June 17,1825

 

The word "patriotism" is not, other than vaguely, defined in Webster's Dictionary.

 

This Association cannot think of a finer defintion than FDR's.

 

 

We'll give you patriotism here, but we'll report the bad news right along with the good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At a morning press conference on the campus of Thomas
Edison
State College in New Jersey, Congressman Chris Smith (NJ) today
announced
that a second major increase in the G.I. Bill college education benefit
authorized by his legislation took effect  October 1st,
raising the monthly benefit from $800 to $900. The final increase
raising
the monthly benefit to $985 will take effect next October 1st.

Smith, who was joined by officials from Thomas Edison State College and
New
Jersey veterans leaders, said he organized the event to, "get the word
out
that the GI Bill is an unbeatable value for servicemembers looking to
pursue
higher education or specialized training."

Smith's GI Bill legislation, the Veterans Education and Benefits
Expansion
Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-103), authorized three increases to the
Montgomery GI
Bill program that will eventually raise the lifetime benefit by 46%
from
$24,192 (prior to October 1, 2001) to $35,460 on October 1, 2003. 

"The GI Bill is one of the most successful government programs ever
developed, having benefited over 21 million military veterans and
helping to
create the modern middle class," said Smith, who chairs the House
Committee
on Veterans' Affairs.  "However in recent years, inflation and
escalating
college tuition rates had seriously eroded the value of the GI Bill,
causing
fewer veterans to participate in the program," he said.  The latest
statistics show that only about half of all eligible veterans
participate.

"Last year, we made modernization of the GI Bill program a top priority
of
the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and with enactment of my legislation
we
have taken a major step forward to enhance the educational
opportunities for
America's veterans," Smith said.  "With these record increases, many
more
veterans will find that they can now afford higher education or
advanced
career training," he said.

Under the GI Bill program, a military servicemember who elects to
participate in the program pays $100 a month for 12 months while on
active
duty.  Upon separation, a veteran who served for three years would be
eligible for 36 months of educational assistance benefits at a
qualified
education institution, including vocational and other professional
training
courses.  The monthly benefit, $900 beginning October 1st, can be used
to
pay for tuition, books, college fees, room and board, and other living
expenses while attending school.  For veterans who served for two years
on
active duty, the monthly benefit is slightly lower, rising to $732
beginning
on October 1st, and then to $800 next October 1st.

"The GI Bill not only helps our veterans and our educational
institutions,
it is also the military's top recruitment and retention tool," said
Smith. 
"With our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines embarked upon a war to
defend our nation against terrorism, we must ensure that these brave
men and
women get all of the assistance they need to help them in their
transition
back to civilian life.  The GI Bill is and will remain a cornerstone of
that
effort," he said.

 


10-7-02:

 "With our country at war, and with nearly 20% of our
current
active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines being servicewomen,
the VA
must improve their services and facilities to accommodate even more
women
veterans in the coming years,"  Congressional Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Moran (KS)
said
at a Veterans' Affairs Health Subcommittee hearing last week.

"Women are taking on new responsibilities in the Armed Forces.  They
are
becoming a vital link in the success of our military today, and will be
even
more crucial in the future," said Chairman Moran.  "VA must actively
re-position itself to welcome and outreach to women veterans, be
sensitive
to their needs, and ensure their health needs are being met with high
quality programs," he said.

Testifying before the Health Subcommittee was Congresswoman Heather
Wilson
(NM), the only woman veteran serving in Congress. 


Chairman Moran urged VA to "smash any perceived 'glass ceiling' or
other
limitations preventing women veterans from seeking or receiving quality
VA
primary health care.  Furthermore, VA must ensure that there are
sufficient
specialized care facilities targeted to women veterans, including
counseling
for sexual trauma, mental health services, and safe domiciliaries for
homeless women veterans and their children."

"Every veteran has a right to personal privacy, and for women that
includes
private bed accommodations away from other patients, and even simple
things
like privacy curtains and separate women's restrooms," said Moran. 

"Throughout most of its history, VA has been a men's health and medical
program - almost by design," Moran said.  "And while there has been
progress
in serving female veterans, more needs to be done.  Women are defending
our
Nation in the Armed Services.   They serve our country with distinction
today, and women deserve our nation's thanks as veterans today -- and
tomorrow," he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Increases in spending on the War in Iraq can be expected via supplemental requests on an on-going basis from the White House.

 

 

 

Many veterans refuse to even sign up for the list because they don't qualify or because of perceived problems with the adequacy of VA care.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Florida State Legislature, in its most recent session, has added a number of laws benefitting active-duty service personnel other states would be wise to take note of: Most importantly, the new legislation, signed into law by Florida Governor Jeb Bush, permits an active-duty service member, for military reasons, to break any home or household rental lease upon 30 days notice. The new laws also prohibit rental discrimination against veterans or active-duty service persons because of their status, and permit homeowners to fly flags on patriotic holidays regardless of condominium or restricted deed rules to the contrary.

The legislation was strongly sponsored by State Senator Mike Fasano, Chair of the State Senate Military and Veterans' Affairs Committee.

The Governor's Office also announced Florida would strongly welcome the transfer there of units from other states about to be relocated because of base closings.

 

Florida State spending on veterans, though, we have to say, is one of the lowest per capita in the country, in large part because of the substantial number of retiree veterans living there. So Florida still has a long way to go. But, on matters which do not involve brand new large expenses to the State treasury, which matters are still important in an era where all state treasuries are strapped, Florida is known, not as one of, but as, THE state which is currently the most military-base, and veteran, friendly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Que sera, sera, Silva.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the same time, we point out, there will be more veterans, especially in rural areas, without access to first class VA in-patient care. Veteran homelessness in rural America shot up by 300% last year alone, and the aging, and dispossessed veteran population is going to be more and more in need of hospice care, not the kind of care which is normally provided by outpatient clinics. The USG should recognize this fact, and the growing need of charitable assistance to this group of veterans by private charities, by supporting them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, U.S. Senator, Connecticut: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The comments in this article are comments on the policy proposals, only, of these candidates, and not commentary intended to attack, disparage support or promote any candidacy itself.  Moreover, the comments made are the comments of the VI Newstand Editors speaking as individuals and not for the Association proper.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...Or it needs to do both.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Washington) The House of Representatives today approved H.R. 2297, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, legislation that would expand and extend benefits to veterans and their surviving spouses.  H.R. 2297 was sponsored by Congressman Chris Smith (NJ), Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. 

The Veterans Benefits Act would provide significant new support to veterans, particularly to disabled veterans and surviving spouses of veterans, Chairman Smith said.  With enactment of this legislation, we will also expand the GI Bill educational program to include self-employment training programs to help veterans run their own businesses, he said.           

An extremely important provision of this legislation would correct an injustice for our Gold Star Wives, those who lost their husbands through service to our nation.  This provision, which Rep. Michael Bilirakis of Florida has championed for years, would finally allow surviving spouses of veterans to be able to remarry after age 55 without being penalized with the loss of widow benefits, such as widows pension or burial rights, said Chairman Smith. 

H.R. 2297, as amended, would also:  

·            Make permanent the State Cemetery Grants Program;

·            Reinstate a VA pilot program to provide vocational training to newly eligible VA nonservice-connected pension recipients;

·            Increase the specially adapted automobile grant from $9,000 to $11,000;

·            Increase the specially adapted housing grant from $48,000 to $50,000 for the most severely disabled veterans and from $9,350 to $10,000 for other severely disabled veterans;

·            Add cirrhosis of the liver as a presumed service-connected disability for former POWs;

·            Eliminate the requirement that a POW be held for 30 days or more to qualify for presumptions of service-connection for several specific disabilities;

·            Expand benefits eligibility to those children with spina bifida born to Vietnam-era veterans who served in Korea near the demilitarized zone between October 1, 1967 and May 7, 1975;

·            Make the VA home loan program for members of the Selected Reserve permanent;

·            Adjust the funding fee charged to Selected Reserve home loan applications to the same amount as that paid by active duty servicemembers;

·            Reinstate the Department of Veterans Affairs vendee loan program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The F/A 22 USAF fighter jet program has been cut to the current level of 276. The Navy was not signed up to receive any of these planes.

 

 

 

The "New" Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) is available for active duty and veterans to help with education costs, and can provide up to 36 months of education benefits. If you're a full-time student enrolled in a Regionally or Nationally Accredited College or University, as of October 1, 2003 you can get up to $985 a month to cover education benefits, including high-tech or vocational-technical programs. This adds up to a total benefit of over $35,000 -- and these benefits are increasing every year. Don't delay in using the GI Bill -- these benefits are usually good only up to 10 years after you separate from the military.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/16/2004:

 

"Stop-Loss" orders have been issued by the Army in early 2004. These mean no early retirements; no early resignations from service will be accepted, and no retirements or resignations whatsoever will be accepted from a rotated back serviceperson from overseas within 90 days. Additionally, initial service tours for incoming recruits will be lengthened, perhaps to as long as 7 years. This is all legalese. In English, it means the Army admits it has too few troops, and too many of those troops are not light infantry, just as this naval association has long held.

 

The Command pyramid also needs to be flattened, with top echelon officers let go, and more and more junior officers, NCO's, and enlisted personnel added. Redundancy in top echelon command structures are unnecessary. Top echelon command does not need to be run by multiple committees in any service branch.

 

Salaried payments and benefits to our active-duty Armed Forces, Reserve and Guard personnel are the biggest part of any Defense Budget (not including retiree benefits), going back at least to the 1940's, and respected analysts do argue politically that  increases in that category would mean, politically in Congress, less money allocated for other (mostly weapons systems procurement) items in that same Defemse Budget.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Association has lobbied against this sort of Reservist philosophy, absent the reinstaement of the draft, which is not about to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/7/2004:

VA To Close 3 Hospitals Associated Press WASHINGTON - The Veterans Affairs Department will close three hospitals in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Mississippi and build two new ones in Nevada and Florida as part of much anticipated restructuring plan, The Associated Press has learned. The agency also will add or remove medical services at dozens of other facilities. VA Secretary Anthony Principi also has endorsed building 156 community-based outpatient clinics by 2012, with an emphasis on serving rural areas. Local VA officials had sought 270 clinics. Principi was to release the plan Friday in Las Vegas. Several congressional officials who had seen it described the contents to the AP in advance. The department undertook the restructuring two years ago to shift services to areas where veteran populations are increasing and to modernize outdated buildings and shed vacant space. Under the plan, the VA expects to reduce costs for maintaining vacant space from $3.4 billion to $750 million by 2022 but projects spending $6 billion on new construction during that time. A draft plan last summer that recommended closing seven hospitals drew opposition from local officials and veterans in those communities. An independent commission examined that plan and narrowed the list of closures. After reviewing the commission recommendations, Principi decided to close three hospitals, in Pittsburgh, Brecksville, Ohio, and Gulfport, Miss. The hospitals must have a plan for closure by September. It was not immediately clear when they will shut their doors. A fourth hospital, in Livermore, Calif., will have all its services except long-term care transferred elsewhere. However, a new VA nursing home will be established there. The VA plans to continue studying ways to cut costs. Representatives from veterans groups who met with Principi on Thursday were told the agency would not close or eliminate services at any other locations before new or replacement services are available elsewhere in the area. Veterans group leaders were reluctant to comment on the report because they had sketchy details and promised Principi they would withhold comment until the report was publicly released Friday. But the groups have tried to ensure the restructuring plans didn't hurt veterans. "We have been concerned about trying to take things too fast because when they looked at medical care and said what's our access they were not looking at mental health and long-term care," said John Brieden, American Legion national commander. "We didn't want the VA to make decisions based on only partial information that would impact those areas." The department will build new hospitals in Las Vegas and Orlando, Fla. The VA also wants to build new rehabilitation centers for the blind in Biloxi, Miss., and Long Beach, Calif., and place new spinal cord centers in Denver, Minneapolis, Syracuse, N.Y., and in a city that can serve Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas and part of Missouri. Among the VA facilities that will lose services is the hospital in Canandaigua, N.Y. It had been on the list to be closed, but Principi decided instead to transfer inpatient psychiatric beds to Buffalo or Syracuse and ordered officials to come up with a plan for making the campus more efficient. The hospital was built for nearly 1,000 beds but has only 166 patients on average. "Overall, it's not an A-plus for New York, but it's still an A," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. But Michigan officials were unhappy with a decision to close acute inpatient psychiatry beds in Saginaw. Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., is "appalled" by the decision, said spokesman Peter Karafotas. "Eliminating inpatient care will have a devastating impact on the quality and access of medical care for over 60,000 veterans in mid-Michigan," Karafotas said. He said Kildee will continue to push House and Senate bills that would block the closings. Congress will review Principi's decision. It cannot change the plan but does have authority to determine whether to fund the changes. Congress had been unwilling to approve money for construction until the department came up with a restructuring plan. There are an about 25 million veterans in the country, with more than 7 million enrolled in VA health care.

