It Ain’t the Pentagon, It is Congress

Just out of curiosity: When was that law passed? Which PRESIDENT signed it into law? And in WHOSE military budget was that buried? I’ll go look too.

Your point is well taken, Larry. It is the duty of the administration to implement or enforce laws enacted by Congress, even an administration that routinely ignores, disregards or fails to enforce such laws. And, it is clearly the Congress which must address this fundamental flaw in the law.

Clearly, there may be—under the existing statute—an opportunity for the Secretary of Defense to offer redress pending any modification of the current statute, as provided by the clause indicating that ‘unearned’ payments be returned by a service member “… except in certain circumstances authorized by the Secretary concerned.” One would hope that such consideration could be offered by Secretary Gates under these and similar circumstances.

The fundamental unfairness is that a service member, injured, incapacitated or disabled in combat should have to repay any promised enlistment bonus when all conditions except continued service—as determined by the branch which for which the member serves—are met. In my mind, even death should not result in the return of any unearned portion of a bonus, nor should a bonus be discounted as a result of death, particularly when deployed to a combat theater.

Amen. Eloquently written.

I’m confused. It says right here:

(2) The Secretary concerned may establish, by regulations, procedures for determining the amount of the repayment required under this subsection and the circumstances under which an exception to the required repayment may be granted.

This would seem to imply that the SecDef or one of his functionaries can say that being medically discharged for war-related injuries is such an exception.

What am I missing?

Preparedness is near low levels.

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk – a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China’s fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was “as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik” – a reference to the Soviet Union’s first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=492804&in_page_id=1811

The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.

And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.

According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.

Tactically and strategically there are major shortcomings:

In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.

Another story reiterates the sabre rattling involved:

While China insists that the incident was a simple coincidence, others are not so sure about that. The run-in led to some intense diplomatic exchanges, with rattled American diplomats demanding to know why Chinese subs were shadowing the U.S. fleet.

Analysts believe that China was sending a message to the United States and the West by demonstrating their rapidly growing military capability to threaten foreign powers that might try to interfere in their own “backyard.”

As a citizen of the United States, it may leave you wondering if we are really as safe as we think we are.

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/3540

Hey, we changed the rules so we could win a simulated battle between Iran and our navy.

Will China give us a reset on Rumsfailed’s wargames?

Will Shrubya have to give up his wii controller and stop his Play Station conquest before the daily bike ride and morning golf?

Can someone translate the information to a language dubya can ‘unnerstand’?

Please make certain it is not in Russian or Russian policy expert Condi Rice will have to hire an interpreter.

I hear Fred Thompson is keeping a close eye on those Soviets, maybe he can explain it to her with his depth of insight to current history.

We have to lose the war games over there, or we have to lose to lose the war games over here. Now watch this drive.

Keeping people via stop loss has leveraged many a decision. Now that people are signing up due that, the actual money is posthumously denied?

Docking people for pay retroactively, down to the day of death, is something a person should lose much rank over. How dare the government send such notice to dependents and family?

Larry,
Well done. You’ve always been a staunch advocate for vets and for those serving. On this Thanksgiving, I have so much to be grateful for.
Those that have given so much and ask so little deserve better.
Brandon has got you up at http://vetvoice.com/ – the new blog for Vote Vets where he hosts.

I think we’ll need a military attorney to sort this one out.

(a) enforces the enlistment contract, by requiring repayment if the terms of the contract are not met

(b) establishes a mechanism for exeptions to be determined by the secretary, by specifying them in regulations

-c- prevents title 11 bankruptcy from being used as an exeption on it’s own account

It seems as though the authors of the law intended the secretary as the one most qualified to determine the exeptions, except for bankruptcy. The logic is that all other exeptions are best defined by the secretary’s presumed knowledge and expertise.

So has any secretary specified any exeptions in any regulations?

Any military attorneys out there?

Wounded soldier won’t lose enlistment bonus
Army admits error over repayment with discharged Mt. Lebanon man
Thursday, November 22, 2007
By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A 21-year-old former Army private from Mt. Lebanon no longer has to repay nearly $3,000 from his sign-up bonus, despite receiving injuries in Iraq that forced him to leave the military before his enlistment period had ended.

The Army announced yesterday that the repayment request had been a mistake. Officials are conducting a review to see if any other injured soldiers had been told to give back their sign-up bonuses.

It caps a heady week for Jordan Fox, who emerged in the national spotlight after KDKA-TV aired a report Monday detailing his case. Since then, he’s appeared on Fox News, MSNBC and several national radio shows.

“It’s been a little overwhelming,” Mr. Fox said. “I didn’t expect it to go this fast.”

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., yesterday said she would introduce legislation to ensure that the military abides by its pledge. U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire, D-McCandless, has already introduced a similar bill in the House.

