Comments on: Budget Proposal Would Fix Concurrent Receipt http://www.navycs.com/blogs/2009/02/26/budget-fixes-concurrent-receipt Navy Blog containing the musings of a retired Navy Master Chief Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:11:49 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Dan Anders II http://www.navycs.com/blogs/2009/02/26/budget-fixes-concurrent-receipt/comment-page-5#comment-2604 Dan Anders II Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:42:23 +0000 http://www.navycs.com/blogs/?p=879#comment-2604 http://capwiz.com/usdr/issues/alert/?alertid=14256366 All Cut apaste this link to send more emial to your Reps in congress to initiate a seperate bill action. V/r Dan http://capwiz.com/usdr/issues/alert/?alertid=14256366

All Cut apaste this link to send more emial to your Reps in congress to initiate a seperate bill action.

V/r Dan

]]> By: DK http://www.navycs.com/blogs/2009/02/26/budget-fixes-concurrent-receipt/comment-page-5#comment-2582 DK Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:08:37 +0000 http://www.navycs.com/blogs/?p=879#comment-2582 John (Croce) Excellent post a couple entries above. But reading further on past your FACTS, it seems that facts can be inconvenient. Now Nancy Pelosi is the one who torpedo'd CR for Ch 61? Yikes. This is why we will continue to make so little progress. Thanks also to this thread. It has been (overall) the most informative place on the web, IMHO. I hope we'll keep up the fight -- it will be harder, but that's no reason to quit. Don John (Croce)
Excellent post a couple entries above. But reading further on past your FACTS, it seems that facts can be inconvenient. Now Nancy Pelosi is the one who torpedo’d CR for Ch 61? Yikes. This is why we will continue to make so little progress.

Thanks also to this thread. It has been (overall) the most informative place on the web, IMHO. I hope we’ll keep up the fight — it will be harder, but that’s no reason to quit.

Don

]]> By: Edward A. McGIlly http://www.navycs.com/blogs/2009/02/26/budget-fixes-concurrent-receipt/comment-page-5#comment-2579 Edward A. McGIlly Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:57:43 +0000 http://www.navycs.com/blogs/?p=879#comment-2579 This website has had no action since the fall of HR-2990 Concurrent pay. So to get your blood boiling how about this; Nancy Pallocie is the Speacker of the House. Her husband owns 47% of Star Kiss Tuna Comp. Star Kiss owns Dole food products. Dole Food's has plantations through the Islands of The American Samoa. Dole employs 95% of Samoas workers. The last unemployment insurance increse went fron $5 and change to $7 and change. Nancy, using her clout, did not allow the work force on the Samoan Islands to get this nation wide bennie. A plus for her hubby. Dole was exempt from paying the raise. That's not all; in this years vote to pass the 2010 budget Nancy, some how pushed in a multi, multi, million dollar fund to be given to the work force of the People of The American Samoans. This fund paid by the American tax payer is subsedising the unemployment insurance that Nancys husbands company, Dole was exempt from paying. That puts more profit in the pockets for Dole and Star Kiss. This should be an inpecable cause or jail time for Nancy. She has the balls to call Republicans "robbers". This type of tit for tat has been rampid for a long time in our state and federal capitals. So what's new???? I would like to know why Nancy and the majority leader of the house put the kabosh on concurrent military and V.A.bill HR-2990?? We the people were told the budget cant skim any more cash off the 2010 budget for it's Disabled Military retired veterans. i guess the media still has stars in their eyes and kisses all around for the Dems. We;again got the shaft big time. Ed This website has had no action since the fall of HR-2990 Concurrent pay. So to get your blood boiling how about this; Nancy Pallocie is the Speacker of the House. Her husband owns 47% of Star Kiss Tuna Comp. Star Kiss owns Dole food products. Dole Food’s has plantations through the Islands of The American Samoa. Dole employs 95% of Samoas workers. The last unemployment insurance increse went fron $5 and change to $7 and change. Nancy, using her clout, did not allow the work force on the Samoan Islands to get this nation wide bennie. A plus for her hubby. Dole was exempt from paying the raise. That’s not all; in this years vote to pass the 2010 budget Nancy, some how pushed in a multi, multi, million dollar fund to be given to the work force of the People of The American Samoans.
This fund paid by the American tax payer is subsedising the unemployment insurance that Nancys husbands company, Dole was exempt from paying. That puts more profit in the pockets for Dole and Star Kiss. This should be an inpecable cause or jail time for Nancy. She has the balls to call Republicans “robbers”.
This type of tit for tat has been rampid for a long time in our state and federal capitals. So what’s new????
I would like to know why Nancy and the majority leader of the house put the kabosh on concurrent military and V.A.bill HR-2990?? We the people were told the budget cant skim any more cash off the 2010 budget for it’s Disabled Military retired veterans. i guess the media still has stars in their eyes and kisses all around for the Dems. We;again got the shaft big time. Ed