 

 

 

Kansas City Star

May 10, 2004 Veterans' care puts costs on front line An excellent and detailed copyrighted article by: MIKE McGRAW John Kerry, who often campaigns with old Vietnam comrades, is advocating a costly policy change that pleases many fellow veterans but worries budget hawks. Amid all the talk of tossed service medals and questionable National Guard duty, the nation has heard little debate about "mandatory funding" of health care for veterans - that is, putting them in the same "entitlement" category as Social Security and Medicare. The proposal is promoted by several large veterans groups. Kerry's campaign Web site endorses it. The Massachusetts Democrat even co-sponsored a mandatory-funding bill in the Senate. Some estimates indicate the change could double the $30 billion spent annually on health expenditures at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Despite his promise to halve the federal deficit in his first term, Kerry will not back off his support of mandatory funding, his campaign aides insist."Our veterans' health care shouldn't depend on the yearly whims of budget cutters," Kerry says. Where President Bush stands on the issue is not clear. A White House spokesman referred inquiries to the Bush/Cheney campaign. Campaign spokesmen pointed back to the White House. While many Republicans oppose mandatory funding, said Joe Violante, legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, the president seems to be ducking the issue. "Our national commander met with Bush a couple weeks ago and didn't get a response." In this year's expected close elections, candidates want to avoid offending veterans, who, with their families, make up about a quarter of the U.S. population.Despite relatively large budget increases for veterans' benefits under his watch, Bush already has found himself accused of underfunding the Department of Veterans Affairs."Balancing the budget on the backs of this nation's veterans," thundered Edward Banas, commander in chief of the Kansas City-based Veterans of Foreign Wars, earlier this year.When mandatory funding cam! e up last year, Bush's secretary for veterans affairs, Anthony Principi, called it "unworkable and inappropriate." But in a recent interview, Principi was more careful. "I have concerns...," he said. "Often times in this town, you come up with cost estimates only to find out five or six years later that they were woefully underestimated." While the cost of Kerry's Senate bill has not been estimated, the Congressional Budget Office says a House version could add as much as $473 billion (about the size of this year's federal deficit) to the $303 billion already projected for VA health care over the next eight years.In a brief phone interview, Kerry said that estimate seemed high. The call for mandatory funding grows in part from a change in 1996, when Congress widened the doors of veterans' hospitals and clinics to all who have served in uniform, regardless of ailment or income. Now the Disabled American Veterans, the VFW, American Legion and others are pushing for automatic appropriations at a time when others are asking how the nation can afford! future strains on Medicare and Social Security. "Discretionary programs should not be converted into entitlements," said Bob Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan Washington group that advocates deficit reduction. Bixby said Congress has already given up control of far too many budgeting decisions by making other programs mandatory. When that happens, he added, programs no longer have to compete for budget dollars and go on a sort of budgetary autopilot. "We call them appropriations that have died and gone to heaven." The second largest of the 15 cabinet departments, the VA has nearly 1,000 facilities, 218,000 employees and a $67 billion budget.Counting veterans and their families, 70 million people are potentially eligible for VA health care or other benefits, an obligation that can last for many decades. More than 400 children and widows of Spanish-American War veterans still draw benefits. The last Civil War widow drawin! g benefits died last year.Historically, the VA health-care system has had a relatively small clientele because most higher-income veterans sought care elsewhere. Its traditional claimants have been mainly combat-disabled, homeless or low-income veterans, whom the VA still considers its "core mission."But that is changing with the new open-door mandate and the massive post-World War II population bulge. At the same time, veterans from Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf wars are aging. More than 13,000 veterans from the war in Iraq have already sought care."Veterans are voting with their feet," said Kenneth Kizer, a doctor who ran VA health care under the Clinton administration. "They are using the system now because it works better."However, he added, he and others had anticipated the VA could recover some of its increased costs by billing Medicare for qualified veterans who seek VA treatment. But that never happened.In approving the 1996 change, Congress dismissed warnings from its own auditors and budget analysts that the VA was ill-prepared for the surge in business. Rep. Steve Buyer of Indiana, a Republican member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, said at a hearing earlier this year, "We here in Congress have created this problem. This committee ... had it wrong."The VA clientele shot from 3.5 to 4.8 million, many of them first-time claimants fleeing higher co-pays and enrollment costs from Medicare and private insurers. But funding hasn't kept pace."I chose the VA (over Medicare) because it doesn't cost me as much, and it's better care," said Hubert Norris, a cancer patient at the VA Medical Center in Kansas City. Norris, a Korean War veteran, has no service-connected disabilities.Crowding in some areas can cause longer waits for combat-disabled veterans. In July of 2002, more than 300,000 veterans were waiting six months or more to see a doctor.When Principi sent a top aide, paralyzed and in a wheelchair, out to test the system that summer, he was turned away at six of the eight clinics he visited. "It wasn! 't pretty," Principi said."He was told to go elsewhere. We were oversu bscribed."Since then, he said, the backlog has been drastically cut. In fact, overall funding for the VA, including pensions, is expected to go up about 38 percent in four years under Bush - to about $67 billion - compared to a 32 percent increase in the eight years of the Clinton administration.But despite what Principi called "unprecedented" funding, the administration was criticized in January 2003 for freezing enrollment of nondisabled veterans with annual incomes above about $25,000, cutting out 200,000 veterans.Veterans groups also complain of a proposed $250 annual enrollment fee and increases in prescription co-pays for middle-income vets.The Kerry campaign says the Bush administration's own estimates predict the policies will exclude about 500,000 veterans from the VA health system by next year.And the latest Bush budget for VA health care alone - $32.1 billion - is an increase of only 3.8 percent.When questioned by Congress in February, Principi broke from protocol to say he had asked the White House for $1.2 billion more than he got.Even the president's allies on the hill took issue. Sen. Kit Bond, another Republican and chairman of the veterans subcommittee, helped restore the $1.2 billion. As to mandatory funding, Bond speaks carefully, "We have a tight budget and we need to care for veterans. But we also need to take care of the health-care needs of others, educational needs, environmental needs, science needs and, in my bill, housing needs."` The appearance of opposing any veterans' benefits can open a candidate up to accusations of being unpatriotic, weak on defense or ungrateful to the troops. The issue has become even more sensitive with more wounded soldiers being shipped back from new wars."It's always been a very ticklish subject for people to touch politically," said one Capitol Hill staffer. "Besides, in this generation of politicians you have some guilt complexes at work by those who never served, or ducked Vietnam." But not all veterans believe in mandatory funding."We don' t think it's necessary that just because someone served two years in the Army that the taxpayer owes them a lifetime of health care," said Steve Strobridge, legislative director of the Military Officers Association of America, which represents active-duty officers and retirees.On the other side, Rick Weidman, director of government relations for the Vietnam Veterans of America, says picking which veterans should get benefits is fraught with hard choices. "How do you turn away a retiree who did 30 combat missions as a bombardier, serving as a hood ornament on a B-24, and allow in someone who got hurt in basic training?" he asks.All veterans deserve access to the system, he says, adding, "The American people have something much deeper than a contract with veterans. It's a covenant." Copyright 2004 The Kansas City Star Co.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The House and Senate Armed Services Committees have agreed to an across-the-board 3.5 percent pay raise for servicemembers in 2005, as well as making permanent increases in deployment-related pays. The pay provisions are part of the fiscal 2005 defense authorization bill passed recently by the House Armed Services Committee; and a different version of the same bill passed last week by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Both bills add money to the Bush Administration's proposals for military heath care, especially for reservists and their families, and for force protection measures, including more armored Humvees and armor kits for other vehicles for troops in Iraq. Both committees authorized $422.2 billion for the Department of Defense in 2005, the full amount requested by the Bush Administration and $20.9 billion more than the amount authorized by the Congress for fiscal 2004. But because the Administration's 2005 proposal did not include funding for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, the House bill also adds an additional $25 billion in "emergency" money for those missions.

 

6/17/2004

 

INDICTMENT OF CIA CONTRACTOR FOR TORTURE IN AFHANISTAN

 

A federal grand jury in North Carolina has brought a criminal indictment against a CIA civilian contractor for killing a "POW" in Afhanistan.

 

Legal experts our Newstand staff has consulted, all of whom are members of this Association, are unanimous in opining that there is no jurisdiction of a U.S. court in this case, and that there should not be as a matter of U.S. constitutional law: The defendant is a civilian, they argue, not somebody subject to the UCMJ, allegedly having committed a crime in a foreign land where the alleged victim was not a U.S. citizen. If jurisdiction would lie in such a case, in or out of wartime, they argue, it would lie in Afghanistan.

 

This is a political indictment by the Bush Administration.

 

This Association is opposed to it.

 

 

 

 

 

The Bush Administarion has retreated in the Security Council, withdrawing a resolution continuing the exemption of both U.S. Forces and USG officials from the jurisdiction of the International Court of Criminal Jurisdiction (ICCJ), when they are on missions authorized by the U.N.

 

This Association opposes any turnover of any U.S. serviceperson to any court except a U.S. court for "war crimes."

 

 A lot of veterans and active duty personnel have questions about what all this means. There is confusion on the subject even among international lawyers. Our legal experts have put together the best available analysis we could come up with as to what this means for practical purposes, given the murkiness of the subject even among the experts:

 

At first glance, the White House press conference announcing the decision seemed to imply an admission that U.S. forces on future U.N. peacekeeping missions would be subject to the war crimes jurisdiction of the ICCJ. On second reflection, however, that is not exactly what they said.

 

As best we can tell, the ICCJ does not assert jurisdiction over official personnel of countries which do themselves prosecute crimes by their military. Whether the ICCJ decides this, or whether the country concerned does, is unclear. Also unclear under this doctrine of jurisdiction, is whether the concept of non-prosecution by the concerned country applies to a particular named defendant, or to a class of persons accused.

 

The ICCJ is believed not to assert jurisdiction in any case for acts committed in a country not a signatory to the 1998 Treaty of Rome creating the ICCJ, even though this doctrine, if it is doctrine, would make a mockery of the ICCJ's perceived inheritance of the role of the Nuremburg Tribunals. (Neither Nazi Germany nor Imperial Japan signed any treaty creating those Tribunals.)  President Bush administratively removed President Clinton's signature to the Treaty, and apparently does not intend to re-sign it now. Iraq is also not a signatory. Countries not signatories to the Treaty are not represented on the Court.

 

The USG has status of forces agreements, most of them signed during the current Bush Administartion, with 90 governments (including Afghanistan) barring any prosecution by official Americans by the ICCJ. Whether the ICCJ would recognize any such ttreaty as limiting its jurisdiction has never been decided by that Court.

 

Given all the above reasons why there would not be any practically speaking jurisdiction, why go for these 'exemption resolutions' in the first place? Answer:our Newstand staff doesn't know, other than to say the resolutions gave the Administration bragging rights to say that the Security Council was really unanimous in supporting the mission of U.S. Forces.

 

 

That statement is totally untrue, for the simple raeson there is no concrete definition of a "war crime" under which a U.S. citizen could be tried by the ICCJ. As a former Arkansas attorney general and 'the smartest lawyer in the world,' according to his wife, Clinton knows that a fundamental constitutional requirement of U.S. criminal due process is that, based on statutory language which can be read in advance, the accused must know before the crime is committed what is proscribed, and what is not. No notion of American due process is recognized by this Court composed entirely of foreigners, many of whom have known and open anti-American biases.

 

To sum up our analysis and the facts on this subject, and today's decision, is difficult, but we'll try:

 

It is difficult for our Newstand staff to perceive of a situation where President Bush, at least, would actually turn over a U.S. Army military intelligence branch commander, or a Secretary of Defense, to a court in the Hague compose entirely of foreigners not utilizing at all U.S. court procedures of due process.

 

Such a decision would be devastating to any future ability to successfully recruit for the U.S. military.

 

Yet the decision to withdraw these on-going resolutions says that that is exactly what could happen, at some time in the future.

 

Over the next hundred years, we predict, given the predominance of lawyers in the world's society, the attempt of the ICCJ will be to assert more and more jurisdiction over Americans.

 

Based on the consensus of the membership of this Association today, this Association will oppose that every inch of the way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The facts in this report merely reinforce our headline.

 

 

 

 

 

7/1/2004

 

 

Florida has retained its rating as the Association's annual ranked  Nation's #1 military friendly state.

 

New, innovative statutes passed by the State legislature and signed into law by Governor jeb Bush this year , included:

 

 

 

Congress Approves $417B Defense Bill Associated Press July 23, 2004

WASHINGTON - Congress used overwhelming votes to ship President Bush a $417.5 billion measure for defense in a day that highlighted lawmakers' bipartisan approach to the military - and their divisions over many domestic programs. The Senate approved the Pentagon spending bill 96-0 and the House followed suit by 410-12. The legislation included $25 billion for the next few months of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and a 7 percent boost for other defense programs. The appropriations bill also included a 3.5% pay raise for active duty personnel. See the 2005 Pay Charts.   The ongoing wars and the approaching November elections made the one-sided votes inevitable. Also easing passage were home-district projects, including $4.5 million for research, equipment and construction that Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., claimed for his upstate New York district, and $1.9 million for the Presidio park in San Francisco, hometown of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Our generation's time of national trial has come, and we're being called to stop a new kind of enemy," said Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C. "Now more than ever, we must improve our national security." The bill is the first of the 13 annual spending bills for the government's next budget year - which starts Oct. 1 - to clear the Republican-led Congress. Lawmakers were eager to pass it before going into their six-week recess, which began Friday. "Our troops will have what they need to do their jobs, and I am pleased that a bipartisan majority in the Congress continues to stand with me to support our military," Bush said of the measure in a written statement. After passing the appropriations bill, Congress will still have to pass another authorization bill to actually approve the spending of the figures set. For the difference between appropriations bills and authorization bills, and to see how this process actually works in Congress, see our Legislation Page.  But lawmakers' summer break was beginning with the rest of the spending bills a long way from finished. Those measures have been rocked by fights over everything from spending for schools to aid to Saudi Arabia. With a backdrop of record federal deficits that have prompted the GOP to try reining domestic spending, legislators will face decisions about those measures when they return in September. In other budget work Thursday, - The House approved a $10 billion military construction measure by 420-1. First, as expected, it dropped an expansion of a housing program for soldiers' families that conservatives said broke budget limits. The Senate has not yet approved its version. - The House Appropriations Committee passed a $90 billion bill financing the Transportation and Treasury departments after voting 42-16 to give civilian federal workers the same 3.5 percent raise the military received. Bush recommended a 1.5 percent increase for civilians. - The same House panel approved a $92.9 billion bill that cuts funds for NASA, environment and science programs while increasing veterans' health care to $30.3 billion.   Money appropriated for the war in Iraq will probably still be insufficient.. Administration officials say they expect to have enough money through September by moving money among accounts. The war funds include money for body armor, reinforced Humvee vehicles and $500 million to train the new armies of Iraq and Afghanistan. The overall bill has $1.6 billion less than Bush requested for the Pentagon but nearly $25 billion over this year's total, excluding money for Iraq and Afghanistan. It has nearly $78 billion for weapons purchases, $3 billion more than Bush requested. Included is more money for Air Force unmanned Predator aerial attack vehicles, Stryker combat vehicles for the Army and a DD(X) destroyer. There is $10 billion for continued work on a national missile defense system. And there is $100 million for the Air Force to modernize its fleet of midair refueling tankers - though House language was dropped requiring 80 of the craft to be purchased from the ailing Boeing Co. Included were several non-defense items, including $500 million for fighting wildfires, $95 million to help victims of warfare in Sudan and $685 million for U.S. diplomats' activities in Iraq, including their security.

 

 

Straight Talk:

 

What's going on is that the Army and Marines need more personnel, specifically infantry. and their recruiting efforts aren't picking up those recruits, which is why, in this country for the first time since the 1970s, we're hearing serious proposals to re-start  a draft.

 

So the DoD, at political levels, trys to experiment: It orders the other branches not to aggressively recruit from time to time, so as not to compete for manpower with the Army and the USMC, and it orders some 'let go's' in the other branches (non-Army or Marine Corps), prior to full retirement credit, which is what these servicepersons wanted, knowing that many of them can transfer to the Army or Marine Corps, where many will be gladly accepted because of their skills.

 

Straight talk.

 

 

 

 

9/2/2004:   VA Expands Operations on Army Posts

 

The Department of Veterans Affairs has expanded its liaison offices to now support 136 military installations to assist with Soldier transition from active duty and it is working to make it easier for disabled Soldiers to get the help they need. Part of the expanded VA service on military installations is ensuring a VA counselor talks to wounded veterans in military hospitals before those veterans are discharged from the military service. Those hospitals include Walter Reed Medical Center, Washington, D.C.; Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, Ga.; Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas; and Madigan Army Medical Center at Western Regional Medical Command, Tacoma, Wash.

 

 

9/3/2004: Legislation Renewed to Support  Homeless Vets

 

The Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001 has been reauthorized, a landmark law that authorized almost $1 billion in new and expanded programs to help eradicate homelessness among veterans. The program has been reauthorized for an additional three years.

 

 

10/5/2004:

 

 

In an "unscientific" Army Times random poll for President of active duty, Reserve and National Guard personnel released today, President George W. Bush led Senator John Kerry by 4-1. The result was almost identical for each service polled, including the Coast Guard.

 

In 2000, a similiar poll showed Bush leading Gore by a 2-1 margin.

 

 

 

 

9/23/2004:

 

 

The Army National Guard will miss its recruiting goal this year by 5,000, the first time this has happened in 10 years.

 

10/20/2004:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

President Bush won a second term from a divided and anxious nation, his promise of steady, strong wartime leadership trumping John Kerry's fresh-start approach to Iraq and joblessness. After a long, tense night of vote counting, the Democrat called Bush Wednesday to concede Ohio and the presidency.

 

 

11/22/2004:

 

 

Benefits Update: Concurrent Receipt
Concurrent Receipt is now officially named "Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay" (CRDP).

Simply put Concurrent Receipt means that qualified military retirees will get paid both their full military retirement pay and their VA disability compensation. This recently passed law phases out the VA disability offset, which means that military retirees with 20 or more years of service and a 50% (or higher) VA rated disability will no longer have their military retirement pay reduced by the amount of their VA disability compensation.

 

 

The Veterans  Health Programs Improvement Act of 2004, signed by the President today, provides, as its key feature, the elimination of co-payments for veterans receiving hospice care furnished by the VA.

 

 

 

 

 

1/15/2005:

 

 

 

 

Sgt. Charles Graner of a USAR MP Company out of Pennsylvania has been found guilty by a U.S. Court Martial of violations of the Geneva Conventions in Iraq pertaining to the teatment of POW's, and sentenced to ten years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.

 

Had the Editorial Staff of this Newstand been on the jury, we would have voted the other way. We believe that memos put out by both the DoJ and the DoD implying that, if physical pain or injury was not substantially inflicted, there was no torture under those Conventions , were correct. While we think Graner went too far as a matter of procedure, he was, in fact, ordered to "soften up" these prisoners for interrogation and then left to his own devices as to how to go about doing that. This clearly involved a breakdown of Command supervision not just to protect the prisoners from abuse, but also to protect our soldiers fron vague orders which subsequently get them into trouble. The verdict on Graner was, therefore, in the opinion of this Newstand, a political one designed to appeal to an international audience.

 

That audience is not the audience this Newstand appeals to. Graner did not kill, murder or maim  anyone. He did not hold prisoners' fingers over lit cigarette lighters, and he didn't inject anyone with scopalomine. He did not get anywhere near to any of those acts. He posed these terrorists, these vicious murderous enemies of the United States, in naked pyramids and other insulting and frightening poses, and then had pictures taken of them.

 

The larger issue in this case, still left unsaid by any of the major media imnside or outside the Armed Forces establishment, is that better tactics would have been to kill these terrorists on the battlefield with their arms in hand, as was done in World War II, than to take them prisoner at all.

 

We mention the World War II examples in part because, appropo of this story, to the best of our knowledge, no individual Nazi or Japanese soldier, no NVA regular, no Al Quaidist, has ever been nominated for war crimes trial by the same international leftist and anti-American groups which agitate constantly for war crimes trials of ALL U.S. service personnel, for any of the exact and specific law of "torture" violations these people repeatedly carried out during World War II and the Vietnam War, and, with regard to Al Quaida, carry out today in the War on Terror.

 

This Association has said all this before on its Newstands, going back to the year 2001.

 

This Newstand is saying it again here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This Newstand's opinions of the actions of England are the same as our opinions on the actions of Graner.

 

 

1/31/2005

 

 

President Bush today proposed an increase in the death benefit gratuity paid to next-of-kin of U.S. Armed Forces personnel killed in the War on Terror from the current level of $12,500, to a one time payment of $100,000 (retroactive to October 7, 2001, the now official date for the first insertion of U.S. personnel into Afghanistan). He also proposed raising the maximum benefit on Servicepersons' life insurance up to $400,000, with the USG, meaning the taxpayer, picking up the entire difference in premium payments between the current high cap of $150,000 and the new high cap of $400,000.. Service personnel do pay premiums for their life insurance (and life insurance is voluntary for them to select upon in-processing), although at discounted rates, and it is dubious that these policies would be issued at all if it were left up exclusively to private insurers without USG subsidies on the premiums, and caps on the maximum benefits.

 

The Democratic leadership in Congress, in response,  immediately proposed that the Bush proposals should be extended to the entire Armed Forces, including the Guard and Reserves, in wartime or peacetime. The Democratic proposals had some inside-the-beltway pundits saying faint cries of "Me,too!" could be heard from the Democratic Congressional leadership. As for this Newstand, we would simply like to know where the Democratic Congressional leadership was as to this same issue when they controlled Congress from 1933 to 1994, in peacetime and wartime.

 

The U. S. Navy Veterans Association supports  the Bush Administration proposals, and this Newstand predicts that both of those proposals will pass Congress this calendar year.

 

Many of our troops currently dying in the War on Terror (average age: 20) are leaving behind young families of four or more. $100,000 might buy necessities for a family of that size for about a year or two, and $150,000 perhaps for another two or three years.

 after that.

 

The cost of the Bush proposals to the taxpayer this year is estimated at $460 million.

The cost of the Democratic counter proposals is estimated to cost in the tens of billion dollar range each year.

 

 

 

 

The Democratic leadership in Congress has expanded the definition of what they would like to see added to the Bush proposals referred to in the original piece. They did so in a speech by U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) on 2/15/2005 in Worcester, Massachusetts.

 

Specifically, the Democrats will propose (with the analysis of this Newstand added in parentheses):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/1/2005:

 

DEPENDENT I.D. CARD FACILITY CLOSURES

 

The DoD is quietly and rapidly shutting down facilities throughout CONUS where DoD dependent I.D. cards are issued and re-issued.  These cards are often used primarily for PX and BX privileges  (many times by widows) but, in many cases, are simply carried as a proud personal identifier of the dependent, and of that person's patriotism.

 

Small BX's and PX's are also likewise being closed.

 

This Association is trying to get from the Department of the Navy, at least, a current list of Navy facilities where these cards can be renewed, to little avail to date.