In May, a roadside bomb struck Mr. Fox’s Bradley fighting vehicle as he patrolled in Baquba, Iraq. It partially blinded him in his right eye and injured his back.

He returned to the United States two months later and received a discharge from the Army.

In late October, the military sent him a letter requesting that he repay $2,800 of his $7,500 enlistment bonus because he had only completed about a year of his three-year service period. A week later, he received a second letter, warning that he would face interest charges if he didn’t make a payment within 30 days.

“I was just completely shocked,” Mr. Fox said. “I couldn’t believe I’d gotten a bill in the mail from the Army.”

His father suggested that they contact the news media. Military officials moved quickly when the news became public.

“It was clearly a snafu and shouldn’t have happened,” said Lt. Col. Bob Tallman, an Army spokesman. “The Army is going to go back and look at all cases where soldiers were made to repay bonuses.”

cont’d
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07326/835970-84.stm

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07296/827606-84.stm

While Congress could have made the exceptions in the law, the Secretary of Defense appears to be authorized by Congress’s law to make the execptions without the burden of arguing with Congress.

Given that, it also seems like it would be in the military’s own best interest to encourage the secretary to make exceptions. In order to best sustain a volunteer military without a draft, wouldn’t the promise of benefits be at least as effective as all the money spent on enlistment advertising?

It looks like there’s plenty of blame to go around for many in the lack of compassion department.

It’s a pretty savage burn, requiring someone to pay back an enlistment bonus because they got shot down in combat or something, and managed to survive with crippling injuries.

Of course, it is hardly a priority to the Congress to actually DO SOMETHING about this disastrous war and all that comes with it, including terribly wounded veterans paying the government for the privilege of having been shot and bombed out of duty.

I really have come to despise the US government. It’s a non-partisan loathing, too; Democrat, Republican, whatever, you suck.

Which president signed this thing? And which Democrats today ignore it? Which Democratic presidential candidates have so much as mentioned this issue? They’re all too busy climbing over one another to get in front of the cameras and declare that they “can’t commit” to have the military home before 2013. Such “leadership” has become a bi-partisan reality in the high and mighty places in the US government and the entire American political class is to blame for the ongoing disaster in the Middle East. Democrat, Republican, whatever – if it is an American politician you can tell when it is lying (its lips are moving) and you know the last thing it cares about is a situation like wounded veterans paying back enlistment bonuses because the limbs necessary to carry the rifle into combat got blown or burned off in a bombing.

*I* know how to resolve this situation: acknowledge that the US should never have invaded Iraq, get the military the hell out of there, and begin paying reparations to Iraq and probably Iraq’s neighbors, too. For example, Syria has millions of Iraqi refugees it is suddenly trying to cope with and the US should be paying Syria for this favor, coping with the flood of refugees we created. *I* know how to solve the problem, its easy. Admit you were wrong, remove the troops, work with the governments of the region whether you like them or not to manage the security of the collapsing former state referred to as “Iraq”.

Maybe in 2 or 3 more generations, the US will have recovered enough respect and credibility in the eyes of the world and a lot of its own people to begin playing hardball in foreign affairs again, but until then, we need to be another Germany, a permanently apologetic nation attempting to live down our own history.

news flash to internet chatterers: its not just the Evil George Bush you have to be angry at. the Evil Democrats are just as god damned bad. They’ve had the Congress for 2 years now and all they have done is rubber stamp what the Evil George Bush has wanted while offering up “presidential” “candidates” trotting out the same old sorry Washington DC song and dance. the national government is completely dominated by the same special interests, elite operators, and big wealth that it has been for a long time, the same powers that started the Iraq war operate both “parties” like little marionettes dangling on the ends of strings. you have to be angry at the entire reality, not just angry at the other partisan faction, if you ever want a hope for a change or even a clean break from this dismal status quo.

Sometimes a few mouseclicks can do alot.
If you consider yourself an advocate for veterans Here’s a link.

http://www.iava.org/temporary

Sadly, the Widow’s Tax amendment was removed in 2006 by the GOP leadership. It will be coming up again. Here’s an Op/Ed from the NYT.

Left Behind
By DAN SHEA
Seattle

MY brother Lt. Col. Kevin Shea was killed by a rocket attack in Falluja on Sept. 14, 2004. He knew the risks when he joined the Marine Corps in 1989. But he also thought that if anything ever happened to him, the United States government would take care of his wife, Amy, and his two children. Sadly, that’s not the case.

Since Kevin died, Amy has had to deal with not only the grief of losing her husband and her best friend, but also with the difficulties of financially coping with life without him. Like most military spouses, during her time with Kevin, Amy endured multiple moves across the country and long deployments that forced her to put her career on hold. There are federal programs to assist her, but she and other widows of service members have found that these programs do not provide nearly enough.