]]> By: KH http://www.navycs.com/blogs/2009/02/26/budget-fixes-concurrent-receipt/comment-page-5#comment-2544 KH Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:56:28 +0000 http://www.navycs.com/blogs/?p=879#comment-2544 There are now 43 sponsors for S-546. Saw and October date for one senator who added their name. Least there still is new support for this legilsation. Maybe they can pass it as "stand alone" legisation and get it passed. What follows is the list of the 43 supporters. Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 10/15/2009 Sen Begich, Mark [AK] - 5/4/2009 Sen Bennet, Michael F. [CO] - 5/19/2009 Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] - 5/19/2009 Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 3/16/2009 Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] - 3/10/2009 Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - 6/17/2009 Sen Burris, Roland [IL] - 3/23/2009 Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 3/12/2009 Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] - 4/20/2009 Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] - 3/19/2009 Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] - 4/20/2009 Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] - 4/21/2009 Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] - 3/12/2009 Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 3/10/2009 Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 6/3/2009 Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 4/2/2009 Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] - 5/14/2009 Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] - 3/10/2009 Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] - 3/10/2009 Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 3/10/2009 Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 3/16/2009 Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - 6/25/2009 Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 3/10/2009 Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. [AR] - 3/10/2009 Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 4/1/2009 Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 3/12/2009 Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] - 9/23/2009 Sen Murray, Patty [WA] - 3/11/2009 Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] - 4/20/2009 Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 5/4/2009 Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 3/12/2009 Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL] - 3/25/2009 Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] - 3/10/2009 Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME] - 4/20/2009 Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] - 3/17/2009 Sen Tester, Jon [MT] - 3/23/2009 Sen Udall, Mark [CO] - 6/3/2009 Sen Udall, Tom [NM] - 4/23/2009 Sen Vitter, David [LA] - 3/18/2009 Sen Warner, Mark R. [VA] - 9/22/2009 Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 3/10/2009 Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] - 3/10/2009 There are now 43 sponsors for S-546. Saw and October date for one senator who added their name. Least there still is new support for this legilsation. Maybe they can pass it as “stand alone” legisation and get it passed. What follows is the list of the 43 supporters.

Sen Baucus, Max [MT] – 10/15/2009 Sen Begich, Mark [AK] – 5/4/2009
Sen Bennet, Michael F. [CO] – 5/19/2009 Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] – 5/19/2009
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] – 3/16/2009 Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] – 3/10/2009
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] – 6/17/2009 Sen Burris, Roland [IL] – 3/23/2009
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] – 3/12/2009 Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] – 4/20/2009
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] – 3/19/2009 Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] – 4/20/2009
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] – 4/21/2009 Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] – 3/12/2009
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] – 3/10/2009 Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] – 6/3/2009
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] – 4/2/2009 Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] – 5/14/2009
Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] – 3/10/2009 Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] – 3/10/2009
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] – 3/10/2009 Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] – 3/16/2009
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] – 6/25/2009 Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] – 3/10/2009
Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. [AR] – 3/10/2009 Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] – 4/1/2009
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] – 3/12/2009 Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] – 9/23/2009
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] – 3/11/2009 Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] – 4/20/2009
Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] – 5/4/2009 Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] – 3/12/2009
Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL] – 3/25/2009 Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] – 3/10/2009
Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME] – 4/20/2009 Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] – 3/17/2009
Sen Tester, Jon [MT] – 3/23/2009 Sen Udall, Mark [CO] – 6/3/2009
Sen Udall, Tom [NM] – 4/23/2009 Sen Vitter, David [LA] – 3/18/2009
Sen Warner, Mark R. [VA] – 9/22/2009 Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] – 3/10/2009
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] – 3/10/2009

