RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,186596,00.html

"To help get advance appropriations moving forward, I'm going to be testifying today before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. And I'm going to tell them just what I told you – Obama's budget is a good start, but it's up to Congress to close the deal for veterans. Interested in hearing how Congress responds?"

Absolutely!

I consider it a travesty that military.com removed the links to that website that informed all what our representatives were voting for (or against) w/r/t veterans affairs. Considering the amount of noise about who was/wasn't supporting the troops where it counts (i.e. somewhere other than hardware purchases) we all had to endure, that site provided the blunt truth about who was putting the money where their mouth was. That truth wasn't very pretty from what I recall.

can you add a cold link?
I would like to read.

quote:

Originally posted by PolicyWonk:
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,186596,00.html

"To help get advance appropriations moving forward, I'm going to be testifying today before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. And I'm going to tell them just what I told you – Obama's budget is a good start, but it's up to Congress to close the deal for veterans. Interested in hearing how Congress responds?"

Absolutely!

I consider it a travesty that military.com removed the links to that website that informed all what our representatives were voting for (or against) w/r/t veterans affairs. Considering the amount of noise about who was/wasn't supporting the troops where it counts (i.e. somewhere other than hardware purchases) we all had to endure, that site provided the blunt truth about who was putting the money where their mouth was. That truth wasn't very pretty from what I recall.

Uh, just WHO are you?...
Also, don't forget the remaining WW-II, Korean War, Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon and first Gulf War veterans...
We'd like to be counted in the "improved" benefits too...
Seems the Congress is deliberately making the "new bennies" for those who have served after 2001...
HOW ABOUT US?...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by ccurtis0801:
can you add a cold link?
I would like to read.

I don't know if you are asking me - but I've asked for someone on this site if they could provide the link - but to no avail (I didn't think it would just be removed from the site, so I didn't bookmark it).

I have dog in this fight (full disclosure). I note service members medically retired at less than 20 years longevity will finally be included in concurrent receipt of retired pay and disability pay under DOD's 2010 budget plan.

I would submit that the effective date of entitlement for this group should be the same as the groups who preceded them.

Related item: Under current law, a veteran rated as 100 percent disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs has no standing with the Social Security Administration in terms of receiving Social Security Disability benefits.

Just in terms of redundancy, cost-avoidance, and vein-throbbing foreheads, why shouldn't congress mandate the Social Security Agency to grant full faith and credit to the disability ratings of the Department of Veterans Affairs? At some point it makes sense for the left hand to trust the right hand.

I'm sure there are examples of Social Security denying disability benefits to 100 percent disabled veterans. I will personally put this theory to the test over the next 12 months(?) (or however long it takes for my claim to be processed).

Benefit calculations, qualifying quarters, and all the other ratios, formulas and genuflections can remain the same. Just get Social Security to dispense with jumping through the same ritual of medical exams, opinions and bureaucratic box-checking that has already been accomplished by DVA.

If DVA has a veteran at 100 percent disabled, WHY is that not good enough for SSA?

Forgive the rant, but really stupid "stuff" still clinches my jaw.

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by PolicyWonk:
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,186596,00.html

"To help get advance appropriations moving forward, I'm going to be testifying today before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. And I'm going to tell them just what I told you – Obama's budget is a good start, but it's up to Congress to close the deal for veterans. Interested in hearing how Congress responds?"

Absolutely!

I consider it a travesty that military.com removed the links to that website that informed all what our representatives were voting for (or against) w/r/t veterans affairs. Considering the amount of noise about who was/wasn't supporting the troops where it counts (i.e. somewhere other than hardware purchases) we all had to endure, that site provided the blunt truth about who was putting the money where their mouth was. That truth wasn't very pretty from what I recall.

Uh, just WHO are you?...
Also, don't forget the remaining WW-II, Korean War, Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon and first Gulf War veterans...
We'd like to be counted in the "improved" benefits too...
Seems the Congress is deliberately making the "new bennies" for those who have served after 2001...
HOW ABOUT US?...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

Agree, A veteran is a veteran. No need to split hairs and base "improved" benefits for those veterans who served only during a specified time frame. Treat us equally........

I agree with comments that state "A veteran is a veteran" and we need to fight for ALL veterans benefits. Groups like IAVA need to realize that they will be the "forgotten" the next shooting match.

quote:

I'm sure there are examples of Social Security denying disability benefits to 100 percent disabled veterans. I will personally put this theory to the test over the next 12 months(?) (or however long it takes for my claim to be processed).

I ran into this problem when I first got out. They told me being shot up doesn't keep me from working. When I said the Military thought so, the SSA told me to get a job that didn't interfer with my injuries.