washingtonscene
COLA Fizzle
coverage levels commensurate with that
for 2011
sacrifi ce; much of defense health care Widows Win
cost growth refl ects readiness require-
■ With inflation down
2 percent for the first
ments that are a “cost of doing business” Court Ruling
11 months of FY 2009,
for DoD; and DoD can and should pursue
SBP/DIC case might be
retirees won’t see any a range of other options to reduce health
COLA in January 2010.
care costs rather than seek to impose large
appealed.
Further, the “COLA
fee increases on military benefi ciaries.
clock” won’t restart
with the new fiscal year.
This statement of congressional intent n Aug. 26, the U.S. Court of
Under current COLA law,
provides a vital foundation for discussion Appeals for the Federal Circuit
if inflation still is down
on this important benefi t issue. Oruled for the plaintiffs in Sharp
2 percent at the end of
absentee voting rights: Support the Sen- v. the U.S., a lawsuit brought by a group
October, the January 2011
ate provisions to protect military absentee of widows over a recent law change they
COLA calculator will start
voting rights. Hundreds of thousands of say makes them eligible to receive Sur-
2 percent in the hole.
military and family members’ votes have vivor Benefi t Plan (SBP) annuities from
not been counted in recent elections be- DoD and VA Dependency and Indemnity
cause of absentee ballot problems. Compensation (DIC), without any offset
fl exible spending accounts (FSAs): Sup- between the two.
port the Senate “Sense of Congress” provi- At issue is a 2004 law that restored DIC
sion supporting implementation of pretax payments to veterans’ surviving spouses
FSAs for currently serving personnel. No who remarry after their 57th birthday.
one has greater need for dependent care In restoring eligibility for DIC, the lan-
than servicemembers subject to frequent guage of the new law barred deduction of
and extended deployments. Thousands DIC from other veterans’ benefi ts for these
of military families experience signifi cant widows “under any other provision of law.”
out-of-pocket expenses for dental care, When the VA restored their DIC — but
eyeglasses and contact lenses, medication the Pentagon continued deducting it from
copayments, OTC medications, and more. their SBP annuities — three widows took
(See article on page 36.) the government to court, claiming violation
comparison of military and private- of the new law. DoD rejected that interpre-
sector pay and benefits: A study comparing tation, in essence claiming SBP is a DoD
military and private-sector total compen- benefi t rather than a veterans’ benefi t.
sation packages, as proposed in the Senate On June 12, 2008, the U.S. Court of Fed-
bill, means little without a comparison of eral Claims ruled in favor of the widows.
military and private-sector working con- The Appeals Court ruling rejected the
ditions. Unique military retirement ben- government’s appeal, agreeing with the
efi ts offset the extraordinary demands and stance MOAA has taken: “Perhaps [the
sacrifi ces of a service career, including re- 2004 law change] simply represents a fi rst
peated family separations; extended over- step in an effort to eventually enact full re-
time without extra pay; frequent moves peal [of the SBP/DIC offset]. After all, the
that disrupt spousal careers and children’s servicemember paid for both benefi ts: SBP
education; risk of death or incapacita- with premiums, DIC with his [or her] life.”
tion; and the forfeiture of many personal This is a poignant victory for the three
freedoms (e.g., inability to resign at will or widows involved.
refuse an order). If total compensation is But the case isn’t necessarily over yet,
10-percent higher but requires 50-percent because it remains to be seen whether the
more sacrifi ce, the compensation compari- government will appeal the decision to the
son alone is highly misleading. U.S. Supreme Court.
34 MILITARY OFFICER NOVEMBER 2009
NNov_scene.indd
34ov_scene.indd 34 110/5/09 6:00 PM0/5/09 6:00 PM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96