 

For more information on this subject, contact the Association nationally at (202) 736-1725.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The President’s 2006  VA budget is proposed at $70.8 billion, out of a total prposed budget of $2.5 trillion.  The proposals include:

 

·        ending all copayments for former prisoners of war;

·        ending copayments for hospice care

 

·        authorizing VA to pay for emergency room care or urgent care for enrolled veterans in non-VA medical facilities;

·        allowing more resources to be devoted to the homeless providers grant and per diem program;

·        establishing a priority system for veterans receiving care in state veterans homes;

·        increasing pharmacy copayments from $7 to $15 for a 30-day supply of drugs; and *

·        establishing an annual enrollment fee of $250.*

 

* These proposals ask that non-disabled, higher income veterans (Priority 7 and 8 veterans) assume a small share of the cost of their health care, in line with amounts required of military retirees who have served at least 20 years in uniform or who were retired early due to service-related disabilities.  Under no circumstances under the White House proposals will a veteran make a copayment of any kind for the treatment of a service-connected condition.

 

 

 

 

 

2/9/2005:

 

 

 The Wounded In Action death rate for the Vietnam War was 24%. For the wars to date in Afghanistan and Iraq it is 10%.

 

We have three top tier military hospitals operating currently in Iraq. Their mission for the critically and complexly wounded today is to stabilize them and then get them to the Ramstein medical facility as quickly as possible, but our medical corps at these three hospitals are capable, in fact, of performing any operation other than an organ transplant.

 

 

 

 

2/10/2005:

 

 

The White House proposes a federal budget in January or February, 2005. That budget, which is, as to final items, usually voted up or down by the following October or thereabouts (when it's later than september 30 is where we have a federal no-budget crisis situation), and applies as a legislative matter in the Congress of the United States, to the next federal fiscal year, which runs from October 1 to September 30. So the President's budget proposed in January or February, 2005 applies to the federal fiscal year end of September 30, 2006, whence its name.

 

The previous budget, as passed, applies to the year we're in now, 2005 and, since no federal budget ever really accounts for emergencies, that is why the USG almost always needs special supplements, which increase USG spending even more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

President Bush has appointed R. James "Jim" Nicholson as the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Nicholson was born in Iowa in 1938. A West Point graduate, he served heroically in Vietnam as a U.S. Army Ranger. He has also been a successful lawyer and businessman. He was appointed Chairman of the Republican National Committee in 1997, and was also the sixth U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican.

 

 

VA currently services over 25 million veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces.

 

 

 

While the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in St. Louis is digitalizing your files as we speak, they report that they are not going to destroy the paper files when they are done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A "For the Association" Article

 

 

 

 

This Association has long said that the answer to this question is yes, at least during the Bush Administration. Its Newstands have quoted SecDef Donald Rumsfeld positing to that effect a number of times.

 

This Newstand believes the answer is definitely yes in times of a growing federal deficit (currently $427 billion per year) and a staggering, and growing federal debt (currently $7.7 trillion; your share now, American reader: $25,000), and an Administration which cares, at least to some extent, about the growing size of both, as opposed to politicians who believe we can have as many guns, and as much butter, as we want, by simply borrowing more from foreigners. The Association has said point blank that ever-growing deficits and debt of this magnitude constitute a serious and inherent threat to the national security of the United States.

 

In January, the DoD officially said, point blank, that the answer to this question was yes. Dr. David Chu, the Pentagon's Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, "The amounts [for retiree benefits] have gotten to the point where they are hurtful. They are taking away from the nation's ability to defend itself."

 

The starting base pay for an incoming E1, this Newstand points out, is only $13,704. The United Kingdom, the country perhaps most like us in military traditions, but with a significantly smaller per capita national income, pays about 1.6 times that amount for entry level volunteer servicemen and women.  As of the end of February, 2005, the U.S. Army missed its self-imposed active duty recruitment goal for the third month in a row, the first time this has happened in three years.

 

With relationship to British comparisons, the Association also did an informal and unscientific survey among the Royal Naval Association members of the Association's sister chapter in Bury, England. The unanimous opinion of those surveyed, when USG veterans' benefits were described to them, was that VA benefits were "staggeringly generous" compared to vets' benefits in the U.K.

 

 

This list in the previous paragraph is not simply a list of pet peeves. With regard to budget balancing, the sum of all these outrageous welfare frauds constitutes hundreds of billions of dollars going out of the U.S. Treasury each year in cash payments to criminals who neither need the money, nor deserve it.

 

Whose back should the budget be balanced on? Not on the back, we suggest, ever, of the hard working Joe or Jane Six Pack making $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 per year, and struggling to save enough to put food on the table for his or her family, put gas in the car, save enough to pay at least a little of his kids' college tuition, while at the same time watching close to 40% of his total income taken off the top for taxes; income taxes, FICA taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and hundreds of more taxes all cleverly worded as user fees, all of which go in large measure to subsidize the life styles of the welfare cheats we mentioned above. These middle class taxpayers, in the final analysis, are the mighty but tiny engine (and an engine  getting tinier every day vis-a-vis the rest of the population) responsible for pulling the world's greatest economic machine forward, and at the same time, pulling the burden of the world's largest welfare state train. They deserve better, this American 'petit bourgeosie,' so hated by the likes of Karl Marx and company. They deserve to be able to hang onto more of their personal income and more of their investments, and that hanging on would be good for, not bad for, American national security, in our opinion.

 

Whose back should the budget be balanced on? Certainly not ever on the back of the active duty enlisted person, who deserves every dollar he gets, and deserves the highest quality of equipment to protect him money can buy.

 

The difference with the retired veteran is that, in most cases at least, he also always deserves the benefits he currently has, as well as most of those currently being proposed. Unlike other veterans' groups, this Association cannot, however, in times of deficit and debt, give carte blanche approval for every new benefit proposed. Need has got to be looked at in such a financial era, as well as the deserving status of the recipient.

 

We have said pretty specifically on whose backs the budget should be balanced. We've proposed answers right here in this Article. For those veterans' groups who do take the carte  blanche approach to veteran's benefits, we challenge them to do the same, instead of just saying that everyone who doesn't take their approach is unpatriotic. If there is any issue of patriotism vs, unpatriotism in the original question, it should be addressed by those who have no answer to the problems posed for the Nation when that $7 trillion debt becomes $17 trillion, and then $27 trillion. 

 

And may God bless David Chu for the guts to honestly address the problem.

 

 

[For a list of currently proposed veterans' benefits the Association supports, as well as a list of veterans' benefits legislative and policy achievements of the Association, go to the Legislation and Policy Achievements Page.] 

 

 

3/30/2005:

NEW ASSISTANCE FOR ATOMIC VETERANS

 

 

 

 

In the late forties, all through the fifties, and into the early sixties, the USG exploded many nuclear devices into our atmosphere. Information regarding these  nuclear tests was formerly classified, which made it difficult for many veterans to pursue claims of service related injuries. Much of this information has now been declassified and is available. If you are a veteran who has had even one exposure to atmospheric testing of nuclear devices you may be eligible for a service connected disability or, in some cases, a lump sum settlement of $75,000 from the Department of Justice. Macular degeneration has now been recognized as a possible effect of ionizing radiation exposure. If you are an atomic vet looking for advice on how to proceed with this specialized type of claim, this Newstand recommends:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4/4/2005:

 

 

 

NEW YORK - Veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are now showing up in the nation's homeless shelters.

While the numbers are still small, they're steadily rising, and raising alarms in both the homeless and veterans' communities. The concern is that these returning veterans - some of whom can't find jobs after leaving the military, others of whom are still struggling psychologically with the war - may be just the beginning of an influx of new veterans in need. Currently, there are 135,000 troops in Iraq and 20,000 in Afghanistan. More than 130,000 have already served and returned home.

So far, dozens of them, like Herold Noel, a married father of three, have found themselves sleeping on the streets, on friends' couches, or in their cars within weeks of returning home. Two years ago, Black Veterans for Social Justice (BVSJ) in the borough of Brooklyn, saw only a handful of recent returnees. Now the group is aiding more than 100 Iraq veterans, 30 of whom are homeless.

"It's horrible to put your life on the line and then come back home to nothing, that's what I came home to: nothing. I didn't know where to go or where to turn," says Mr. Noel. "I thought I was alone, but I found out there are a whole lot of other soldiers in the same situation. Now I want people to know what's really going on."

After the Vietnam War, tens of thousands of veterans came home to a hostile culture that offered little gratitude and inadequate services, particularly to deal with the stresses of war. As a result, tens of thousands of Vietnam veterans still struggle with homelessness and drug addiction.

In the years since Vietnam, more than 250 nonprofit veterans' service organizations have sprouted up, only a few of which are recognized by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

But there are increasing numbers of new veterans ending up on streets and in shelters.

Part of the reason for these new veterans' struggles is that housing costs have skyrocketed at the same time real wages have remained relatively stable, often putting rental prices out of reach. And for many, there is a gap of months, sometimes years, between when military benefits end and veterans benefits begin.

Both the Veterans Administration and private veterans service organizations are already stretched, providing services for veterans of previous conflicts. For instance, while an estimated 500,000 veterans were homeless at some time during 2004, the VA had the resources to tend to only 100,000 of them. Many among the additional 400,000 do not even qualify for any VA program other than emergency medical care and, as to the ones who do qualify, the VA medical facility is too hard, or impossible, to reach. On top of that, there is a second semi-homeless class of veterans who sleep in temporary shelters and trailers, without electricity and water, who number at least another 600,000. It is difficult to believe that official government programs will ever be funded enough to effectively reach these classes of veterans with the welfare other classes of veterans receive.

That is why the VSOs, including the United States Navy Veterans Association, do their outreach programs for the formerly served veteran. He and she are both deserving, and in need.

UPDATE: 1 MILLION NEW WAR VETS: MANY WILL NEED VA CARE

 

by Anthony Diaz

Veterans Issues Newstand

Health Care Newsdesk

 

 

 

 

A SUMMARY OF THE VETERANS BENEFITS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2004 (PUBLIC LAW 108-454) Effective December 10, 2004

 

by Paris Clements

Veterans Issues Newstand

VA Newsdesk

 

Guaranty Increase:  The Act increases the maximum VA loan guaranty amount for loans over $144,000. This would index the maximum guaranty amount to 25% of the conventional conforming loan limit. In effect, VA no down payment loans would be available for up to $333,700, based on the 2004 conforming loan limit. This amount would automatically adjust every year, along with the annual conforming limit adjustment. On November 30, 2004, it was announced that effective January 1, 1005, the conforming loan limit will be $359,650. Consequently, during 2005, the practical no downpayment loan amount would also be $359,650 (the maximum guaranty would be $89,912, which is 25% of $359,650).

1-Year ARM: Authorizes VA to guaranty traditional adjustable rate mortgages, i.e., those that adjust every year, through year 2008. Between 1992 and 1995, VA had authority to guarantee 1-year ARMs. The legislation restores this authority.

Hybrid ARM: Amends VA's current hybrid ARM authority, and extends it through the year 2008 (it would have expired September 30, 2005). There will be a 1% limit on the initial interest rate adjustment for hybrid ARMs with an initial fixed rate period of less than 5 years. For hybrid ARMs with an initial fixed rate period of 5 years or more, the maximum initial interest rate adjustment can up to 2%. After the initial adjustment, subsequent adjustments are limited to 1%. The interest rate increase over the life of the loan will be limited to 6%. Previously, the total increase was limited to 5%.

Funding Fee: Exempts veterans from the funding fee if they are rated eligible for VA disability compensation based on pre-discharge eligibility examinations, without regard to the date compensation will start. Previously, a veteran had to be receiving compensation to be exempt from payment of the funding fee.

Specially Adapted Housing Grant: Extends the full $50,000 Specially Adapted Housing grant to veterans who have lost the use of both upper extremities such as to preclude use of the arms at or above the elbows. Previously, such veterans were only eligible for the $10,000 Special Housing Adaptations grant.

Native American Direct Loans: Extends authority for Native American Direct Loans through the year 2008 (would have expired at the end of 2005).

