-podge of different changes. But the bottom line is that all military retirees earned their retired pay through service, and none should have to sacrifice that pay if they also have the misfortune to incur a service-caused disability.
- Restore military pay comparability. Congress has made progress each year for the past decade, reducing the pay gap from 13.5 percent in 1999 to 2.9 percent in 2009. Pay comparability is a fundamental underpinning of the all-volunteer force, and progress must be continued until the remaining gap is eliminated.
- Upgrade Guard/Reserve retirement and health programs. The government now expects 25 percent of Guard and Reserve members’ working lives to be spent on active duty — which never was envisioned by the 1940s architects of the reserve retirement system. The retirement age should be reduced to recognize all post-Sept. 11, 2001, active service and ultimately should be reduced to age 55. Servicemembers should be able to elect government-subsidized continuation of civilian family health coverage during periods of activation, which also would be cheaper in the long term than year-round TRICARE coverage.
- Improve military family support. Military families need increased access to child care and the same access to flexible spending accounts enjoyed by all other federal employees. Access to sufficient housing, schools, child care, and other support services must be assured prior to execution of base realignment and closure and rebasing initiatives. Civilian employer rules allowing Guard and Reserve family member employees leave for deployment-related needs must be expanded to include active duty family members.
About the Author: Col. Steven P. Strobridge, USAF-Ret., joined MOAA’s Government Relations staff in 1994 and was appointed director of Government Relations and elected co-chair of The Military Coalition in March 2001.
Copyright Military Officers Association of America. All rights reserved.
Rate This Item:
Please Sign in to rate and comment this page
 |
Colonel McGuinness |
1/15/2009 9:25:36 PM |
I think we should lay low for a while while the country goes thru these difficult financial times. We currently enjoy the distinct honer as being the most believed and respect group of people in the US. We read in the papaers about union people in education, city gov'ts, auto industry making demands when the whole system is deep in the red. Let us not be put in the publics mind alongside these "me first grabbers". Yes keep the low level coopertive and understanding pressure on, lots of work to be done laying out the legislation etc. Go for future commitments. Continue to give us a positive role. Don't sosur it.
Neil McGuinness
LtCOl, USAF Retired
|
Major Clark |
1/14/2009 9:08:21 PM |
First things first. Guns first; butter second. Keep the country safe and free from direct foreign attack now and "forever!" That starts with major aerospace strategic -- NOT tactical, or "boots on the ground" -- systems, like old TRIAD. Our main deadly enemies, i.e., those that can threaten our very life as a nation, are strategic and long term, NOT "tactical" and short term.
 |
Captain Lee |
1/14/2009 9:04:37 PM |
It is my understanding that TRI CARE For Life may be in for some substantial cuts. If that is true (it is an entitlemnet) why is that not a priority?
|
Colonel Kroger |
1/14/2009 7:58:50 PM |
Col. Strobridge does an excellent job, and I concur with his assessment here. Personally, my main issue is concurrent receipt. Military men and women who served the full length of time to retire and who also are rated by the VA at less than 50 percent disabled are being treated as second-class citizens. This is not right and should not stand. I support the colonel's emphasis to pursue all of MOAA's top issues now, regardless of the economic situation. The focus must be long term, which means we keep working on the issues continuously.
|
Major Hesser |
1/14/2009 5:57:31 PM |
It is time to swallow the bitter pill of implementing extraordinary commonsense to solve public & private sector fiscal and financial supernova problems. That bitter pill cannot be sweetened to resemble the failed Reaganomic top marginal, supply-side, trickle-down "voodoo economics" (to paraphrase presidential primary candidate George H.W. Bush in 1980)...said Reaganomics extending through the presidencies of Messrs. Reagan, Bush the father and Bush the son. In 1993, the top marginal federal income tax rates were raised, i.e., those lowered from 70% to 28% on personal incomes by Messrs. Reagan, O'Neill & Rostenkowski in 1981 and 1986 (sponsored by Messrs. Kemp & Roth and Gephardt & Bradley, respectively). One can't argue with the economic results of 1993-2000. In 2001, these top marginal rates were lowered to pre-Clinton levels. Now we're in a super slump. If you've lost upwards of 40% of your individual retirement account "invested" in mutual funds; perhaps lost your home, your car, etc.--then you sure as hell wish you could argue with the economic results that have become so evident in 2007-Present. Insofar as Steve's remarks are concerned, perhaps MOAA ought to lobby for a multi-billion dollar "bailout" to cover the listed ten priorities. After all, we could hardly make a dent in our agenda in the best of times (which were and continue to be the worst of times) for Our Best & Finest.
|
Mr. McMahon |
1/14/2009 3:55:04 PM |
What MOAA stands for or against is determined by the majority of the board of directors. While our Supreme Court publishes a minority opinion, MOAA does not. If this were corrected, it would show that the board really discusses the issues, and that their time on the board is not wasted. Perhaps publishing 'the minutes' of the board meetings would let the membership see what the board is thinking when they prioritize.
|
Major Mobley |
1/14/2009 3:05:52 PM |
In addition to the few important initiatives listed by Col Stobridge, I strongly believe that the recommendation made by the Congressionally mandated Disabled Veterans' Entitlements be closely monitored and implemented. One of the primary points made by the Commission was to treat all service connected disabled vets equally, regardless of whether the disability was overseas or in a combat zone etc. Rather, they recommend all service connected disabled vets receive identical entitlements which I believe should include the same income tax advantages which are given to all CRSC approved veterans to include Chapter 61 retirees, but, is not given to those who are CRDP. The commission recommends all be treated equally, as stated earlier, therefore, each service could discontinue the unnecessary review of all veterans to see if they fall under CRSC and, if so, what percentage of the percentage already awarded by VA. These personnel could be put to better use and having just the VA do the percentage determinations for all service connected disabled veterans and once again cut back on the bureaucracy.