You see, basically, a widow of a service member killed in the line of duty has two programs (excluding Social Security) to rely on for financial help. The first is a survivors’ plan paid by the Department of Defense, which is about 41 percent of the deceased person’s monthly salary before taxes. The second program is a dependent’s compensation paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs that is $1,033 a month tax free, plus a modest sum added for every dependent child.

Sounds fair, right? But here’s the problem: under the current law, the payment from the Defense Department to a surviving spouse is reduced dollar for dollar by the Veterans Administration’s payment. So while you would think my sister-in-law, as the wife of a lieutenant colonel whose basic monthly salary is $4,431.60, would receive about $2,850 a month (41 percent of $4,431.60, or $1,817, plus $1,033), in fact, all she’s getting is $1,817, that is, $784 from the Pentagon and $1033 from Veterans Affairs. Moreover, if Amy, who is 41 years old, remarries before the age of 55, she gets nothing.

The wife of a low-ranking enlisted soldier, say, a Marine lance corporal, is even worse off. All she gets is the dependent’s payment of $1,033, because there is nothing left of her husband’s salary after this so-called widow’s tax takes its bite.

We all know it’s not about the money, but come on, how can you survive on that in this economy?

This past Veterans Day, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to endorse an amendment proposed by Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, to the defense authorization bill that would have eliminated the widow’s tax. The bill then went into conference, where House and Senate members worked out various differences before a final vote by Congress. During that time, the amendment was removed. One can only assume that certain members of the Senate had no intention of backing the amendment but were reluctant to appear unsupportive of our troops on Veterans Day, of all days.

If President Bush really wants to honor the men and women fighting this war — and dying like my brother — then he should call on Congress to eliminate the widow’s tax. It’s the least he can do.

Dan Shea is a lawyer for an insurance company.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/13/opinion/13shea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Seconded.

Larry, the law you’ve quoted refutes your contention that this is the congress’ fault. It grants the SecDef explicit permission to grant full bonus payment as determined by circumstances– and the circumstances speak for themselves– and the fact that the law does not cover the event of a souless bastard in the office does not make it bad law.

Law by its nature grants many people discretion in the adminstration of that law, and there is no way to write a law that can’t be fucked by bad actors.

There is a remedy, however, and it is simple.

Let one reporter, and any one will do, posit the following question to the President of the United States:

“Mr President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, how can you bear to stand idly by while this law is subverted to deprive your charges, the men and women who serve this country and have been wounded in battle on its behalf, of what has been promised to them, which they and their families now need more than ever?”

i find it funny that people who FINALLY realized ( after 6 years of fucking up everything) that bush is an awful president are the same republicans who touted his moral superiority and steadfastness and laughed at John Kerry’s Purple Heart with their silly purple heart bandaids at the republican convention. they ALONE re-elected this moron. Good deflection, but it Doesn’t flush..

Now their default talking point mantra is:
there i no difference between Bush and anyone who ran against him. oh pleaaase!!!!!!I beg to differ….Kerry or Gore would have not been NEARLY as disastrous. for God’s sake,POTUS plant would have done a better job!!!

While i agree there doesn’t seem to be a difference between evil Dems and evil republicans in congress, letting Bush off the hook isn’t a option.

he deserves to be in prison with his whole cast of numb-nuts or we deserve the government we have sewn.

Despite purported US “shock” about a carrier group being caught with its security pants down, an event several orders of magnitude greater than Bill Clinton’s error, this isn’t the first time. Same thing happened in 2006:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/14/world/main2179694.shtml

with–guess who??–Admiral Fallon, currently commanding in the Mid East– at the fleet helm. That was nervously laughed off at the time by military tech heads whose sublime arrogance runs on unchecked. But it is no mistake when a sub surfaces in the middle of a group, and it does illustrate a grave vulnerability that, to our detriment, we do not acknowledge. If the US does it, it’s gunboat diplomacy. If somebody else does it, its a mistake, or inadvertant, or anything except intentional.

The same is true for the virtually un-reported importance of the Chinese satellite shootdown. China is talking directly to Americans because George won’t pay attention, and Americans are busy listening to their IPods. China isn’t alone in its ability to build quiet subs, but any insinuation in the open press that US equipment and personnel have any worldly equals dies at birth. Arrogance is an ultimately fatal disorder, particularly when the US President believes himself infallible and has a gambling addiction. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Of course, the administration, bright boys all, will never let it come to this, by quickly and quietly rolling a head or two at the Pentagon.

“Clerical error” and “bureaucratic mixup” thus duly noted, and basking in the warm glow of it all, they’ll roll on to other more horrible crimes.

Bastards.