]]> By: John Croce http://www.navycs.com/blogs/2009/02/26/budget-fixes-concurrent-receipt/comment-page-5#comment-2543 John Croce Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:45:55 +0000 http://www.navycs.com/blogs/?p=879#comment-2543 President Obama wanted to extend concurrent receipt to chapter 61 retirees, as far as I know there is only the regular retired and the chapter 61, I'm not aware of any other group of retirees. I also want to remind you that it was Tom Colburn(R-OK) that put the k-bosh on concurrent receipts for us. For some reason people keep looking to blame this administration and the democrats for this failure, it wasn't them. Obama cannot just unilaterally grant concurrent receipts, the "power of the purse" lies with the legislative branch. Senator Reid was looking out for us but it was a republican senator that squashed it. There seems to be a misconception that the republican party is for the military, and its only partly true. They believe in military spending in the form of R&D, new ships, more weapons, more troops, etc... They don't look out for the actual military member. The last republican to do that was Reagan, that was over 20 years ago. Since then our largest pay increase came from a democrat(Bill Clinton) the only reason we had a few good pay increases in the early 2000's was because the payraises that Clinton signed were not done. http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/138109/ Bush did nothing for our troops in the form of compensation, he milked congress for money to fund the war while offering the smallest pay increases for our troops since before Reagan took office. And thats not even bringing up the moral question of putting American lives in danger for whatever his cause or crusade in the middle east was. For some reason people here are trying to politicize this topic and it shouldn't be about that, it should be about the government doing what is right, blaming one party or the other doesn't help especially if you don't have your facts straight. V/R John President Obama wanted to extend concurrent receipt to chapter 61 retirees, as far as I know there is only the regular retired and the chapter 61, I’m not aware of any other group of retirees. I also want to remind you that it was Tom Colburn(R-OK) that put the k-bosh on concurrent receipts for us. For some reason people keep looking to blame this administration and the democrats for this failure, it wasn’t them. Obama cannot just unilaterally grant concurrent receipts, the “power of the purse” lies with the legislative branch. Senator Reid was looking out for us but it was a republican senator that squashed it. There seems to be a misconception that the republican party is for the military, and its only partly true. They believe in military spending in the form of R&D, new ships, more weapons, more troops, etc… They don’t look out for the actual military member. The last republican to do that was Reagan, that was over 20 years ago. Since then our largest pay increase came from a democrat(Bill Clinton) the only reason we had a few good pay increases in the early 2000’s was because the payraises that Clinton signed were not done. http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/138109/ Bush did nothing for our troops in the form of compensation, he milked congress for money to fund the war while offering the smallest pay increases for our troops since before Reagan took office. And thats not even bringing up the moral question of putting American lives in danger for whatever his cause or crusade in the middle east was. For some reason people here are trying to politicize this topic and it shouldn’t be about that, it should be about the government doing what is right, blaming one party or the other doesn’t help especially if you don’t have your facts straight.
V/R
John

]]> By: Mike http://www.navycs.com/blogs/2009/02/26/budget-fixes-concurrent-receipt/comment-page-5#comment-2529 Mike Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:37:37 +0000 http://www.navycs.com/blogs/?p=879#comment-2529 HI, Will full concurrent receipt still be phased in by 2013 regardless for all retirees rated at 40% and lower if not combat related? Or is this just a possibility that may happen after everyone gets their welfare checks, free access, and other BS bail out programs. There wouldn't be any bailout plans if not for the sacrifices of our brothers and sisters in arms. Mike ret. MSgt HI,
Will full concurrent receipt still be phased in by 2013 regardless
for all retirees rated at 40% and lower if not combat related? Or is
this just a possibility that may happen after everyone gets their welfare checks, free access, and other BS bail out programs. There wouldn’t be any bailout plans if not for the sacrifices of our
brothers and sisters in arms.
Mike ret. MSgt

