WILCO

Thanks for the information Dave concerning the Bush administrations stance on CR. He looks good in a flight suit but when it comes to funding our veterans, he's all washed up.

MIGHTY BROAD BRUSH FOR A MODERATE...

I e-mailed the "White Paper" to two talk show hosts at KMJ580 in Fresno, Calif. and got confirmation that the e-mails where received.

I haven't been listening to their shows lately but being that they are big on the military and vets, I'm hopeful that they will bring up the topic. It doesn't hurt to try.

I've e-mailed Senators Inhofe and Nickles (Inhofe for CR, Nickles against), but no replies received as yet.

GOOD START...NEVER TOO SOON TO BRING IT UP...

I am right proud of you!
Dave Barker

I received a response from Inhofe; nothing major, just thanks for my comments regarding his stance on CR. When the time comes to vote, I hope he stands firm.

Thanks. Just trying to lend a hand.

The radio station web site is KMJ580.COM, you guys check it out if you like. The hosts are Bill Manders and Ray Appleton. I was thinking if others e-mailed the same article to these guys form around the country maybe it would stand out in their mail boxes. I don't know how many e-mails they receive a day or if they view them all. I am hopeful.

Maybe there is a local radio talk show in your neck of the woods and we could try this again. I don't have all the answers (just most of em), only trying to help out.

WILL YOU GET INVOLVED...WE NEED HELP...PTW.

Still no response to my e-mail. Go get 'im, Vets!

KEEP THE FOCUS AND PRESSURE ON OUR "SERVANTS"...

I don't know if this is a good idea, but I'll toss it out for consideration. Since pages from these boards can be e-mailed, would it be helpful to post a petition for CR here, obtain "signatures" through posts, then e-mail it to our distinguished elected representatives?

ArmyTimes.com
May 20, 2003

Senate Drops Concurrent Receipt Reform — Again

By Rick Maze, Times Staff Writer

In a blow to disabled military retirees, an amendment to the 2004 defense authorization bill that would have increased their income by eliminating an offset in retirement pay was yanked from the Senate floor Monday on a parliamentary ruling that it was irrelevant to the defense budget.

The ruling shocked Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., long-time sponsor of so-called concurrent receipt legislation that would allow disabled retirees to draw full military retirement pay and veterans’ disability compensation if they are eligible for both.

Passage of a Reid amendment promising full concurrent receipt for all disabled retirees had become an annual rite during debate on the defense bill, although Senate passage has served only to keep the debate alive and has not changed Pentagon opposition to the legislation.

However, Senate rules, have been tightened in the past year. When Reid offered his concurrent receipt amendment on Monday, it was ruled to be not germane to the defense bill. Reid could have forced a vote on the ruling but did not.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a concurrent receipt supporter, urged Reid not to seek a vote overturning the ruling.

Reid said was he is “disappointed” but won’t give up. “I will look for another vehicle to move this forward in the future,” he said.

Partly because of Reid’s efforts last year, the Pentagon is in the final stages of creating a new special pay for some disabled retirees to replace the offset that requires forfeiting one dollar of retirement pay for every dollar received in veteran’s disability compensation. This special pay will be limited to retirees with disabilities related to combat and combat-like training.

Defense officials estimate that about 35,000 of the almost 700,000 military retirees who also receive disability benefits will get the new special pay once it becomes available.

THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE...SINCE YOU HAVE NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO ADD, PLEASE FIND ANOTHER THREAD FOR YOUR SLANTS...PERSONALLY, I AM ASHAMNED OF BOTH PARTIES AND ALL POLITICIANS.

RONCO,

MAy I ask who you are addressing that comment to? The article above is from the Army Times. Are they slanted? Not a political issue???? What does that mean?

YOU WERE THE FIRST TO ANSWER...

Today I interviewed a veteran, who retired from the Army. We are applying for service connected compensation. When it is approved (yes, I said when...not if) the government will steal part of his meager Army retirement to pay his VA compensation. His income is Social Security and his Army retirement. His total income is $1500 per month. The VA charges him all co-pays as he has to much income!
This man served at the end of WWII, Korea and Vietnam unbroken service. He earned the Combat Medical Badge in Korea and re-earned it in Vietnam.
So, when the veteran gets 50% service connection for the condition, he will get only a tax break. Tax break from what! He's one of those people who do not pay taxes because his income is to low to pay income tax. Rush, Shaun and other Chicken Hawks et al will love this!
Dave Barker

Ron:
Ron, your are super!
You have created several of the best threads ever. I pray you will continue this fight for our brothers and sisters. I do as much as possible in claims and research; but your threads bring in the much needed attention to these extremely important issues.
Keep it up! and Keep it on top!
Dave Barker

Dave,

Did you say the Chickenhawk word with Rush and Sean in the same sentence. Be careful. Those fellows are Gods to many on this board.

Is the Army Times article true or slant? I merely posted it for information and for some reason RONCO has an issue with that. Not sure why. I'm an advid supporter of CR as are most Democrats. It's the BUSH adminstration that's against it.