Tens of thousands of war widows in the nation and quite puzzling lack of respect for their military husbands later: In order to fully reflect on the safety of her husband bought for them in life, you must marry another man.
To qualify, widows should marry when they are 57 or more. Those who remarry soon perish, as widows who never remarried.
At the heart of the problem is a government policy known as the "widows tax." It is said that a military spouse whose loved one dies from a service-connected cause may not receive the survival benefits of both insurance and pension benefits completes the couple bought the Defense Department in retirement. In contrast, the amount of the annuity payment is reduced by the amount of the monthly benefit for survivors.
Again and again, members of Congress have pledged to help the 55,000 widows affected, but the laws passed to help them have only created a more complicated system that left many of them confused and angry.
So what new marriage has to do with it? Very little, as it is. The condition of marriage was nailed to the law by Congress, as they sought to help survivors retain certain benefits if remarried later in life, as is the case with other similar federal revenues. Because Congress has not been able to get the money to help all the widows, the relief is limited to that group. The result is a disaster, but utterly incomprehensible.
"I've never wanted to date, let alone remarry," Hinojosa said Haycock, a mother of three teenagers in Lawton, Oklahoma, whose army of 38 year old husband died in 2002. "I married the love of my life. Why bring that is a factor?"
And there's another wrinkle that leaves even some of those who benefit from the system - women 57 and over who have found love a second time and married again - not at all happy.
For war widows who were denied the benefits of military insurance, the government tried to help by giving back the premiums of their spouses had paid for the policy. But if a widow, then remarried at age 57 or older, be entitled to the benefit which can only be achieved by the return of insurance premiums that the government had returned to her.
Schroeppel Freda Green, 74, whose late husband served in Vietnam and died of a service-connected disability after 30 years in the Air Force, said he was surprised after remarrying last year to receive a bill government to pay more than $ 41,000 in insurance premiums. Those premiums had been returned to her after his death 2003 because at that moment she could not receive the full benefit of the annuity.
"It makes no sense to me," said Green, of Brooksville, Florida "Why send the premiums you paid and now want him back?"
Does not make sense Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., And 10 other senators last week that legislation to help widows.
"This has always been a subject of the military to do the right thing and live up to their promises," Nelson said in a statement. "These policies were purchased by men and women to ensure that their loved ones to be cared for after his death. There is only a promise that the government has failed, but now is sending bills to the survivors. That is outrageous ".
Among the widows, the Greens and the approximately 700 who remarried after age 57 are considered the lucky ones because at least they no longer have a benefit subtracted from the other.
Other surviving spouses - most of which lost about $ 1,000 a month due to the current configuration - have struggled for years on Capitol Hill.
Gold Star Women of America, Inc., a group of military widows chartered Congress supports legislation backed by Senators and Rep. Joe Wilson, RS.C., that would eliminate the offset and does not require widows to pay premiums in advance refunded. They argue the survivors have spent years living without the benefit of the annuity and is cheaper for the government to give bonuses to manually calculate what I had.
The main obstacle to eliminate the benefit of travel is in cash. That would cost the government about $ 6.7 billion over a decade for widows to reap the benefits in full.
The Defense Department has long said there was never an expectation that both programs are provided at the same time. Clifford Stanley, the undersecretary of defense for personnel, told Congress last year that the elimination of compensation could create inequalities in their benefits programs.
Widows do not agree. Most surviving spouses affected "paid an average of 6.5 percent of their retirement pay - or about $ 100 a month or more - to the annuity. The service members died thinking that your spouse benefit from it, widows say, as if they had bought a life insurance policy private. The idea that insurance benefits would be reduced if the husband died for a reason connected with the service and the widow was receiving survivor benefits are never explained, say .
"No one could see the train wrecking," said Viviana Wersel, president of government relations for Gold Star Wives, whose husband died in 2005, days after returning from a tour of the invasion of Iraq. "They had no idea. It was not until death do they realized they were not getting what her husband thought we were going to receive."
For the past few years, a measure to eliminate the shift has happened in the Senate is only interrupted when negotiators from the House and Senate met in private to discuss in depth in defense spending.
Instead, Congress in recent years has given the small surviving spouses legislative victories that in retrospect, seem only to have created new inequalities, said Steve Strobridge, a former Air Force colonel who is director of government relations Military Officers Association of America.
One of those victories was the rule of 57 and higher remarriage, that initially the Department of Defense does not recognize. Three of the widows later successfully sued, and in 2009 the Defense Department issued new guidelines saying the 57-year surviving spouses who remarry would not be subject to compensation.
At the time of the court decision in favor of widows, including the federal appeals court sided with the asked what Congress was thinking only help a small subset of widows. Noting that the service member to pay a benefit with premiums and the other with his life, Judge George W. Miller wrote: "Maybe it was the recognition that the political process is the art of the possible, and that prudence dictates against making the perfect the enemy of the good."
Another small victory in Congress gave the widows affected by the shift liability of $ 50 per month from 2010. Instead of bringing happiness to the widows, however, many felt that Congress was acknowledging that he had been treated unfairly, but it was not motivated by money to solve the problem correctly.
"What am I supposed to do with it except put it in my gas tank and reduce your office to complain?" Said Suzanne Gerstner, 43, of Brandon, Fla., mother of three whose husband died in 2005 of cancer linked to his 20 year Air Force service. "Every little bit helps. Do not get me wrong, but that is a kind of insult."
Wilson, who chairs a House subcommittee with control over military personnel matters, said that for many of the survivors, which eliminates the offset is the difference between scraping and having a lifestyle of middle class. Members of the House Republican Party have pledged to cut public spending, but Wilson said that even in difficult times, the care of survivors is important. He supports a gradual process to remove the current configuration.