More information on the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program is available at www.homeloans.va.gov.

 

4/27/2005:

 

 

 CONCURRENT RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY PAY UPDATE

 

 

by Hope Merrell

 

Veterans Issues Newstand Money & Finance Newdesk

 

­

 

It appears increasingly likely the Pentagon will defer to Congress about whether unemployable retirees with non-combat disabilities rated at less than 100% can receive full military retirement and veterans' disability checks if they are eligible for both. If so, it would take months - possibly until late this year - for a decision to be reached about whether 15,000 disabled retirees whose non-combat disabilities are severe enough to prevent them from working should receive their full military retirement without the partial offset for the veterans' disability benefits they receive.

Military retirees who have formal 100% disability ratings from the Department of Veterans Affairs are allowed to receive their full retirement and disability payments. Those with disabilities from combat or combat-related training were made eligible for both payments two years ago, while those with disabilities from non-combat injuries or disease became fully eligible for both benefits January 1, 1005. However, the group of retirees with formal disability ratings of less than 100% known as IU retirees - some as low as 60% - who are nevertheless considered fully disabled because their conditions make them unemployable have been left hanging.

Since October 2004, when Congress approved the most recent change in the so-called concurrent receipt rules, the Pentagon has been trying to decide whether these disabled retirees with non-combat, but service-connected, disabilities that keep them from working should get their full retirement pay, the same as other 100% disabled retirees. In December, defense officials told the White House's Office of Management and Budget in a letter that the Pentagon intended to pay the unemployable veterans unless the White House had objections. The language of the letter led the 15,000 fully disabled and unemployable retirees, plus many fraternal military organizations, to expect the money in their end-of-January checks. However, the order to begin their payments never went out.

In December and early January, officials working on the issue were optimistic that the unemployable retirees ultimately would receive the payments. Now, as a final decision has lagged, officials are less sure, and some believe there is as much of a chance of the IU retirees being paid as not being paid because if it were a sure thing, the pay order would already have gone out. If a decision is made to cover the IU retirees, they would be entitled to payments effective January 1, 1005, regardless of when the decision came down.

Meanwhile, there is no timetable for making that decision. Officials said there is some talk among policymakers about punting the entire issue back to Congress because it was a lack of clarity on this issue in the 2005 Defense Authorization Act that left open the question if IU retirees are to be covered. If Congress has to pass a new law clarifying coverage, that would likely delay payments.

 

 

7/1/2005:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7/21/2005:

 

 

 

 

Great Britain will shortly put on trial two soldiers for abusing prisoners in Iraq in a British military court. Her Majesty's government (HMG) refused to turn the two over to the International Court of Criminal Justice (ICCJ) in the Hague for trial, although Britain subscribes to the ICCJ's jurisdiction, and although HMG has charged the two with counts written from the ICCJ's vague and meaningless jurisdictional statute.

 

The Bush Administration refuses to officially recognize the jurisdiction of the ICCJ under the Treaty of Rome over U.S. officials or our military personnel. At the same time, as this Newstand pointed out in its 6/23/2004 story, the Bush Administration has made noises to the effect that under certain circumstances U.S. military personnel might be turned over to the ICCJ on war crimes charges.

 

Both HMG and the USG should end this diplomatic charade, and tell the ICCJ to shove it where the sun don't shine. No court, other than one of our own national peers, should judge us. No court using  vague definitions of a crime should judge us or any of our people, because the accused don't know what the exact nature of the crime is before they are accused of committing it. 

 

Maybe others they can charge;  maybe people from the hootchy-kootchy countries of jurisprudence.

 

But not us. Not our people. Not now. Not ever.

 

Bill Clinton, read our lips.

 

 

*********************************

 

11/10/2005:

 

 

 

 

On May 19, 2005, VA's Inspector General reported on an examination of the files of a sample of 2,100 randomly selected veterans with disability ratings for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  The IG cited insufficient documentation in the files and a dramatic increase in veterans filing for disability compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder since 1999.

"We have now just completed our own careful review of those 2,100 files cited in the IG's report,'' said James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.  "The problems with these files appear to be administrative in nature, such as missing documents, and not fraud."

"In the absence of evidence of fraud, we're not going to put our veterans through the anxiety of a widespread review of their disability claims,'' Nicholson said."Instead, we're going to improve our training for VA personnel who handle disability claims and toughen administrative oversight."

"Not all combat wounds are caused by bullets and shrapnel," Nicholson added. "We have a commitment to ensure veterans with PTSD receive compassionate, world-class health care and appropriate disability compensation determinations."

 

 

************************************

 

1/11/2006:

 

NEW VA DISABILITY BENEFITS

 

Paris Clements

VI Newstand VA Desk

 

Congress has passed and President Bush has signed Public Law 109-111, which provides a 4.1 percent cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) effective December 1, 2005, for disability compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, clothing allowance, pension, and certain other related benefits.

 

"This is the largest increase since 1991," said Senator Larry Craig, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. "For those veterans who are 100 percent disabled, their compensation will increase by approximately $1,100 for 2006, up from $27,588 to $28,716. I am hopeful that the increase will help with higher fuel and other costs which have gone up."

 

The COLA will be reflected in checks issued on or about January 1, 2006. Full VA benefits rate tables may be found at www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/Rates/. In addition, the following tables are provided for your use.

 

Compensation -Basic Rates

Dep Code	Dep Status	10%	20%	30%	40%	50%	60%	70%	80%	90%	100%
00	Veteran	$112	$218	$337	$485	$690	$873	$1,099	$1,277	$1,436	$2,393
10	V-S			377	539	757	954	1,193	1,385	1,557	2,528
11	V-S-1C			406	578	806	1,012	1,262	1,463	1,645	2,626
12	V-S-2C			426	605	840	1,052	1,309	1,517	1,706	2,694
13	V-S-3C			446	632	874	1,092	1,356	1,571	1,767	2,762
14	V-S-4C			466	659	908	1,132	1,403	1,625	1,828	2,830
Each additional child				20	27	34	40	47	54	61	68
Each additional schoolchild *				64	86	107	129	150	172	193	215
Additional for A/A spouse **				37	48	61	73	85	97	110	122

*To find the amount payable to a 70% disabled veteran with a spouse and 4 children, one of whom is over 18 and attending school, take the 70% rate for a veteran with a spouse and 3 children, $1,356, and add the rate for one school child, $150. The total amount payable is $1,506.

** Where the veteran has a spouse who is determined to require A/A , add the figure shown as "additional for A/A spouse" to the amount shown for the proper dependency code. For example, veteran has A/A spouse and 2 minor children and is 70% disabled. Add $85, additional for A/A spouse, to the rate for a 70% veteran with dependency code 12, $1,309. The total amount payable is $1,506.

 

 

Improved Disability Pension Rates

 

Maximum Annual Pension Rate (MAPR)

 

Category                              

 

Without spouse or child.................................................................................................... $10,579

With one dependent........................................................................................................... $13,855

Housebound without dependents .................................................................................. $12,929

A/A without dependents................................................................................................... $17,651

A/A with one dependent..............................................

............................................... $20,924

Two vets married to each other...................................................................................... $13,855

For each additional child add to any category above.................................................... $1,806

 

 

Dependency and Indemnity Compensation - Surviving Spouse

Veteran's death was on or after January 1, 1993

 

The basic monthly rate is $1,033. Add $221 if at the time of the veteran's death, the veteran was in receipt of or entitled to receive compensation for a service-connected disability rated totally disabling (including a rating based on individual unemployability) for a continuous period of at least 8 years immediately preceding death AND the surviving spouse was married to the veteran for those same 8 years. Add $257 if the surviving spouse is entitled to A/A. Add $122 if the surviving spouse is entitled to Housebound.

 

************************************

2/3/2006

 

 

 

We thought the following letter sent to the Association merited publishing in a special place on the Association's site. The Newstand staff took special note of the tone and demeanor reflected by the writer, a pacifist, compared to the rancor, threats and incivility heard from so many who are opposed to the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

AntoneGrieco@aol.com wrote:

Mr. President:       

    

Early this afternoon  (December 16, 2005)  I was walking around, waiting in the luggage claim area in the Sacramento, California airport, Terminal A, because my brother Andre's plane was late in arriving. 

    

Every time I came close to a soldier in uniform, I paused and waited until he looked at me, and then I saluted him, as my simple and silent way of honoring him.  If I saluted only briefly, he thanked me.  If I held my salute long enough, he always saluted back. 

    

The mother of a soldier now in Iraq saw me do that.  She later walked up to me and patted my arm and earnestly showed her sincere appreciation with a gentle voice.  I quoted the Scripture that states that greater love has no man than that he lay down his life for his friends  (John 15:13).  Then I started sobbing.  She became more compassionate.  After she left, I saluted the next few soldiers with tears running down my cheeks.  I'm pretty sure that they noticed.

    

I can't even write this without tears running down my cheeks.  Although I am mostly a pacifist at heart, I have become very sensitive to John 15:13.

    

Antone Grieco

Chico  CA  95926-3216

 

 

Mr Grieco's letter has been forwarded to the White House.

  

 

 

 

 

The US Air Force Academy has issued a new temporary regulation. Basically, here is what is says:(1) No chaplain at the Academy can preach anything wich is considered to be sectarian in nature; (2) No chaplain can preach his or her mind as to their faith if it might be perceived by anyone else as being offensive.

 

This regulation is ridiculous. It emasculates the Chaplaincy Corps, the entirety of the US Armed Forces Chaplaincy Corps, ipso facto.

 

This interim regulation is a violation of the constitutional freedom of speech rights, as well as the freedom of religion rights, of the Chaplaincy Corps at the USAF Academy.

 

It is a bad bureaucratic idea to be giving authority below DoD level to any agency of the DoD to make up what they think the Chaplaincy Corps should or should not be saying at their own facilities. That is too much a diversification of authority within the US military, simply as a matter of how our military bureaucracy, our DoD, should be structured. Period.

 

This regulation needs to be changed.

 

 

 

At least 8,000 members of the all-volunteer U.S. military have deserted since the Iraq war began, Pentagon records show, although the overall desertion rate has plunged since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

Desertion records are kept by fiscal year, so there are no figures from the beginning of the war in March 2003 until that fall.

Some lawyers who represent deserters say the war in Iraq is driving more soldiers to question their service and that the Pentagon is cracking down on deserters.

"The last thing they want is for people to think ... that this is like Vietnam," says Tod Ensign, head of Citizen Soldier, an anti-war group that offers legal aid to deserters.

Desertion numbers have dropped since 9/11. The Army, Navy and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in 2001, compared with 3,456 in 2005. The Marine Corps showed 1,603 Marines in desertion status in 2001. That had declined by 148 in 2005.

The desertion rate was much higher during the Vietnam era. The Army saw a high of 33,094 deserters in 1971 - 3.4% of the Army force. But there was a draft and the active-duty force was 2.7 million.

Desertions in 2005 represent 0.24% of the 1.4 million U.S. forces.

Opposition to the war prompts a small fraction of desertions, says Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins. "People always desert, and most do it because they don't adapt well to the military," she says. The vast majority of desertions happen inside the USA, Robbins says. There is only one known case of desertion in Iraq.

Most deserters return within months, without coercion. Commander Randy Lescault, spokesman for the Naval Personnel Command, says that between 2001 and 2005, 58% of Navy deserters walked back in. Of the rest, the most are apprehended during traffic stops. Penalties range from other-than-honorable discharges to death for desertion during wartime. Few are court-martialed.

