Troops lose benefits with bill in limbo

[CommunityEditor]

In the wake of an unexpected presidential veto of the 2008 defense authorization bill, White House officials and congressional leaders are vowing to provide retroactive pay and benefits increases so service members and their families do not suffer harm from a political dispute that has little to do with military policy.

But the fix will not be fast, clean or complete. Like Humpty Dumpty in the children’s nursery rhyme, the Bush administration and congressional aides preparing a new version of the defense bill are learning that some of the damage cannot be easily repaired. There is no way to turn back the clock for some things, such as creating entirely new programs to help combat-wounded service members.

The Dec. 28 pocket veto of the defense policy bill, in which President Bush simply refused to sign the $696.4 billion measure sent to him by Congress, came without warning because little attention had been paid to a provision that has to do with the freezing of U.S.-held assets of foreign governments in lawsuits by American citizens.

As a result of the veto, service members will receive a 3 percent pay increase in their mid-January paychecks, not the 3.5 percent promised in the bill. And bonus and special pay programs were widely disrupted as of midnight Dec. 31, when the services lost the authority to pay new enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses and incentive pays and bonuses for many career fields, including aviators, medical personnel and submariners.

White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said administration officials would work with Congress on a new bill that includes a retroactive 3.5 percent pay raise so that troops do not lose any money.

“Nothing that we intend to do and nothing in this veto is intended to, in any way, put at risk the full pay raise for our military families and their troops,” Fratto said.

A senior administration official who briefed reporters on the veto said White House officials are “working very hard to just find a quick solution as soon as Congress returns in January.”

What represents a “quick” solution may be in the eye of the beholder. Congress is not expected to return to legislative business until Jan. 15, and when it does, lawmakers’ first order of business may be more partisan bickering instead of preparing a new bill.

Some Democrats question the constitutionality of Bush’s pocket veto, which is generally thought to have effect only when Congress is in recess. When Congress is in session, the constitution says that a bill automatically becomes law 10 working days after it is received at the White House if the president does not sign it.

But whether Congress is really adjourned is a matter of dispute. The House of Representatives has not met since Dec. 19, but the Senate has been meeting every four days for brief sessions in a maneuver aimed at preventing Bush from using constitutional powers to temporarily make political appointments without Senate confirmation, which he can do if Congress is in recess.

The constitutionality of Bush’s pocket veto would have to be tested in federal court, an issue that could take years to resolve. House Democratic aides said nobody wants troops and their families to wait for months — let alone years — to have benefits issues resolved.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., may schedule a vote to override Bush’s veto, a maneuver that would force Republicans who overwhelmingly voted for the bill into the difficult position of either sticking with it or supporting the president. An override is not expected to succeed, however, and the House is expected to then turn to modifying the bill and passing it again.

“I think all of this will happen in January,” said a House Armed Services Committee aide who is trying to work out some of the details.

Details include making the 3.5 percent all-ranks pay raise retroactive to Jan. 1, which would result in lump-sum payments of the difference between the 3 percent raise that took effect under Bush’s veto and the 3.5 percent raise intended by Congress. Because of the time needed to make military payroll changes, the catch-up payment is likely to appear in mid-February paychecks at the earliest.

Also on the agenda is providing retroactive authority for bonuses and special and incentive pays so that anyone who made a new enlistment or retention commitment since Jan. 1 will be able to receive payments just as if bonus authority never lapsed.

The services have issued guidance that generally calls for enlistment and re-enlistment commitments to go ahead now, with an addendum that promises bonuses will be paid as soon as they are available.

There is a slight risk in that guidance if, for some unknown reason, Congress failed to provide retroactive bonus authority, according to congressional aides, who asked not to be identified.

“It clearly is everyone’s intent to provide retroactive bonuses, but nothing is ever certain, as evidenced by the veto of a bill that everyone thought was going to be signed,” one aide said.

Aides also are reviewing the effective dates of other pay and benefits provisions, with the intent of backdating items that were due to take effect upon enactment of the bill so that no one loses money.

For example, the bill included a provision to provide housing allowances during initial military training to any reservist who has a permanent home residence, something previously limited to reservists with dependents. That was to take effect when the bill became law, and cannot be backdated.

A new bill can’t prevent all of the harm that results from the delay, aides said, because the bill contains new benefits, such as the Wounded Warrior Act — a package of improvements in the pay and benefits for combat-injured service members.

For example, one provision is an expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act that would give spouses, parents, children and siblings of disabled service members up to 26 weeks of unpaid leave without fear of losing their jobs.

“This is ... something you cannot really backdate, so every day of delay is a day of denial of this extra help,” the Armed Services Committee aide said. “We will do what we can.”


Article: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...onext_080114w/

Well, all I know is that I hope congress makes up their minds soon. I am very interested in joining the national guard, but without the enlistment bonus, I just do not think that it is good enough for me to join.

Hurry up, congress.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Well, all I know is that I hope congress makes up their minds soon. ... Hurry up, congress.

"Congress" passed the bill.

Mr. Bush (claims to have vetoed) it.

Whether Mr. Bush's claimed "pocket" veto is in accordance with the laws of the United States of America since Congress had not adjourned(the US House of Representatives had adjourned [while empowering the Clerk of the House of Representatives to "receive" communications from the Executive Branch] but the US Senate HAD NOT and was still in session) is something for the American courts to sort out.

Since any legal action on behalf of the US House of Representatives and/or US Senate (other than the actual legislative conduct of their several members) has to be prosecuted by someone from the Office of the US Attorney - which is under the control of the US Department of Justice, which is under the control of the US Attorney General who is appointed by the President and serves "at the President's pleasure", the odds on any legal action to question Mr. Bush's claim to have the power to pretend that "Congress" has adjourned when, in fact, it hasn't so that he can veto anything he feels like vetoing is pretty unlikely.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am very interested in joining the national guard, but without the enlistment bonus, I just do not think that it is good enough for me to join.

Thank you for your unselfish and patriotic desire to serve your country in its "hour of need".

Hmm. Well, it would seem that you think that I am just some selfish person that only cares about himself. That is not entirely true. I've wanted to join the service for many years (well before I even knew about such a thing as an enlistment bonus) and quite frankly, Chances are I would join anyway, but it would require some time for me to do, being as though I still have a family to take care of, a car payment to make, mortgage, and quite a few other things that need paid regularly. If I just am like "Oh, well, I'll just hop in (insert random service here), Everything will be fine! I'll still have my house, and everything else!" Well, I'd be in for quite a shock after getting out of basic, and from my school....So, what I meant when I said that was more along the lines of "I just don't think its good enough for me to join RIGHT NOW" I will still enlist, though only once I can get my finances in order a bit, and be able to take, say...a year off to be able to get SAFELY into the service, with no fear of losing my house or car, and making 100% SURE that my families needs are met.

So, Thanks for your kind words.


But, actually thank you for explaining what happened with the legal aspect of the bill, I had only heard rumor and such, and was unable to locate any of the actual happenings.

[THELADYKT]

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

[i]
The Dec. 28 pocket veto of the defense policy bill, in which President Bush simply refused to sign the $696.4 billion measure sent to him by Congress, came without warning because little attention had been paid to a provision that has to do with the freezing of U.S.-held assets of foreign governments in lawsuits by American citizens.

Article: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...onext_080114w/

So this is a defense spending bill...... for the most part a military funding bill. So why do lawmakers in BOTH parties still try sneaking in earmarks and pork in bills that have nothing to do with the bill itself. We really need to support those in congress who want to limit or eliminate this stuff. Here is just some of the crap that is "snuck into" the defense bill aside from the one above:

$20 million for historically black colleges from Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA);
$3 million for robotic surgery and tissue repair research at the University of KY from Ben Chandler (D-KY).
3.2 Million 1 Megawatt Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell Demonstrator at 29 Palms

For a full list of the junk in this bill: http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/PressRel...s/cdefense.xls

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by THELADYKT

So this is a defense spending bill...... for the most part a military funding bill. So why do lawmakers in BOTH parties still try sneaking in earmarks and pork in bills that have nothing to do with the bill itself.

Because that is the way that the "open government" system works.

Besides, with 435 members in the House of Representatives and 100 Senators, that only works out to ~4.07663 requests per legislator (and at the incredibly modest average cost per legislator of $14,759,327.1028 at that).

I mean it only works out to approximately $26.2211 per person in the United States of America and if Americans are so poor that they cannot afford to contribute a mere $0.0717 a day to ensuring the future of their legislators then the country is in pretty bad shape.

[NOTE:- Although "factually correct" this post is rated at 434,407,553,947,248 RPM.]

[THELADYKT]

Originally Posted by The Universal Curmudgeon_guest

Because that is the way that the "open government" system works.

Besides, with 435 members in the House of Representatives and 100 Senators, that only works out to ~4.07663 requests per legislator (and at the incredibly modest average cost per legislator of $14,759,327.1028 at that).

I mean it only works out to approximately $26.2211 per person in the United States of America and if Americans are so poor that they cannot afford to contribute a mere $0.0717 a day to ensuring the future of their legislators then the country is in pretty bad shape.

[NOTE:- Although "factually correct" this post is rated at 434,407,553,947,248 RPM.]

I sure hope you are being sarcastic hun.... Cause personally I'd rather keep the $26 bux than spend it on stupid stuff.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by THELADYKT

I sure hope you are being sarcastic hun.... Cause personally I'd rather keep the $26 bux than spend it on stupid stuff.

I did say "[NOTE:- Although "factually correct" this post is rated at 434,407,553,947,248 RPM.]", didn't I?

You don't spin 'em much faster than that.