Yep, what is going on is discretionary. Yes, the Congress said that they could recoup their “losses”, not that they have to. So yes, it goes back to being on the Pentagon.

NOt sure about this but I think it had to become law after Vietnam, for I have never heard any vets from that era discuss this with me, ever!

I would like to wish everyone here a happy thanksgiving..

Susan,

I agree with your questions 100%. Those questions must absolutely be adddressed.

This statment in the law was, to me, very telling:

except in certain circumstances authorized by the Secretary concerned.

Seems like delegation by Congress whether they knew it or not.

Larry also does have a point. According to our Constitution it is Congresses specified responsibllity to actually write the laws. Over the last 7 or perhaps more years, somehow everone BUT Congress is writing the laws, and I seriously have to wonder if Congress even READS them. That is wrong and must change.

Otherwise, why do we the people, through our taxes, even pay for Congress to have Legislative aides and Assistants?

Larry, I’ve read your piece on Tater’s advice

Though I agree that most troops would feel they have received a pretty rum deal, I am sure that piece of legislation was available to them upon signing up and accepting the bonus structure.

It is, as with legislation, a wishy-washy document that heavily relies on interpretation. Though I am sure they is an interpretations glossary that I haven’t seen, “subject to the condition that the member continue to satisfy certain eligibility requirements” seems to imply that if we decide you are not going to get the bonuses, we will concoct a determination that classes your efforts short of “eligibility requirements”.

I, personally, am not a fan of war and troops, so I find any reason to deter those intent on signing up a good positive thing. If every battle was a Camelot, I would have no problem with an invidual’s career decision. But as the present topology brings the far greater reakoning in the form of colateral damage. Mindless slaugher of innocents in the way, does not make me congratulatory of any reward mechanism for our or any other armed services.

The Republicans in Congress have just enough votes to insure that a Bush Veto can stop anything.

The Democrats have not rubber stamped things, the higher body of the Senate is the stumbling block, GOP Senators vote with Bush..

Just a reminder.

I do not know for sure, but could this have been an issue when we became an all volunteer army as such? Not sure.

I do not recall [could be wrong, tho] compensation during my days in the military.

I am not forgiving them if they had anything to do with this law but the Democrat’s have only been in congress for 1 year. I agree that the Sec Def has leeway on this and I would be willing to believe that if he is aware of this it is that great fiscal conservative George Bush’s policy he is following. They seem to want to cut anything on the military while sparing no expense, and holding no accountability, on private contractors.

Larry Johnson & Brandon Friedman are both correct in their summations of congress needing to step up. Legislation is being introduced in the house and the senate. Which needs to be fast tracked, ASAP. I’ve already writen my US represenative, my senators are next.

From Paul Kiel, @ TPMmuckraker

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), who introduced a bill last month that would require the Pentagon to pay bonuses to wounded vets in full within 30 days after discharge for combat-related wounds, said he was “heartened” by Tucker’s announcement this morning that the Army won’t seek repayment of bonuses. He added:

“However, I am disappointed that the policy does not go further by stating that wounded soldiers will also receive the remaining balance of future bonus payments. It is preposterous for our government to have a policy that says that a soldier who has sustained serious injuries in the field of battle has not fulfilled his or her service obligation.”
Pentagon rules, Altmire says, prevent enlistees from receiving their full enlistment bonus unless they fulfill their entire military obligation.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004758.php

And Sen. Clinton is addressing this in the senate.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=287855&&

Fuck you.

Thinker thinks real hard: But as the present topology brings the far greater reakoning in the form of colateral damage

Lokk, it’s ntot just yotr spelling. But tis revalse a si,ple inhumanity tht maks me want to hulfd. aaain:

Fuck you.

Murder, are you saying that China is preparing to attack the US?

Right, why’d I ask.

And it’s “rum go”, not “rum deal”

Say it with me: “Pretentious? Moi?”

And of course, fuck you.

C’mon Chris – that’s not like you, buddy.

Lol, when you criticise spelling Taters, you really have run out of ideas. Tnx fer your support!

Chris makes some fine comments, but he has not worked out how to bypass prejudice. Those who support war when it suits them SUPPORT WAR.

All killing is the same. Someone is [ir]responsible.

Congress needs to get “off its dead ass” Good advice Larry. Incredibly absurd that this is happening to returning military. But during a time when your military service can and will be turned around by an administration (who have not served) to discredit you and bite you in the ass, anything from the gutters is to be expected. Cut their pay, their services and their integrity and then thank them for putting their lives on the line in a war based on a “pack of lies”

Christ these chicken shits discredited Kerry’s, Max Cleland and Murthas service.

Here’s an action alert courtesy of IAVA for an upcoming bill regarding this.

http://www.iava.org/

It’s at the top,