 

5/1/2006:

 

 

 

THIS UPDATE CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS:

== Tricare User Fee [13] --------------------- (On hold till JAN 08)
== Social Security Reform ------------------- (Death benefit cut)
== VA Appointments [02[ -------------------- (Longer waiting times)
== VDBC [03] --------------------------------- (VA Comp + SSDI?)
== Funeral Disorderly Conduct [04] -------- (CA legislation)
== VA DNA Database ------------------------ (Begins FY 07)
== Tricare Uniform Formulary [11] -------- (More changes)
== NGB DOD Representation --------------- (H.R.5200/S.2658)
== TRDP [04] ------------------------------ (Dental premium increase)
== Tricare Computers Hacked --------------- (14000 files accessed)
== Cold War Medal --------------------------- (Proposed again)
== AAAFES Gas Pricing Policy ------------ (Not tax free)
== VA Alert on VAS ------------------------- (Copycat website)
== Consumer Health Digest ----------------- (Phony health care)
== COLA 2007 [01] -------------------------- (CPI up 1.3% to date )
== SSMAC Lodging New York ------------ (Inexpensive w/no frills)
== Tricare Obesity Treatment --------------- (Limited to 3 types)
== Virginia Tuition [01] --------------------- (Vet reduced rates)
== TMOP [04] -------------------------------- (Enrollment procedures)
== Jobs w/o College Degree Rqmt ---------  (20 top paying)
== Enlistment to Avoid Prosecution -------- (No longer allowed)
== DoD SMART Scholarships -------------- (How to apply)
== VA Cemeteries [01] ----------------------- (Burial eligibility)
== Military Legislation Status --------------- (Update)


TRICARE USER FEE UPDATE 13:  Two key personnel proposals in the White House’s fiscal
2007 defense budget plan were blocked by the House Armed Services subcommittee on 26
APR.  John McHugh (R-NY) the day before announced in advance that the military
personnel subcommittee he chairs would not approve a Bush administration proposal to
increase Tricare fees for military retirees under age 65 and their families who are
enrolled in Tricare Standard and Tricare Prime.  Every member of the panel voted
against this. Also, the Committee has recommended a 2.7% military raise vice the
2.2% the Bush budget proposal called for. McHugh said in a statement released by his
office, “Though DoD’s proposal was meant to be a cost-saving measure, it is the
wrong way to go about it”. It is unusual for a Committee member to talk in advance
about what will be included in the defense bill. However, the subcommittee’s strong
opposition was well known, so McHugh was not saying anything unexpected. The
proposed fee increases, he said, “sent a message to the many men and women who have
served our nation through their military service that we’re going back on a promise
that was made them. We … simply are not going to burden retirees with increased
costs at this time.”. Instead, the subcommittee’s version of the 2007 National
Defense Authorization Act (H.R.5122) calls for studies of military health care
costs. The studies (one by the Government Accountability Office, the bipartisan
investigative arm of Congress, and the other by the Defense Department) are to fully
account for health care funding and look at alternatives to fee increases.

     Whether the Senate will approve any part of the administration’s TRICARE fee
adjustments is still a little uncertain. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of
the Senate military personnel subcommittee, wants them delayed and an
independent review conducted of real TRICARE cost growth and the projected
cost-savings from the administration’s plan.  McHugh said what doomed that plan
in the House were both the timing and the details. Timing in the sense that the
nation is fighting a war and that some of those warriors who deployed to Iraq
and Afghanistan soon would be among the pool of Tricare beneficiaries targeted
by the higher fees. That bothered many lawmakers who also had great concern
over specifics of the plan. The increases were seen as too steep and too swift,
with Tricare Prime enrollment fees leaping 200% over two years for senior
enlisted retirees and 300% for retired officers. The projected cost-savings of
$11 billion by 2011 also was suspect. Most of it would come from assumed
behavior modification and not from added revenues from the higher fees. DoD was
betting that large numbers of beneficiaries working in second careers either
would stop using TRICARE or would decide not to shift into TRICARE from
employer-provided health plans. The Congressional Budget Office already had
lowered the administration’s estimate of $735 million in cost-savings for
fiscal 2007 if all fee hikes were adopted.

      Language approved by the subcommittee specifically would prohibit the Defense
Department from raising beneficiary cost-shares until 31 DEC 07 for Tricare
Prime (the managed care plan), Tricare Standard (the fee-for-service option)
and Tricare Reserve Select.  Congress will have to try to accommodate the loss
of those cost-savings in shaping the rest of the defense budget. Still alive,
McHugh suggested, are some aspects of the administration’s plan to change the
co-payment schedule for the TRICARE retail and mail-order pharmacy benefit.
The subcommittee liked the idea of ending a $3 co-payment on generic drugs
obtained by mail. McHugh was silent on the other proposed changes. Defense
officials also want to raise the co-pay in the retail network from $3 to $5
for generic drugs and from $9 up to $15 for brand name drugs. What the
subcommittee is recommending on this will be revealed at the full committee
mark up. The full armed services committee will hold its mark up of the bill
May 3 and additional amendments impacting military personnel will be voted on.

     The subcommittee also recommended some low or no-cost provisions in its version
of the 2007 defense authorization bill:
• A Cold War Victory Medal for people who spent at least 180 days on active duty
between 1945 and 1991.
• An order that the remains of military personnel who die in a combat zone be
transported by military aircraft and be met by a military honor guard that provides
full honors, rather than being shipped as freight on commercial airliners.
• A proposed pilot program in which the government would pay for some
over-the-counter drugs in addition to prescription drug coverage for military health
care beneficiaries.
• Add $100 million more for Army recruiting and retention bonuses; $59 million for
Air National
Guard bonuses; and raise the ceiling of special pay for Selected Reserve health care
professionals in critical wartime specialties from $10,000 to $25,000.
• Sustain the same 30,000 troop-level increase the Army was allowed for FY2006 and
add an extra 1,000 for the Marines above the 2006 level. Restore the full strength
of 350,000 for Army National Guard, vs. the 333,000 proposed in the Defense budget.
Reduce Navy manpower authorizations by 12,000 and Air Force strength by 23,000.
[Source: Times staff writer Rick Maze & Military.com Tom Philpott articles 25 & 26
Apr 06 ++] 


SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM: Proposals to trim Social Security benefits continue this
year.  President Bush's 2007 budget, among other reductions, calls for the
elimination of the $255 lump-sum Social Security death benefit.  Many people are not
even aware of the entitlement. The payment began in 1939 to assist families with
funeral expenses and the amount was last adjusted in 1952.  Today it hardly covers
the cost of flowers, let alone a funeral, but cutting the benefit would do little to
improve Social Security's finances. Despite the ongoing proposals for cuts, efforts
to provide a $5,000 lump-sum are resulting in the highest level of support in
Congress for Notch Reform in well over a decade.  The "Notch" refers to a benefit
disparity that occurred when Congress enacted changes to the Social Security benefit
formula in 1977.  In that legislation, Congress provided a transition benefit
formula to phase in the changes.  The transition formula affected seniors who first
became eligible to retire just two years after the legislation was enacted, but in
almost every case the transition benefit formula failed to provide any protection
from deep benefit cuts.  Transition plans historical have not been very protective
of beneficiaries.  A recent failed transition plan occurred this year.  On 1 JAN 06
about 6.2 million of the nation's poorest and sickest Medicare beneficiaries were
transferred from state Medicaid drug coverage and automatically assigned to Medicare
Part D drug plans.  Despite the government having a transition plan in place to
prevent disruptions in coverage, hundreds of thousands of seniors were overcharged
for their drugs, many were denied their prescriptions, and forced to leave their
pharmacies empty handed.  Congress and the Administration are still working on
correcting all the problems. 

     Representative Ralph Hall (D-TX) early last year re-introduced The Notch
Fairness Act (H.R. 615). The bill has 93 co-sponsors in Congress and the number
is growing rapidly.  This legislation would allow Notch Babies born from 1917
through 1926 their choice of a $5,000 lump-sum payable in four annual
installments or an improved monthly benefit.  The legislation would allow
eligible survivors of Notch Babies, persons who receive Social Security
benefits based on the account of a Notch Baby, to receive up to 100% of the
benefit payable to the deceased. In some cases, where the surviving spouse is
younger, or there is a disabled child, the higher monthly benefit might be
preferable because presumably it would be payable for a longer period of time.
In addition, the Notch Reform benefit would be split among eligible survivors,
for example, a widow and a former divorced spouse.  Under these circumstances
the higher monthly benefit may also yield more than the lump-sum.  But for most
Notch Babies or their survivors the lump-sum payment would most likely provide
a higher benefit. Most surviving children would not be eligible for Notch
Fairness Act benefits, but the issue should concern every single child of a
Notch Baby.  Recent Social Security reform proposals to attach a price index to
the Social Security benefit formula would cut benefits for future retirees in a
manner similar to the 1977 changes that led to the Notch.  In addition,
Congress thus far has taken no constructive non-partisan action to address
Social Security’s looming shortfall — meaning they may have to make very deep
and abrupt cuts when they can no longer stall for time.  Only last year the
Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker, warned Congress saying,
"Doing nothing, means that we are going to head to a precipitous decline in
benefits.  Remember the Notch Baby problem?  This would be a Notch Baby problem
magnified multiple times and it should not be allowed to happen." [Source: TSCL
Newsletter 25 Apr 06]


VA APPOINTMENTS UPDATE 02:   Waiting times for first time medical exams in VA are
continuing to lengthen. As of APR 05 there are 15,211 veterans waiting for their
first exams.  A year later the number has doubled to 30,475.  The number of veterans
waiting for their first exam is the highest since JUL 03 when there were 57, 609.
Also, as of APR 06 the number of disability cases waiting adjudication was 372,328
which is an increase over last year at this time when there were 344,916 cases. Of
these the number of cases with over 180 days wait time has grown to 95,529 compared
to last year when there were 74,491.  These figures are in conflict with Secretary
of Veterans Affairs R. James Nicholson comment in FRB 06 when he indicted that last
year, 97% of veterans who requested a primary care appointment got that appointment
within 30 days, and 95% of those who requested an acute care appointment got it
within 30 days.  An inspector general’s audit found real problems with the way the
VA had come up with those numbers.  The audit found that some VA staff, feeling
"pressured," actually fudged the numbers, and error rates were as high as 61%.

    Since 2004, the number of newly eligible people waiting for appointments has
increased by 400 percent. Rep. Michael Michaud [D-ME] ranking Democrat on the
veterans’ affairs committee’s health panel, said the situation is “simply
unacceptable,” especially because the Bush administration has opposed efforts in
Congress to increase the VA’s health care budget. The Secretary and the
Administration point out that they have almost doubled the V budget sine they
took over.  The administration did not ask for any emergency funding for the VA,
claiming that the 2006 budget was sufficient after it was boosted by Congress
last year when the VA admitted to funding shortfalls.  However, in spite of
funding increases, VA’s cost-cutting moves have locked more than a quarter
million veterans out of the system.  In January 06, the administration asked for
$38.5 billion for veterans’ health care programs for 2007, an amount Democrats
have said is $3.6 billion less than needed.

     The 31,000 veterans waiting for their first appointment are those with
service-connected injuries or who have little or no income. That figure would
be much higher if the Bush administration in 2003 had not barred new
enrollments in the VA health care system of veterans who have modest incomes
and no service-connected disabilities or medical problems.  Michaud said the
enrollment ban should be lifted. Considering White House budget office cuts in
the VA budget outlined for 2008 with additional reductions in the following two
years the future for veterans waiting for appointments does not look good. VA
will be severely handicapped in any attempt to improve veteran services in this
area unless they ask for and receive sufficient funds to meet the demands.
[Source: Rick Maze NavyTimes article 20 Apr 06 ++]


VDBC UPDATE 03: The Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission (VDBC) wants to study
if vets should get VA compensation and Social Security disability at the same time.
The commission’s Chair, General Terry Scott, has asked Congress for clarification of
the intent of Congress in the Charter that was given to the VDBC and has requested
that clarification for the next Commission public meeting 19 MAY 06. If approved he
intends to launch the study. It appears the VDBC is about evenly split on the idea
of studying the SSDI issue.  General Scott’s request has raised major concerns among
the veteran organizations.  Christopher J. Clay, General Counsel for the DAV, has
written to the four congressional committee Chairmen involved.  In part, Clay’s
letter states:  “…[General Scott’s] request, if honored…would violate one of the
fundamental principles which have guided the government of the United States for
more than 200 years.  That principle is the separation of powers…Congress exercises
the sole power to enact laws while the Judicial and Executive Branches have the
power to say what those laws mean…neither a committee of either the House or Senate
nor the full Congress may interpret a statute after it is enacted, without passing a
new law…The DAV is unaware of any precedent for the congressional interpretations
requested by the Commission Chairman.  If the Committee responds to the Chairman’s
inquiry, it will set a precedent that the courts are no longer the sole arbiters of
disputes over our laws.”

