ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 297
Oct 5 09 2:03 PM
Jewel 62 USAF (Ret) Proud Cold War Veteran... and Yes, it was a Real War!
Interact
Posts: 102
Oct 5 09 8:13 PM
Oct 6 09 10:09 AM
donkef wrote: John, I see you have six postings on the last two pages of this thread alone. You either REALLY like watching paint dry, or you're a bit more interested than you appear to let on. LOL
Posts: 806
Oct 6 09 10:39 AM
Posts: 52
Oct 6 09 2:16 PM
I have not been able to find out what is in the Republican motion yet. I'm still looking. John
LTC, USA (ret)
Posts: 223
Oct 6 09 3:23 PM
texasglory wrote: ... The 50% and under group are getting a real screwing.
texasglory wrote: bothers me that those who served 20 years are being robbed like this. What they should have done was approved CR for everyone who served 20 years and who collect disability because for all those years of honorable service. And then after that is approved they should have looked at the those who did not serve 20 years but who were medically discharged under Chapter 61 nevertheless. Bottom like none of these people should continue to be robbed like this.
texasglory wrote: have to remember that money means more to someone who is not disabled because they can go out and travel the world and do things that a disabled person normally can do. So there is some envy and strife that unfortunately comes in to play when it comes to earned benefits like these. I think that is why SJ has an obsession with it.
texasglory wrote: the future some of these issues will resurface and we need to be ready. There are going to be more people on the retirement rolls and less people working. The tax base is going to shrink dramatically over the years. With less money coming in Congress is going to have to make touch choices. They can only raise taxes so much. That's why I try to tuck a little away just in case we get a Congress that is stuck on stupid. Tex Drom MOAA: Obama Concurrent Receipt Plan Details More details surfaced this week on the Administration's proposal to expand concurrent receipt to service members who were medically retired, sometimes referred to as Chapter 61 retirees. Under the Administration's Omnibus proposal, all Chapter 61 retirees will become eligible for Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP) over a five-year period starting in January 2010. The expansion will come in two phases. snip.... Our hope is that this signals a potential willingness to go 'the final mile" in the future to cover all disabled retirees.
SC 90%
IU P&T
SSDI Awarded
Oct 6 09 6:19 PM
Posts: 221
Oct 6 09 7:31 PM
The House plans to name its conferees for the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill Tuesday, perhaps setting the stage for final action on the legislation by the end of the week.
Aides said conferees are expected to meet just once, on Oct. 7, signaling that House and Senate authorizers have figured out how to reconcile their differences on several important issues. If all goes according to plan, the House would take up the conference report Oct. 8.
Oct 6 09 11:58 PM
Oct 7 09 1:41 AM
Oct 7 09 9:34 AM
Oct 7 09 11:22 AM
Posts: 13
Oct 7 09 2:42 PM
here is a link to a press release just out from the Senate Armed Service Committe... http://www.federaltimes.com/content/nspspr100709.pdf Here is a sentence from that press release that got my attention..
The Administration's concurrent receipt proposal was not included in the conference report because acceptable and specific offsets were not proposed by the Administration. I dont know what it actually means, but doesnt sound good for us.. Eddie
Posts: 289
Oct 7 09 3:00 PM
Posts: 216
Oct 7 09 3:20 PM
ArmyTexas wrote: I think that report is just for the Senate side and does not reflect the House version. I think they have to beat each other up about the differences now. But I may be wrong
"CONFERENCE REPORT FOR THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010"
Oct 7 09 3:28 PM
MCPO wrote: ArmyTexas wrote: I think that report is just for the Senate side and does not reflect the House version. I think they have to beat each other up about the differences now. But I may be wrong "CONFERENCE REPORT FOR THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010" The conference report is just that. A report on the business conducted by the Conference Committee (both Senate and House). It is a summary of what the conference committee agreed to for passage by both houses.
Oct 7 09 3:34 PM
The conference report linked above should be the same as for the House. There is no expansion of concurrent receipt. It would have been highlighted. There are just some mealy mouth phrases about the sense of Congress in looking for funding cuts to pay for mandatory spending, the catagory which concurrent receipt falls under. The civilian pay issues that were included with HR 2990, which included concurrent receipt, are shown in the civilian pay section. John
Oct 7 09 3:36 PM
Oct 7 09 3:49 PM
Oct 7 09 3:57 PM
Share This