UPDATE!..........On VDBC Chariman and Social Security Disability Benefits!

[Gimpy]

UPDATE: VETS' COMMISSION CHAIR GETS CONGRESSIONAL OK TO STUDY SSDI BENEFITS FOR VETERANS -- REP. STEVE BUYER, SEN. LARRY CRAIG, REP. DUNCAN HUNTER AND REP. IKE SKELTON ALL GIVE THUMBS UP TO STUDY.


Background story here... http://www.vawatchdog.org/old%20news...-24-2006-8.htm

Lt. Gen. Terry Scott (U.S. Army, ret.), who is Chairman of the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission (VDBC), wants to study vets who get Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) as well as VA compensation.

The goal is an offset (reduction) in payments between VA disability compensation and Social Security disability compensation for veterans.

The VDBC's charter doesn't allow this, so, in an unconstitutional move, he asked Congress to interpret their own law, to give him permission to do this.

And, unbelievably, he's got that permission.

I have just two documents on this...more are on the way...including legal arguments and a "civics lesson" from an attorney representing a major veterans' service organization.

I will have a complete article later in the week...but, here's what I have now.

Veterans...it's time to get angry.

-------START--------

Gen. Scott asked four Congressional Committees:

?Some Commissioners believe that this charge [the VDBC?s charter] should be interpreted broadly to mean all related benefits received by disabled veterans under the laws of the United States to include?SSDI payments?the Chairman would appreciate clarification of the intent of Congress in writing or in person during the next Commission public meeting May 19, 2006?

Copies of two responses are reproduced, in part, below.

First, is a letter to Gen. Scott signed jointly by Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs:


"It is our opinion that you are not limited to evaluating only those benefits created for veterans, and a review of the mandate does not restrict your examination to title 10 or title 38...we would find helpful a thorough review of benefits provided in their totality. To look at the benefits provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) to the exclusion of others will not provide Congress with a complete understanding of the benefits that are provided to veterans and their survivors."

Second is a letter to Gen. Scott signed jointly by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services and Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Ranking Member of the same Committee:


"It is our view that a comprehensive review under the laws of the United States would inescapably include an examination of the Social Security Disability Insurance program and that the Commission would be remiss in its responsibilities if it were to choose to ignore any form of Federal compensation provided to such veterans."

-------END--------

Not ONLY is it time to get 'angry'...............it's also time to get BUSY and start writing, calling, e-mailing your Senators, Congresspersons, the Whitehouse, all local and national news media if you value your hard earned veterans AND Social Security disability benefits.

It is up to US folks................we better hurry up and WAKE UP because ain't nobody gonna do it for us!

PLEASE CONTACT AS MANY AS YOU CAN with your OUTRAGE!

Thanks..............

[Packo]

First email out today!

Pack

[Gimpy]

Here's the latest info I promised everyone.

If you haven't yet contacted your Senators or Congressman, NOW IS THE TIME!


###START###


LATEST ARTICLE FOR MILITARY.COM AND OPEDNEWS.COM

May 02, 2006

Vets? Commission Chair gets OK to Study Social Security Benefits

SHORT HEAD: Vets? Commission SSDI Study

by Larry Scott


General Terry Scott asked Congress to interpret its own law defining the charter of the Vet?s Commission. Unbelievably, and unconstitutionally, four key Members of Congress gave Scott the OK to study vets who get Social Security disability benefits and VA compensation. Scott?s goal is an offset, a reduction, in vets? benefits. At stake: Veterans? benefits, veterans? privacy and the constitutional separation of powers.

---------------

It?s called the Vets? Commission. The full name is the Veterans? Disability Benefits Commission (VDBC). Chaired by Retired U.S. Army Lt. General Terry Scott, the VDBC is chartered to determine ?whether a veteran?s disability or death should be compensated? and at what level, if any.

To many veterans, the VDBC?s central theme is plainly amoral. Who would dare ask if a ?veteran?s disability or death should be compensated?? Many vets believe the VDBC was formed for the sole purpose of finding ways to cut their benefits.

Gen. Scott has done nothing to dispel that perception. Scott is pushing the VDBC to not only study veterans? compensation from the Department of Veterans? Affairs (VA) but is actively lobbying other VDBC members to study veterans who receive Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) even though the two forms of compensation have nothing to do with each other.

To accomplish his goal, Gen. Scott needed clarification of the VDBC?s charter because it does not mention Social Security benefits. Scott wrote four Congressional Committees asking them to, unconstitutionally, interpret the law that established the VDBC. (I wrote about this last week. Article here: http://www.vawatchdog.org/milcom/pus...vabenefits.htm )

Unbelievably, Gen. Scott not only got answers from four key lawmakers on Capitol Hill, but they give him the go-ahead to study any federal benefits that veterans might receive.

