House Republican leaders oppose change in law to help military widows

[dajoki]

NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/washington/19widow.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

70’s Law Costs 61,000 Military Widows Thousands of Dollars in Survivor Benefits

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ
Published: August 19, 2006

As many as 61,000 military widows whose husbands died of causes relating to their military service lose out on thousands of dollars a year in survivor benefits because of a law that dates from the 1970’s.

<<snip>>

The Senate passed such a change last year and again this year as part of the military authorization bill. But House Republican leaders oppose the change because of its steep price tag, nearly $9 billion over 10 years, Senate legislative aides from both parties say. A change was not in the military bill that passed the House, but lawmakers who support the change are hoping to make it part of the bill’s final version, which is now being worked on by a bipartisan Congressional committee.

<<snip>>

A 1972 law created the Survivor Benefits Plan, a Department of Defense retirement income fund similar to a life insurance policy. The plan, in turn, pays benefits calculated according to a dead service member’s rank and length of service.

In addition, widows of veterans who died of service-related causes receive monthly cash stipends from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Known as the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation stipend, it is currently $1,033 plus $257 for each child.

But under the law, which placed restrictions on the plan that it created, the payment to widows enrolled in the Survivor Benefits Plan is reduced, dollar for dollar, by the amount of the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation stipend.

For example, a widow who would be entitled to $1,000 from the Survivor Benefits Plan and the $1,033 Dependency and Indemnity stipend receives $1,033, not $2,033.

[salin]

1. The GOP has to preserve the passing on of multi millions and billions

to the few families who earn so much. SOmeone has to pay to allow the Millionaire heirs and heiresses the luxuary of gaining income (inflow of money) in excess of 2 million dollars without taxation. Clearly the value Paris Hilton brings to our country FAR outweighs any value of the service of members of the military (or so the actions of the Government would indicate).

[ConcernedCanuk]

2. I think it might be a good idea if the repugs succeed!

.
.
.

How many wives are gonna let their men stay in the service if they realize they will be cash-strapped if the guy dies? (or marry a guy that is in or wants to be in the military)

This will even decrease the PNACers ability to recruit warriors even more.

I'm not sure if it is true, or if I have the politics right

But way back when in the Viking/Nordic time - the women threatened to cut their men off sex if they went to war.

The men stayed home.

Sumthing to think about

[countmyvote4real]

3. Lysistrata

I'm not aware of the Nordic equivalent that you reference, but the same story is told in the classic Greek play, Lysistrata.

Here's a wiki link::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata