Military retirees angry that defense-spending bill languishes

Knight Ridder Newspapers

As Congress dimmed the lights last week to hit the campaign trail at home, it left the defense authorization bill hanging and stoked the anger of military retirees nationwide.

Dozens of veterans groups have lobbied furiously for the bill, which contains a disputed provision that would allow retirees to draw both retirement pay from the Defense Department and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The bill, which authorizes what the Defense Department can spend money on, has been stuck in a joint conference committee for weeks because of a threatened presidential veto over the provision.

Congress won't take the authorization act up again until after the Nov. 5 elections.

A century-old law forces about 499,000 retirees to forfeit a dollar of their retirement pay for every dollar they receive in VA disability compensation, a policy that retirees call unfair and discriminatory.

Because VA compensation is tax-exempt, most retirees who are eligible for both choose disability compensation.

Close to 90 percent of congressional representatives have said they want to end the practice.

The House version of the defense authorization bill would gradually eliminate the offset for retirees who are at least 60 percent disabled, at a cost of $18.5 billion over 10 years. The Senate's version would end the offset for all disabled retirees, at a cost of $58 billion over 10 years.

The White House, urged on by top Defense Department officials, has threatened to veto any legislation with concurrent receipt because that's "double dipping," or receiving money twice for the same service.

Assistant Defense Secretary Charles Abell also said last month that the billions of dollars needed for concurrent receipt would damage the military's ability to provide spare parts, modernize the force and build new housing.

The administration's tactics have bruised relations with veterans groups, who contend that the Pentagon is using misleading arguments.

"We knew they were opposed," said Michael Jordan, deputy director of government relations for the Retired Officers Association. "Did we expect that at the 11th hour they would come out with their rhetoric? No. That's very disappointing."