From a letter to Gen. Scott signed jointly by Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs: "It is our opinion that you are not limited to evaluating only those benefits created for veterans, and a review of the mandate does not restrict your examination to title 10 or title 38...We would find helpful a thorough review of benefits provided in their totality. To look at the benefits provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense (DoD) to the exclusion of others will not provide Congress with a complete understanding of the benefits that are provided to veterans and their survivors."

And, in a letter to Gen. Scott signed jointly by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services and Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Ranking Member of the same Committee: "It is our view that a comprehensive review under the laws of the United States would inescapably include an examination of the Social Security Disability Insurance program and that the Commission would be remiss in its responsibilities if it were to choose to ignore any form of Federal compensation provided to such veterans."

The tacit approval of four Members of Congress gives Gen. Scott incredible leeway. The VDBC, given the above approvals, can study any benefits that veterans receive. The VDBC?s charter, however, states that the Commission can only study benefits provided for disability or death ?attributable to military service.? Who has the correct interpretation?

There is disagreement in Congress concerning Gen. Scott?s plan. Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL), Ranking Democratic Member of the House Committee on Veterans? Affairs, is adamantly opposed . In a letter to Gen. Scott, Evans wrote: ??a question as to the legislative intent of enacted laws is not the responsibility of Congress or congressional committees. If questions arise as to the legislative intent of an enacted statute, the Commission should seek a formal legal opinion from the Department of Justice?If the Commission believes that further clarification is needed, the Commission could seek a Declaratory Judgment from a court with proper jurisdiction.?

Then, Rep. Evans raises another legal point. He continues: ??I urge you to respect the privacy of veterans when considering matching any data that would require the use of Social Security numbers. The suggestion raised in the Commission's e-mail that ?an analysis could compare veterans' SC [service-connected] disability codes to their SSA [Social Security Administration] impairment codes? raises serious questions as to the Commission's legal authority to obtain and use such data without the informed consent of the individual veterans. There are strict statutory limits on the ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to obtain and use data from the Social Security Administration.?

Rep. Evans then adds this warning to Gen. Scott : ?I also note that service-connected compensation benefits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs are intended to compensate veterans for disabilities incurred or aggravated by military service. Social Security disability benefits are intended to compensate insured workers who have contributed to the Social Security program by payment of taxes on their earnings. These programs serve different purposes and have different eligibility criteria which could result in any proposed comparison turning into one of the proverbial ?apples to oranges.??

At the forefront of the opposition to Gen. Scott?s proposed study is the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), one of the country?s most respected veterans? service organizations which has a membership of over 1.3 million disabled vets. The DAV has provided Gen. Scott with legal opinions opposing his intention to study SSDI. (See previous article.)

And, in a letter to Gen. Scott dated today (May 2, 2006), the DAV?s General Counsel, Christopher J. Clay, provides a legal summation that should, in theory, put the issue to rest. Clay writes: ?The plain language of the statute creating the Commission supports the view that it is empowered to consider benefits payable under Title 38, United States Code. The statute specifies more than once that the Commission?s role is to study benefits provided for disability or death ?attributable to military service.? Given that SSDI is paid without regard to causation and to veterans and non-veterans alike, it is quite a stretch to include it within the Commission?s purview. The implication of this is self-evident. The Commission can limit itself to studying Title 38 benefits without much fear of challenge, while a foray into SSDI invites collateral controversy.?

Clay continues: ?Should the Commission seek to include SSDI as a topic of investigation?its enabling legislation does not provide a bulletproof basis on which to do so and that additional authority is needed. Frankly, I am not certain what that authority would be. I am certain that it is not post-enactment guidance from the United States Congress or some committee thereof. The United States Supreme Court has confirmed that such ?authority? has no value.?

Then Clay sets forward a scenario that could tie up the VDBC for years. Clay writes: ?I suppose that some might consider looking for the additional authority in the form of a declaratory judgment, but it is unclear to me who the parties to that litigation would be, unless disagreeing Commissioners wanted to start suing each other. Conversely, if the Commission simply chose to expand its focus to include SSDI, it would almost certainly invite a declaratory judgment lawsuit from a disabled veteran, a veterans? organization or both?The Commission has two choices. The first is to limit its investigation to Title 38 benefits, thereby embracing a clear and unassailable interpretation of its enabling legislation. The second is to expand its investigation to include SSDI, thereby almost guaranteeing collateral litigation...?

Where does this leave us? Gen. Scott, with his new-found ?authority? from four Members of Congress, could tell the VDBC they are studying SSDI benefits for veterans. In theory, this should be voted on by the 13 Commission members. Which presents another problem. Many feel the VDBC is a politically-stacked deck with nine members being appointed by Republicans, including the President, and only four members being appointed by Democratic legislators. There is an overwhelming feeling in the veterans? community that the Commission majority is intent on finding ways to cut vets? benefits.

If the VDBC studies SSDI and recommends a payment offset to VA benefits, many disabled veterans could find their income decimated. An offset would mean that the veteran could receive one of the payments (the higher dollar amount) but not both. Also of importance is the fact that at age 65 SSDI benefits revert to regular Social Security. This would mean the payments recognized as Social Security ?retirement? would be reduced, as well.

This complicated situation should be decided at the VDBC?s May 19 meeting. Concerned veterans and their families are urged to write Commission members, especially Gen. Scott . The Commission?s email is: veterans@vetscommission.intranets.com . For more information on the VDBC and its members go to: http://www.vetscommission.org/index.htm .



#####END#####


I really believe after meeting General Scott in St. Petersburg on February 15, 2006 at their 'townhall' meeting that HE IS INTENT on finding a way to REDUCE, CUT, or STOP ALTOGETHER many sick & disabled veterans benefits and compensation! There are several members of this commission that do NOT share his views, but........they seem to be in the 'minority', not the majority!


WE are in a world of trouble here folks!..............People better wake the hell up before it's TOO LATE!..............

[Packo]

Gimpy,

Got my reply from Joe Wilson. I was some standard reply about SS.......not one mention about taking away from disabled vets etc. Also sent one about gas prices where I asked how he felt about dropping the federal tax until things ease up. Got some standard reply about nothing I asked about. So much for him. I will send him another telling him that he avoided my questions and see what happens......prediction.....NOTHING.

Pack

My Representatiave still has not answered my e-mail, seems that Vetrerans issues are taking a back seat to illeagll aliens.

[Gimpy]

a copy of what I sent out today to several news outlets.

I sent one of a similar nature to all my Congressional delegation.

############


Dear--------,


I am a former lifelong resident of the Atlanta, GA area and a 100% permanently & totally disabled, combat wounded Vietnam Veteran currently living in Holiday, Florida that feels it necessary to express my outrage at the current political maneuvers in Washington to destroy Veterans Benefits as we know them.

It has recently come to my attention that the Chairman (General Terry Scott) of The Veterans Disability Benefits Commission, which was established by Congress and the Whitehouse to study among other things, ?whether a veteran?s disability or death should be compensated?, has requested permission to study veterans who get Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) as well as VA compensation.

This 13-member panel was established after some rather heavy-handed attempts at sweeping changes to veterans disability compensation failed in Congress. However, the same political forces are still at work, both on and off Capitol Hill, making it difficult for disabled veterans to remain optimistic about the future.

The goal of this so-called study being driven by Chairman Scott is apparently an offset (reduction) in payments between VA disability compensation and Social Security disability compensation for veterans. Thiis is not only MY belief, but the belief of many hundreds of thousands of other sick & disbled veterans across this country.

The idea that veterans disability compensation is some kind of income security or welfare program cheapens the service and sacrifice of disabled military veterans. 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.

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 now tried to argue.

Service-connected disability compensation from the VA is an earned benefit, awarded only on the basis of eligibility to a special class of persons. Disability payments under this program are recompense from the government for the life-long effects and consequences of a disabled veteran?s extraordinary sacrifice in service to our nation. And a service-connected disability doesn?t magically disappear when a veteran has a job.

Social Security DI benefits, on the other hand, are not compensation for a disability, but rather cash payments to a person who is unable to work for a year or more because of a disability. Most U.S. workers (like myself) who have paid Social Security taxes are covered by the program. Benefits usually continue until the person is able to work again on a regular basis. When a person receiving Social Security disability benefits reaches retirement age, those benefits automatically convert to Social Security retirement benefits.

It is an absolute outrage that Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs along with Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services and Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Ranking Member of the same Committee have apparently given their support to General Terry Scott, Chairman of the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission in his quest to destroy not only veterans benefits, but now Social Security Disability Benefits as well!

I am requesting that each and every concerned citizen contact their elected representatives in Washington, D.C.to stop this latest attempt by VDBC and their Chairman, General Scott from continuing on their path to pursue their immoral and obviously uncaring agenda against the nations veterans!


###########



Let's see what kind of response we get.