]]> By: KH http://www.navycs.com/blogs/2009/02/26/budget-fixes-concurrent-receipt/comment-page-5#comment-2525 KH Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:35:23 +0000 http://www.navycs.com/blogs/?p=879#comment-2525 Just providing the following info to show that President Obama made his initial promise to grant concurrent receipt to "all" groups not receiving the benefit. He later changed it to Chapter 61 only as a cost saving measure. If anyone wants the source for that information would be glad to provide it. What follows is his promise to support concurrent receipt for all retired disabled veterans: Searching the internet on the AMVETS web site the magazine can be found which has the article by Isaac D. Pacheco, titled "The Case for Hope", in which then President Obama was interviewed on may questions facing veterans in our country. Seven questions were asked of President Obama. The second question is as follows: AMERICAN VETERAN: Concurrent Receipt is currently a step-in model. All VSOs have called for an immediate change to full concurrent receipt. What are your feelings on this issue? PRESIDENT OBAMA: I support immediately and completely ending the veterans disability tax and providing full concurrent receipt of retirement and disability benefits. Both forms of compensation are provided for different purposes. One is for a payment for a lifetime of service, the other is compensation for disabilities sustained in the line of duty. Just providing the following info to show that President Obama made his initial promise to grant concurrent receipt to “all” groups not receiving the benefit. He later changed it to Chapter 61 only as a cost saving measure. If anyone wants the source for that information would be glad to provide it. What follows is his promise to support concurrent receipt for all retired disabled veterans:

Searching the internet on the AMVETS web site the magazine can be found which has the article by Isaac D. Pacheco, titled “The Case for Hope”, in which then President Obama was interviewed on may questions facing veterans in our country.

Seven questions were asked of President Obama. The second question is as follows:

AMERICAN VETERAN: Concurrent Receipt is currently a step-in model. All VSOs have called for an immediate change to full concurrent receipt. What are your feelings on this issue?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I support immediately and completely ending the veterans disability tax and providing full concurrent receipt of retirement and disability benefits. Both forms of compensation are provided for different purposes. One is for a payment for a lifetime of service, the other is compensation for disabilities sustained in the line of duty.

]]> By: FW http://www.navycs.com/blogs/2009/02/26/budget-fixes-concurrent-receipt/comment-page-5#comment-2522 FW Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:45:29 +0000 http://www.navycs.com/blogs/?p=879#comment-2522 A very good question, where are the veteran organizations who spend millions of dollars on conventions every year? Why aren't they using their media power to jam the airways with outrage? It would appear to me they're more concerned about their public image and not the welfare of veterans they're supposed to represent. Keep sending in your dues, someone has to attend the yearly conventions........ A very good question, where are the veteran organizations who spend millions of dollars on conventions every year? Why aren’t they using their media power to jam the airways with outrage? It would appear to me they’re more concerned about their public image and not the welfare of veterans they’re supposed to represent. Keep sending in your dues, someone has to attend the yearly conventions……..

]]> By: JH http://www.navycs.com/blogs/2009/02/26/budget-fixes-concurrent-receipt/comment-page-5#comment-2521 JH Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:02:47 +0000 http://www.navycs.com/blogs/?p=879#comment-2521 Anybody think the second aircraft engine and no CRDP is enough for the President to veto the 2010 NDAA? I haven't been able to find any reaction or expressions of outrage in the media to this other than Hill at the Legion. Anybody think the second aircraft engine and no CRDP is enough for the President to veto the 2010 NDAA? I haven’t been able to find any reaction or expressions of outrage in the media to this other than Hill at the Legion.

]]> By: DK http://www.navycs.com/blogs/2009/02/26/budget-fixes-concurrent-receipt/comment-page-5#comment-2520 DK Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:35:12 +0000 http://www.navycs.com/blogs/?p=879#comment-2520 Dan (Anders): When you use terms like "Lying Administration" what do you mean? Obama's promise, which he reiterated, was to include CR for Ch. 61 retirees. He included that in his budget. The president cannot "order" a new entitlement. The congress let us down big time. Let's be sure we know who we mean. The congress is NOT part of the administration, so I think we can find various congressmen who promised to get us the bill this round who didn't come thru. Obama is not one of those. Dan (Anders):

When you use terms like “Lying Administration” what do you mean? Obama’s promise, which he reiterated, was to include CR for Ch. 61 retirees. He included that in his budget. The president cannot “order” a new entitlement. The congress let us down big time. Let’s be sure we know who we mean. The congress is NOT part of the administration, so I think we can find various congressmen who promised to get us the bill this round who didn’t come thru. Obama is not one of those.

]]>