[Spam] [Vision2020] No Debate on These Benefits Proposals

[lfalen]

Taking care of our troops would have been a much better usr of funds than the pork in the highway bill.

Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Tom Hansen" thansen at moscow.com
Date: Fri,  2 Dec 2005 07:52:43 -0800
To: "Moscow Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Spam] [Vision2020] No Debate on These Benefits Proposals

> >From the Columns section of the December 5, 2005 edition of Army Times
> (www.armytimes.com).
> 
> The writer of this column was not identified although his/her stated
> convictions are strongly supported.
> 
> This is just another (of many) example of Congress' and the Whit House's
> lack of concern.   
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> No debate on these benefits proposals
> 
> 
> As Congress moves to wrap up the 2006 defense authorization bill - more than
> two months after the fiscal year began -it will make decisions on a variety
> of new or improved benefits for active-duty members, reservists, retirees
> and their families.
> 
> In this issue, we outline 10 of the most significant benefits proposals in
> play, all of which are worthy ideas. But at least four are no-brainers -
> changes that should be approved without delay.
> 
> These are:
> 
> . "Wounded-warrior pay." This proposed new special pay would provide $430 a
> month to troops injured or wounded in combat. It would last as long as they
> are hospitalized.
> 
> The money would offset the effect of losing various combat pays when wounded
> troops are sent out of the war zone, a pay cut they can ill afford just when
> their families face a variety of extra expenses.
> 
> A similar, but less generous, proposal would simply lift the current
> three-month limit on continuing imminent-danger pay of $225 per month for
> injured combat troops recovering outside the war zones.
> 
> Obviously, $430 a month goes further than $225. But either plan would go a
> long way toward helping service members and their families when they need
> that help the most.
> 
> . Increased weight allowances for household goods when senior enlisted
> members relocate.
> 
> By the time most service members reach these ranks, they have spent over a
> decade in uniform and often have acquired a large amount of personal
> belongings as they have moved from place to place.
> 
> Boosting their household goods allowances by 500 to 1,000 pounds would be an
> easy and low-cost way to reward the troops who are widely considered the
> backbone of the military.
> 
> . Increased "death gratuity." This unfortunately named benefit goes to
> families of service members who die on active duty.
> 
> For survivors of those who die in combat or combat training, the payment
> recently was raised to $100,000 - but for those who die in accidents or for
> other reasons, it remains a comparatively paltry $12,420.
> 
> Senior military officers are uneasy about this one, and for good reason. At
> a hearing this summer, two of the four vice chiefs of staff said they think
> the payment should be the same for all active-duty deaths.
> 
> This is a basic fairness issue. All lives have an incalculable value. All
> families mourn the loss of a loved one. And while some deaths in combat
> zones come as a result of valor, others result from accidents and even
> health problems. Trying to differentiate between the two is unfair.
> 
> . Concurrent receipt. This is another basic fairness issue, one that must be
> resolved in favor of the estimated 15,000 military retirees who have formal
> disability ratings of less than 100 percent but still are considered fully
> disabled because their medical conditions prevent them from holding a job.
> 
> These "unemployables" were left out of an agreement reached last year to
> give 100 percent disabled retirees immediate concurrent receipt of full
> military retired pay and veterans' disability compensation, without having
> to wait 10 years as many other disabled retirees must do.
> 
> Since then, this group has become something of a political football, bounced
> between the White House and Congress. This is inexcusable. These retirees
> deserve their full retirement and disability incomes. 
> 
> One common trait links all of these proposals. All have met opposition,
> either from the White House or various factions in Congress, because of
> their costs.
> 
> But the cost to make the four changes outlined above is minuscule compared
> to the amount of pork spending in a typical appropriations bill, such as the
> $24 billion in pork that lawmakers stuffed into the federal highway bill
> this summer.
> 
> Whatever else Congress does as it hammers out a compromise defense
> authorization bill for 2006, these four items should be a part of that final
> legislation.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> Take care, Moscow.
> 
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
> 
> 
> ***********************************
> Work like you don't need the money.
> Love like you've never been hurt.
> Dance like nobody's watching.
> 
> - Author Unknown
> ***********************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