"It is certainly a priority basis," he said. "Let's show our thanks for surviving spouses and children ... or spend the money some other way?"
To qualify, widows should marry when they are 57 or more. Those who remarry soon perish, as widows who never remarried.
At the heart of the problem is a government policy known as the "widows tax." It is said that a military spouse whose loved one dies from a service-connected cause may not receive the survival benefits of both insurance and pension benefits completes the couple bought the Defense Department in retirement. In contrast, the amount of the annuity payment is reduced by the amount of the monthly benefit for survivors.
Again and again, members of Congress have pledged to help the 55,000 widows affected, but the laws passed to help them have only created a more complicated system that left many of them confused and angry.
So what new marriage has to do with it? Very little, as it is. The condition of marriage was nailed to the law by Congress, as they sought to help survivors retain certain benefits if remarried later in life, as is the case with other similar federal revenues. Because Congress has not been able to get the money to help all the widows, the relief is limited to that group. The result is a disaster, but utterly incomprehensible.
"I've never wanted to date, let alone remarry," Hinojosa said Haycock, a mother of three teenagers in Lawton, Oklahoma, whose army of 38 year old husband died in 2002. "I married the love of my life. Why bring that is a factor?"
And there's another wrinkle that leaves even some of those who benefit from the system - women 57 and over who have found love a second time and married again - not at all happy.
For war widows who were denied the benefits of military insurance, the government tried to help by giving back the premiums of their spouses had paid for the policy. But if a widow, then remarried at age 57 or older, be entitled to the benefit which can only be achieved by the return of insurance premiums that the government had returned to her.
Schroeppel Freda Green, 74, whose late husband served in Vietnam and died of a service-connected disability after 30 years in the Air Force, said he was surprised after remarrying last year to receive a bill government to pay more than $ 41,000 in insurance premiums. Those premiums had been returned to her after his death 2003 because at that moment she could not receive the full benefit of the annuity.
"It makes no sense to me," said Green, of Brooksville, Florida "Why send the premiums you paid and now want him back?"
Does not make sense Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., And 10 other senators last week that legislation to help widows.
"This has always been a subject of the military to do the right thing and live up to their promises," Nelson said in a statement. "These policies were purchased by men and women to ensure that their loved ones to be cared for after his death. There is only a promise that the government has failed, but now is sending bills to the survivors. That is outrageous ".
Among the widows, the Greens and the approximately 700 who remarried after age 57 are considered the lucky ones because at least they no longer have a benefit subtracted from the other.
Other surviving spouses - most of which lost about $ 1,000 a month due to the current configuration - have struggled for years on Capitol Hill.
Gold Star Women of America, Inc., a group of military widows chartered Congress supports legislation backed by Senators and Rep. Joe Wilson, RS.C., that would eliminate the offset and does not require widows to pay premiums in advance refunded. They argue the survivors have spent years living without the benefit of the annuity and is cheaper for the government to give bonuses to manually calculate what I had.
The main obstacle to eliminate the benefit of travel is in cash. That would cost the government about $ 6.7 billion over a decade for widows to reap the benefits in full.
The Defense Department has long said there was never an expectation that both programs are provided at the same time. Clifford Stanley, the undersecretary of defense for personnel, told Congress last year that the elimination of compensation could create inequalities in their benefits programs.
Widows do not agree. Most surviving spouses affected "paid an average of 6.5 percent of their retirement pay - or about $ 100 a month or more - to the annuity. The service members died thinking that your spouse benefit from it, widows say, as if they had bought a life insurance policy private. The idea that insurance benefits would be reduced if the husband died for a reason connected with the service and the widow was receiving survivor benefits are never explained, say .
"No one could see the train wrecking," said Viviana Wersel, president of government relations for Gold Star Wives, whose husband died in 2005, days after returning from a tour of the invasion of Iraq. "They had no idea. It was not until death do they realized they were not getting what her husband thought we were going to receive."
For the past few years, a measure to eliminate the shift has happened in the Senate is only interrupted when negotiators from the House and Senate met in private to discuss in depth in defense spending.
Instead, Congress in recent years has given the small surviving spouses legislative victories that in retrospect, seem only to have created new inequalities, said Steve Strobridge, a former Air Force colonel who is director of government relations Military Officers Association of America.
One of those victories was the rule of 57 and higher remarriage, that initially the Department of Defense does not recognize. Three of the widows later successfully sued, and in 2009 the Defense Department issued new guidelines saying the 57-year surviving spouses who remarry would not be subject to compensation.
At the time of the court decision in favor of widows, including the federal appeals court sided with the asked what Congress was thinking only help a small subset of widows. Noting that the service member to pay a benefit with premiums and the other with his life, Judge George W. Miller wrote: "Maybe it was the recognition that the political process is the art of the possible, and that prudence dictates against making the perfect the enemy of the good."
Another small victory in Congress gave the widows affected by the shift liability of $ 50 per month from 2010. Instead of bringing happiness to the widows, however, many felt that Congress was acknowledging that he had been treated unfairly, but it was not motivated by money to solve the problem correctly.
"What am I supposed to do with it except put it in my gas tank and reduce your office to complain?" Said Suzanne Gerstner, 43, of Brandon, Fla., mother of three whose husband died in 2005 of cancer linked to his 20 year Air Force service. "Every little bit helps. Do not get me wrong, but that is a kind of insult."
Wilson, who chairs a House subcommittee with control over military personnel matters, said that for many of the survivors, which eliminates the offset is the difference between scraping and having a lifestyle of middle class. Members of the House Republican Party have pledged to cut public spending, but Wilson said that even in difficult times, the care of survivors is important. He supports a gradual process to remove the current configuration.
"It is certainly a priority basis," he said. "Let's show our thanks for surviving spouses and children ... or spend the money some other way?"
No comments:
Post a Comment