     Last fall the VDBC issued a list of questions they would study.  They asked for
veterans input but only allowed them a few days to respond. The questions
signaled the direction of the VDBC.  One question was:  “Does the disability
benefit provided affect a veteran’s incentive to work?” At the Commission’s
March 16-17 meeting some of its members maneuvered to authorize collecting data
about Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits paid to veterans who
also receive VA disability compensation. That was apparently done with a view
toward an offset [reduction] of disability insurance if the veteran receives
disability compensation from the VA.” A move to sidestep proper procedures and
hold a secret ballot on the matter was postponed, but the issue is expected to
resurface at the commission’s meeting in May.  The idea that disability
compensation is some kind of income security or welfare program cheapens the
service and sacrifice of disabled veterans. Veterans’ benefits are separate and
distinct from Social Security, so receiving payments under both programs is not
dual compensation for the same disability, as some have tried to argue.” That
kind of thinking might also open the door to cutting off VA compensation when a
disabled veteran becomes eligible for Social Security retirement benefits. If
so, it could lay the groundwork for cutting or eliminating veterans’ benefits
as a way of saving the government money.

     The (VDBC) was established by Public Law 108-136 and signed into being by
President Bush in NOV 03.  Its charter states they are to study “whether a
veteran’s disability or death should be compensated” and at what level if any.
The Commission is independent of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the
Department of Defense. It is made up of 13 political appointees.  Four were
appointed by Democratic Members of Congress, four more by Republican Members
and the other five by President Bush.  The Commission refers to themselves as
bipartisan in spite of it being a 9-4 politically-stacked deck in favor of the
present administration.  They can be contacted at
veterans@vetscommission.intranets.com or (202) 756-7729/0229 Fax or by writing
the Commission’s Executive Director at 1101 Pennsylvania Ave NW, 5th Floor,
Washington, DC 20004.  Its remaining schedule includes visits to St. Louis
(May), San Diego (June), Seattle (July), Boston (August), and Atlanta
(September). Interested veterans, retirees, survivors, and currently serving
members are encouraged to attend and be heard. Additional information on the
Disability Commission and upcoming field hearings can be found at:
www.vetscommission.org/index.htm. [Source: Vet Advocate Larry Scott article 24
Apr 06 http://vawatchdog.org/ ++]


MILITARY FUNERAL DISORDERLY CONDUCT UPDATE 04: AB 2707 Funerals: restrictions on
picketing has been introduced in the California legislature by Assemblyman Rick
Keene (R-Chico). This legislation makes it unlawful for a person to engage in
picketing at a funeral during the period beginning one hour prior to the funeral and
ending one hour after the conclusion of the funeral; provides for criminal penalties
up to $1000 in fines or six months in county jail; permits a court to provide
injunctive relief and award damages, including punitive damages.  “Picketing” is
defined as “protest activities” engaged in by any person within 300 feet of a
cemetery, mortuary, or church. “Protest activities” is defined to include oration or
speeches, using sound amplification targeted at funeral participants, displaying
placards, signs, or flags, or other similar material, or distributing handbills,
leaflets, or other written material, where such activity is not a part of the
planned funeral services. AB2707 has already been passed by the Assembly Committee
on Judiciary and will have another hearing by the Committee on Public Safety in late
April.  The bill was prompted by the activity of Rev. Fred Phelps, a Kansas pastor
who has used funerals, including most recently the funerals of American troops
killed in Iraq, to disseminate his anti-gay message and his belief that the United
States has been “taken over” by homosexuals. Similar laws have either been passed or
are under consideration in other states and at the federal level because of
activities that have been going on around the country during funeral services for
military personnel.  The bill is being opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union
and some labor groups. [Source: VFW California Veterans Affairs Legislative Update
23 Apr 06 ++]


VA DNA DATABASE:  Researchers at U.S. companies, nonprofit groups and government
agencies are scouring the human genome for links to common diseases, promising a day
when doctors will use a patient's genetic profile to take preventative action.
Military veterans soon will be asked to volunteer their DNA for that cause. The
Department of Veterans Affairs plans a genetic database from potentially millions of
VA patients, launching into profound legal, ethical and privacy debates to claim a
leading role in genetic medicine. The VA intends to collect the first 100,000
samples in fiscal 2007and foresees a database as large as veterans will allow. The
VA intends to establish rules for handling a person's genetic profile while using it
in research and to identify an individual's risk of diabetes, heart problems,
cancers and other conditions. VA officials and genetics experts said they hope the
effort will provide a handbook for private health care providers and corporate labs
to act responsibly in the race for genetic tests and services.

     The benefits could be enormous, but some experts say so could the risks.
Emerging technology makes it possible to reveal a person's strengths and
weaknesses, the likelihood of medical conditions, maybe alcoholic tendencies,
and reactions to specific drugs. Concerns are growing about ownership of
genetic samples, how they are obtained, and whether consent applies to
unforeseen uses years in the future. Watchdog groups worry about genetic
discrimination by insurance companies and employers. Many veterans already are
wary of Uncle Sam, remembering that their ranks have been exposed to chemical
agents on the battlefield and in secret human experiments. Because of this the
American Legion anticipates veterans will be reluctant to participate. VA
officials said samples would be taken only with permission. VA Secretary Jim
Nicholson has appointed a nine member panel, mostly of respected geneticists,
to hash out issues surrounding the project. The only representative of veterans
on te panel is the executive director of the Disabled American Veterans. Issues
to be decided but are not limited to are if a person is at genetic risk of
diabetes but has no symptoms, what course should doctors take? If a person has
a 1% chance of developing a severe cancer later in life, should he be told? Who
should have access to that information?

     The VA essentially acts as provider and insurer for 7.7 million people. It uses
one of the most sophisticated electronic patient record systems in the country
and has a research arm that has led advances in many fields. VA officials said
the first 100,000 samples are a preliminary step to learn about costs and
practical issues while the committee does its work. The panel has not yet met,
but Nicholson is touting it. VA officials said the department is compelled to
jump into this expanding field. Recently, researchers for the CDC reported they
identified genes responsible for chronic fatigue syndrome, a condition often
associated with soldiers from the first Gulf War who returned with
difficult-to-diagnose problems that the VA has studied for years.  Suddenly,
better diagnosis and treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome seem on the horizon.
Prenatal screening for genetic disorders is old news, and the number of
possible tests has grown to about 1,000, mostly for rare disorders. Now doctors
are hunting for genes and combinations of genes pointing to more common
problems. To be viable medical tool veterans, and the American public, need to
be convinced that being in a genetic database is safe and free of privacy and
discrimination issues. [Source: The Ledger Online News Washington Bureau 23 Apr
06  www.theledger.com]


TRICARE UNIFORM FORMULARY UPDATE 11:  Dr. William Winkenwerder Jr., director,
TRICARE Management Activity, made the decision to place additional medications on
the TRICARE Uniform Formulary and to designate others as nonformulary (or third
tier) on 26 APR 06. The following is a list of these medications, their status as
formulary (tier-one generics or tier-two brand name) or third tier and (if
applicable) the date the decision will be implemented.

Overactive Bladder Agents
Detrol®  3 July 26, 2006
Detrol LA®  2
Ditropan XL®  2
Enablex®  2
Oxytrol®  3 July 26, 2006
Oxybutin generic only  1
Sanctura®  3 July 26, 2006
Vesicare®  2

Miscellaneous Antihypertensive Agents
Catapres TTS®  2 
Clonidine/chlorthalidone generic only  1 
Clonidine generic only  1 
Guanabenz generic only  1 
Guanadrel generic only  1 
Guanethidine generic only  1 
Guanfacine generic only  1 
Hydralazine generic only  1 
Hydralazine/HCTZ generic only  1 
Inversine®  2 
Lexxel®  3  July 26, 2006
Lotrel®  2 
Methyldopa generic only  1 
Metyrosine generic only  1 
Minizide®  2 
Minoxidil generic only  1 
Prazosin generic only  1 
Reserpine generic only  1 
Tarka®  3 July 26, 2006

Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-Analog Agents
Gabapentin generic only  1 
Gabitril®  2 
Lyrica®  3 June 28, 2006

Medications on the first tier (formulary generics) are available through TRRx for $3
for up to a 30-day supply and through TMOP for $3 for up to a 90-day supply.
Medications on the second tier (formulary brand name) may be purchased for the same
number of days for $9. Medications on the third tier (nonformulary) require a $22
copayment in both venues. Beneficiary copayments are higher at non-network retail
pharmacies. Beneficiaries currently on third-tier medications may wish to consult
their health care providers about changing to a first- or second-tier alternative.
They may also ask their provider if establishing medical necessity for the
third-tier medication is appropriate for them. If medical necessity for a third-tier
medication can be established, copayments revert to $9. Third-tier medications will
not be available at military treatment facility (MTF) pharmacies unless medical
necessity has been established and the prescription is written by an MTF provider.
Not all tier-one and tier-two drugs are available at MTF pharmacies. For a list of
medications, their formulary status and where they are available, interested parties
may go to www.tricareformularysearch.org/dod/medicationcenter/default.aspx. Medical
necessity forms and criteria are available at
www.tricare.osd.mil/pharmacy/medical-nonformulary.cfm. Additional information on
both TRRx and TMOP and the location of the nearest TRICARE retail pharmacy may be
accessed at www.express-scripts.com/TRICARE or by calling 866-363-8667 for TMOP or
866-363-8779 for TRRx.  [Source: TMA News Release( #6) 26 Apr 06]


NGB DOD REPRESENTATION:  On 26 APR 06 Rep. Tom Davis (R -VA) introduced the National
Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 (H.R.5200) to the U.
S. House of Representatives This is the House version of the original Bill
introduced by Senator’s Bond and Leahy (S. 2658). To help ensure that the National
Guard is properly represented at the highest levels of the DoD and provided with the
appropriate representation, manpower, training and equipment for future missions
both home and abroad, the National H.R.5200 will:
-        Establish the National Guard Bureau (NGB) as a joint activity of the DoD.
-         Elevate the Chief of the National Guard Bureau billet from Lieutenant General to
General (4 Star).
-        Task the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to serve as an advisor to the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
-         Provide a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau.
-        Require that the Deputy Commander of NORTHCOM be a National Guard officer, and
much more.