Another recommendation is for Congress to consider the loss of Quality of Life in making their assessments of each service connected disaabled veteran. Until a system can be worked out, they recommend all service connected disabled veterans get an immediate 25% increase in their VA Compensation. If we allow Congress to place this nearly three year study to continue to be buried and placed on the back burner, nothing will ever get done to take proper care of our service connected disabled veterans.
|
Colonel Grow |
1/14/2009 2:10:38 PM |
As a retired 06 and Social Security beneficiary, I am well compensated for my prior service. On the other hand, other military service members are not. Therefore, as a citizen and Christian, if a price has to be paid, put it on my shoulders rather than those less fortunate. That means tradeoffs. Who better than MOAA to argue the case?
|
Colonel Lair |
1/14/2009 2:01:26 PM |
I fall in with Colonel Smith's belief that MOAA doesn't get it. The national economic crisis does not seem to have effected any of MOAA's priorities. Instead of just calling for full funding of the defense budget for both people and weapon systems, why not have the courage to call for full funding of personnel and replacement of Guard and Active Army equipment at the expense of costly USAF and USN weapon systems. Since the Army and the Marine Corps are doing the heavy lifting nowadays, why call for maintaining Air Force and Navy end strength? I get the impression that the MOAA does not want to risk antagonizing one or more of the services. But real prioritizing means recognizing that there is an economic crisis underway that makes Colonel Strobridge's priorities look like MOAA still wants it all without recognizing what's going on in the economy and in Washington. Unless you want people sacrificed, you had better call for reductions in weapons programs. If you want military health care for retirees and dependents to survive, you had better be willing to live with co-pays and deductibles just like most of us do, like it or not, in the rest of the healthcare world.
 |
Major Miller |
1/10/2009 10:37:58 AM |
As a MOAA member, I propose MOAA needs to add as a top legislative priority to ensure our military compensation, especially retirement pay, is always exempted from computation of adjusted gross income in determining income eligibility for entitlements or qualifications for any government programs that retired veterans would otherwise be eligible or qualified to receive. Two examples:
- Income considerations for student and dependent college aid programs.
- Earned income for consideration of tax cut or "stimulus" packages.
As military officers, who have served our nation and qualified for retirement
benefits that we begin to receive at younger ages, the inclusion our retired
pay, by the use of only “adjusted gross income" in legislation without an
exclusion for military retirement pay, becomes an additional “de facto” tax that is paid or benefits, money, that is lost to the military retiree and their family.
While I understand that ordinary taxes must be paid for retired pay
distributions, I do not believe that they should adversely impact the retired veterans ability to qualify for other government programs or benefits that an ordinary citizen would otherwise qualify to receive if only earned income were considered, meaning that military retirement pay should be for retired veterans removed from their adjusted gross income for the qualification consideration of all other government programs and benefits.
As a disabled veteran and single parent, who actually raised two children in my home on only my income and military retired pay, I have personally continually to be penalized by this "loop hole" that "double taxes" my retired pay. In 2008, when I had to speak with an IRS agent about my taxes and during the conversation, he asked if I wanted him to assess my qualification for the tax stimulus refund. I told him I did not believe I qualified because my military retired pay raised my adjusted gross income too high. He said he still wanted to verify my qualification for me and when he acknowledged that I did not qualify based on my adjusted gross income he added that he was sure that it was not Congress intent to penalize me as a retired veteran in this law. I have also been told I earn, based on adjusted gross income which includes retired pay, too much for my children to qualify for college grants.
My view is my retired pay is justly earned compensation for over 20 years of
acknowledged service to my nation. That compensation is provided to my at the time of my retirement, which is well before a normal civilian retirement age especially for most active duty veterans, in part because laws would not even permit most veterans to serve until a normal civilian retirement age. I also state that any time this retirement pay becomes an exclusion to otherwise qualify for any government program it takes money out of my family’s lives for our needs for college education for my children and myself; for my continuing and future medical needs; and for my future fully retired years. Military retirees should not be “de facto” penalized or “subjected to the absence of the intent” by Congress by the current use of only adjusted gross income wording in legislation without any exclusion of military retired pay; so, please make having universal legislation that excludes military retired pay, removing it from adjusted gross income, for qualification of any government program a top legislative priority.
Thank you, in advance, for your strong consideration and advocacy of this legislative matter. Especially as 2009 legislation is considered on how to help families during these tough economic times, it is important that families of retired military are not penalized for having served their nation.