On 2 MAY 06 the House Armed Services Committee will conduct a full mark-up of the
FY07 National Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 5122). During this session, HR 5200
will be offered as an amendment to that bill. Both the National Guard Association of
the United States (NGAUS) and the Adjutants General Association of the United States
(AGAUS) support this legislation. Pre formatted letters to assist this effort can be
found on the NGAUS web page www.ngaus.org Write to Congress feature.  [Source: NGAUS
Leg Alert 27 Apr 06]


TRDP UPDATE 04:  Some military retirees will see a slight reduction in their monthly
net pay beginning on1 MAY due to an increase in the Tricare Retiree Dental Program
(TRDP) premium. The new rates began on 1 APR and will remain in effect until 31 MAR
07.  Retirees who have an allotment deduction to pay premiums have received, or will
receive, a Retiree Account Statement (RAS) reflecting the increase in the allotment
amount both in the “New Pay” line on the front of the form and in the detailed
information of the Allotments and Bonds section on the reverse side.  Retirees who
are current myPay users are able to view and request this RAS.  Premiums for the
TRDP were established for each year of the contract with the Department of Defense
at the time it was awarded in order to allow for projected changes in the cost of
dental care. The first annual premium rate change took effect on 1 MAY 04 for the
contract year ` MAY 04 through 30 APR 05. The next change was effective 1 MAY 05
through 30 APR 06, the end of the current contract year. The premium rates for TRDP
are based on each retiree’s ZIP code and type of coverage. Premiums may also
increase or decrease if TRDP enrollees move or change their enrollment options. More
information is available for TRDP enrollees by calling toll free at 1(888) 838-8737
or via the TRDP Web site at  www.trdp.org.  The new rates, by region, can be found
on the web site by entering your zip code.  [Source: Air Force Retiree News 26 Apr
06 ++]


TRICARE COMPUTERS HACKED: Pentagon officials on 28 APR said Computer hackers
obtained Social Security numbers, credit card information and other personal data
for thousands of active and retired service members after hacking into the Defense
Department’s Tricare Management Activity system in early April. The personal
information of more than 14,000 active and retired service members and dependents
has fallen into the wrong hands. Along with Social Security numbers, hackers tapped
into records that included names, partial credit card numbers and some private
employer information and personal health information, said Air Force Maj. Michael
Shavers, a Pentagon spokesman. Routine monitoring of the Tricare Management
Activity’s public servers on April 5 resulted in the discovery of an intrusion and
that the personal records had been compromised, leaving open the possibility of
identity theft among the members affected. The information contained in the files
varied and investigators do not know what, if any, criminal intent the perpetrators
had, or if the information would be misused. Defense Criminal Investigative Service
has begun an investigation.  In the interim enhanced security controls throughout
the network have been implemented and additional monitoring tools installed to
improve security of existing networks and data files.  TMA sent letters to the
affected individuals earlier this month telling them what happened in April and
information to assist them in understanding the potential risks and precautions they
can take to protect their identities. [Source:  NavyTimes Gordon Lubold article 28
Apr 06]


COLD WAR MEDAL:   Congress approved a Cold War Medal in its 2002 National Defense
Authorization Bill (NDAA) but left final authorization up to Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld. DoD said in late January 2002 that the medal would not be
authorized. The House version of last year's fiscal 2006 NDAA contained provisions
for a Cold War medal, but a joint conference committee struck it out. This year the
idea has resurfaced.  Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ)
have introduced S.1361 and H.R.2568 respectively that would direct the Defense
Department to issue such a medal. Service members and DoD civilians who served
honorably at any time between Sept. 2, 1945, through Dec. 26, 1991 would be
eligible. The chairman of the Cold War Veterans Association estimated that 20
million Americans served during the Cold War.  According to the association, 357
U.S. soldiers lost their lives in action during the Cold War. Others were injured,
or kept as prisoners of war. The numbers may pale in comparison to other wars, yet
this was a time of highly tense and very secretive missions, when soldiers were told
to hold their fire, but be ready to return fire if ordered.  The proposed
legislation would face stiff opposition from DoD because of funding concerns and
because a Cold War medal could reduce the prestige accorded other medals awarded
during the same era. As a substitute, Public Law 105-85 authorized a Cold War
Recognition Certificate for Cold War participants.  [Source: Armed Forces News 28
Apr 06 ++]


AAAFES GAS PRICING POLICY:  In the continental United States, officials of Army &
Air Force Exchange Service (AAAFES) gas stations conduct surveys of five or more
local locations selling motor fuel, excluding members only clubs, at least once a
week. This process allows AAFES to establish a fair and competitive price equal to
the lowest price surveyed for each grade of fuel sold. The gas is not tax free
because the Hayden Cartwright Act requires AAFES to pay all applicable taxes on
gasoline. Gas pricing can also rapidly change with oil supply and disruptions
stemming from world events or domestic problems such as refinery or pipeline
outages, world markets speculation, and political/economic factors.  [Source: Armed
Forces News 28 Apr 06]


VA ALERT ON VAS:  the Veterans Administration has put out a warning regarding
involvement with an organization calling itself Veterans Affairs Services (VSA).
This organization is gathering personal information on veterans under a VA services
look alike website www.vaservices.org.  This organization is not affiliated with the
VA in any way and in reality is a private company based in California.  It describes
itself as a nonprofit veteran’s service organization but they are actually
affiliated with the Military Financial Planning association.  They may be gaining
access to military personnel through their close resemblance to the VA name and
seal.  VA’s legal counsel has requested installations be informed of this
organization’s activities and their lack of affiliation or endorsement by VA to
provide any services.  In addition, anyone having examples of VAS acts such as VAS
employees assisting veterans in the preparation and presentation of claims for
benefits, is requested to pass these on to Michael.Daugherty2@va.gov, (202)
273-8636.  Mr. Daugherty is a Staff Attorney with the Department of Veterans Affairs
in Washington D.C.  I am attaching an info paper describing the company and their
websites.  [Source: USDR msg 24 Apr 06]


CONSUMER HEALTH DIGEST: Consumer health encompasses all aspects of the marketplace
related to the purchase of health products and services. Positively, it involves the
facts and understanding that enable people to make wise choices. Negatively, it
means avoiding unwise decisions based on deception, misinformation, or other
factors. The following is a list of websites that can assist in making your health
care decisions:

http://www.quackwatch.org (Health fraud and quackery)
http://www.acuwatch.org (Acupuncture)
http://www.autism-watch.org (Guide to autism)
http://www.cancertreatmentwatch.org (Cancer)
http://www.casewatch.org (Legal archive)
http://www.chelationwatch.org (Chelation therapy)
http://www.chirobase.org (Guide to chiropractic)
http://www.credentialwatch.org (Credentials)
http://www.dentalwatch.org (uide to dental care)
http://www.devicewatch.org (Questionable medical devices)
http://www.dietscam.org (Weight-control schemes and ripoffs)
http://www.homeowatch.org (Guide to homeopathy)
http://www.ihealthpilot.org (Guide to reliable information))
http://www.infomercialwatch.org (Guide to infomercials)
http://www.mentalhealthwatch.org (Dubious theories and methods)
http://www.mlmwatch.org (Multi-level marketing)
http://www.naturowatch.org (Naturopathy)
http://www.nccamwatch.org (Alternative medicine)
http://www.nutriwatch.org (Nutrition facts and fallacies)
http://www.pharmwatch.org (Drug marketplace and lower prices)
http://www.ncahf.org (National Council Against Health Fraud)
http://www.chsourcebook.com (Consumer health sourcebook)
http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/chd.html (Consumer Health Digest)
[Source: Consumer Health Digest 25 Apr 06]


COLA 2007 UPDATE 01:. In mid-April, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the MAR
06 monthly Consumer Price Index (CPI), which is used to calculate the annual
cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for military retired pay, VA disability
compensation, survivor annuities, and Social Security. The CPI continued its upward
trend and rose 0.6% from February for a total of 1.3% growth so far this fiscal
year. The bulk of the latest change is due to energy price increases. The 1.3%
figure for March is about one-third slower than last year’s pace of inflation. At
this point last year (when we ended up with a 4.1% COLA), the CPI had risen 1.9%.
[Source: MOAA Leg Up21 Apr 06]


SSMAC LODGING NEW YORK:  If visiting New York City check out the Soldiers',
Sailors', Marines & Airmens' Club at 283 Lexington Ave. & 37th St.  This mid-town
Manhattan facility is close to the theater district, Empire State Bldg., United
Nations, and Fifth Ave. The Club provides convenient, affordable accommodations to
Active Duty, Retired, Reserve/National Guard and honorably discharged veterans of
the U.S. Armed Forces and its Allies. Also welcome are Service Academy & ROTC
Cadets/Midshipmen, Merchant Seamen, Widows & Widowers, Dependants and Sponsored
Guests of eligible individuals.  The historic facility which is close to the Theater
District, the Empire State Building, Radio City Music Hall and affordable
restaurants.  Rates are E1-E4 $25, E5 & above $37, WO/O1-O3/Retirees $47, O-4 and
above $52, and children 3-14 $10 a night per person. 

     The SSMAC rents beds, not rooms. There are 21rooms with 2 Beds to accommodate
couples or guests booking as a party of two; 6 rooms with 3 beds each; 1 room
with 4 beds and 1 room with 6 beds to accommodate families or groups. Cribs and
additional beds are not available for use in rooms. Guests checking in alone
may have to be booked into rooms with other guests of the same gender. There
are separate communal bathrooms and showers for men and women.  The Club
consists of five floors without elevator, as it was originally a private
brownstone.  No meals are served and there is no room, bell or personal laundry
service. Nearby restaurants provide quick delivery of take-out orders.
Self-service laundries are nearby. Rooms do not have TV’s or telephones, but
there is a pay phone in the building, a library with two Internet stations,
several large event rooms, a television room and a dining room with a microwave
oven and toaster grill. Children age 3 and under stay free when occupying a bed
with a parent.

     Originally dubbed the Servicemen's Club, it was founded in 1919 to accommodate
servicemen returning from overseas duty in World War I.  This nonprofit
organization receives no financial support from federal, state or local
government. Due to the club's commitment to keep costs low for its patrons
while bearing the burden of ever-increasing operating costs amounting to an
annual deficit of nearly $250,000.  This is met by donations from people and
organizations who willing to support their operations. Tax-deductible donations
can be sent to Executive Director, Soldiers', Sailors', Marines' and Airmen's
Club or SSMAC, 283 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10016-3540. To date the club
has hosted more than 2.5 million guests.  Additional information on the club is
available at info@ssmaclub.org or http://www.ssmaclub.org/.  Reservations can
be made at 1(800) 678-8443. Reservations for weekends should be made at least a
month in advance. 

     The USO of Metropolitan New York's General Douglas MacArthur Memorial Center is
a 10 minute walk from the club. They are located in The Port Authority Bus
Terminal, 625 Eighth Avenue, North Wing, Second Level (Between 41st and 42nd
Streets), New York, NY 10018  Tel: (212) 695-6160. Here you can obtain maps,
brochures and information on attractions, places of interest and local color in
the Greater New York City area. They can also offer you discounts on Broadway
Tickets, Off-Broadway Theaters, Hotel Reservations, Sightseeing Bus Tours,
Sightseeing Boat Tours, and Club Admissions. Show tickets are distributed at
5:30 PM on the day of performance. Tickets for professional and collegiate
athletic and sporting events are frequently available on the day of the event.
Uniform requirements and guest privileges are subject to individual management
policies. Movie Theater Discounts are available for Loews Cineplex. Many hotels
in the New York City area offer a special USO discount rate for military
personnel and their families. Service personnel can make their hotel
reservations in person, by phone, fax or through the mail. Ask about special
rates for children.  Additional information is available at usonyc16@aol.com or
www.usony.org/enjoyingny.shtml.  [Source: Air Force Retiree News Service 10 Apr
06 ++]


TRICARE OBESITY TREATMENT:  Tricare Standard coverage is limited to three types of
surgical treatment for obesity.  These are gastric bypass, gastric stapling, and
gastroplasty, including vertical banding gastroplasty, when one of the following
conditions are met:

1.        A patient is 100 pounds or more over the ideal weight for height and boy
structure, and has one of the  associated medical condition of  diabetes mellitus,
hypertension, cholecystitis, narcolepsy, Pickwickian syndrome (and other sever
respiratory diseases), hypothalamin disorders, and severe arthritis of the weight
bearing joints.
2.        A patient is 200 pounds or more of the ideal weight for height and body
structure.  Am associated medical condition is not required for this category.
3.        A patient has complications from a non-covered surgical treatment for obesity,
such as intestinal bypass, and needs one of the three surgical procedures that are
covered.

Tricare Standard does not cover any other services, medications, or supplies related
to obesity or weight reduction.  Non-surgical treatment of morbid obesity, such as
wiring the jaws, camps for obesity treatment, or special diets are not covered.
[Source: Tricare Handbook Apr 06]


VIRGINIA TUITION UPDATE 01:  Starting 1 JUL 06 all dependents of military service
members stationed in Virginia are eligible for in-state college tuition rates, a
move that should save military families thousands of dollars in higher education
costs. According to the text of the bill signed 6 APR by Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine,
dependents of military members permanently stationed at any of the number of
military bases in the state will be considered residents of Virginia for the purpose
of eligibility for in-state tuition rates. Previously, a military member had to
establish official residency at least a year prior to enrollment for a family member
to be eligible for in-state tuition at a state-supported university in Virginia. No
member or dependent will be required to change their official residency to Virginia
from another state to receive in-state tuition rates, as long as the student remains
enrolled in school. The in-state tuition rates remain even if