Military Life News

Military Life News, Commissary Rewards and Military Discounts

Disabled Veterans May See Increase in Benefits

By

Thanks to Congressman Ralph Abraham of Louisiana, disabled veterans may see an increase in benefits at the end of the year. Dr. Abraham’s HR 5588, the Veterans’ Compensation COLA Act of 2016 was signed into law this summer and takes effect on December 1, 2016.

Disabled Veterans May See Increase in Benefits

What do you think of legislation aimed at increasing and expanding benefits for disabled veterans?

The bill quickly made its way through the House and Senate and was signed into law by the president in under a month. The bill itself is quite simple:

(Sec. 2) This bill directs the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to increase, as of December 1, 2016, the rates of veterans’ disability compensation, additional compensation for dependents, the clothing allowance for certain disabled veterans, and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children.

Each such increase shall be the same percentage as the increase in benefits provided under title II (Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance [OASDI]) of the Social Security Act, on the same effective date.

In short, each year legislation has to be drafted to approve an increase in cost of living allowance (COLA) for disabled veterans. The increase will match that of social security. While social security automatically increases each year as the cost of living does, the Veterans’ Compensation COLA Act does not have a stipulation for automatic adjustment.

To me, this seems to be an outdated way of doing things. If social security can automatically increase with the cost of living, then why doesn’t the Veterans’ Compensation COLA Act?

Abraham looked at this process and introduced HR 677, the American Heroes COLA Act. This bill would enable the veterans’ COLA adjustments to be automatic each year freeing up the House to work on other bills and saving veterans and their families the frustration of waiting to see what will happen with their pay each year. The House quickly passed this bill, but the Senate has not done anything with it.

For now, disabled veterans can plan their finances for the short term knowing the Veterans’ Compensation COLA Act of 2016 was signed into law.

They will have to wait for the politicians in Washington to decide if they will pass the American Heroes COLA Act and make it an automatic adjustment each year.

Note however, while the Veterans’ Compensation COLA Act of 2016 has been signed into law, it does not mean that an increase in pay is guaranteed.

The amount that disabled veterans may see as an increase will be the same increase as social security. The last time social security did not increase was in 2000.

It won’t be until the end of the year that the exact amount of an increase will be known. It will only be increased if there is an increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W).

The compensation programs for disabled veterans were originally put into place to help relieve the financial burden disabled veterans face by not being able to earn wages due to injuries sustained during military service. The amount of benefits disabled veterans receive is based on the degree of disability they qualify for.

Abraham, a veteran of the Army Reserves and National Guard, has been working to get disabled veterans better benefits. These 2 bills are not his only accomplishments in regards to veterans’ issues since being elected to office.

He has also chaired the VA Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs. He has worked toward getting disabled veterans the help they need when they need it and at locations convenient to them through the Veterans’ Choice Program. This program would make it easier for veterans who live in remote areas to seek medical treatment from doctors near them, rather than wait for an appointment at a VA facility.

Last year Abraham also cosponsored HR 1994, the VA Accountability Act. This bill passed the House but the Senate has yet to consider it. If the VA Accountability Act were to become law, the VA would become accountable for its actions. They would finally be able to fire or demote employees that have failed to do their job.

Thanks to Abraham, disabled veterans might be getting better benefits in the future.

What do you think of legislation aimed at increasing and expanding benefits for disabled veterans?

Should We Believe Congress When It Comes to the Commissary?

By

Congress is constantly debating military benefits and the commissary is frequently at the top of the list. Every year when the Defense Bill reaches the floor consumers stand weary to see what will happen to their commissary benefits.

Congress claims they are looking out for service members, veterans and their families, but are they really?

Is Congress trying to save the commissary or looking for an excuse to close it down? If you listen in on any of the subcommittee meetings, you might not be so sure of the answer.

Should We Believe Congress When It Comes to the Commissary?

Congress isn’t out to cause harm to military families by cutting the commissary.

It might be hard to trust that lawmakers are on the side of military families. They are constantly talking about budget cuts and changes to military benefits. Service members and their families have sacrificed so much. They were promised benefits to compensate them for their service.

Over the years however, we have all watched as benefits are cut, diminished and altered.

What my dad was promised back in the 70s is not what he ended up with when he retired from the Army almost 30 years later.

Congress isn’t out to cause harm to military families by cutting benefits though and all changes aren’t bad either. I’ve witnessed some great changes in the last 8 years that I’ve been a Navy spouse.

You won’t find any of the committee members saying they want to do away with the commissary. They all pledge that they are working hard to keep the commissary going. It’s the business process they are trying to improve so that the commissary won’t depend on the government and taxpayers to it keep running.

The simple truth is they want military families to have the benefit of shopping at the commissary –they just don’t want to pay for it.

As so many things come down to it, it’s just about money. How can Congress cut the budget? If they truly didn’t care about the morale of families, they could simply vote to do away with the commissary. It really could be that simple.

Instead, they have taken extensive measures to dig into what can be done to save the commissary.

Congress hired a firm and spent nearly $4 million to research ways to make the commissary self-sufficient and competitive with commercial grocery stores.

They looked into privatizing the system, but that didn’t pan out.

They talked about what increasing the prices could do to level the playing field with commercial grocers and patrons balked at the idea.

They tested the idea of variable pricing by market and that resulted in some families coming out ahead while others found their pockets lighter.

Finally, the research team talked about creating a commissary brand private label. That had mixed results in discussion but this year it will be tested. DeCA will be introducing private label items by the end of the year. They are still in the process of seeking companies to put in proposals to create the private labels. Congress is waiting for the results of this idea.

We will be waiting to see what happens next, because that’s all we can do.

It’s another year of wait and see.

Will the commissary benefit continue or will Congress look at the price tag and decide to make significant changes? Unfortunately, only time will tell. In the meantime, take advantage of this benefit and do your shopping at the commissary.

Do you believe the leaders of Congress when they say they are working to protect our commissary benefit? Why or why not?

Amendment to Reimburse Recertification Costs

By

Recertification costs due to PCS can really add up for military spouses that are employed in a career field that requires state licensing or certification. Two senators are working to get some of that money back to military spouses.

Senators Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) have been trying for years to get a tax credit for military spouses that have had to pay fees for licensure and certification when they PCSed with their service members.

Senators Introduce Amendment to Reimburse Military Spouses’ Move-Related Recertification Costs

Two senators have proposed an amendment to the defense bill that would reimburse military spouses up to $500 for the costs of re-licensure and re-certification.

Military spouses earn 38 percent less than civilians according to a recent report, due to the hardship of constantly moving. Many spouses experience a length of unemployed or become underemployed because jobs that require licensing or certification are state specific.

Recertification costs can be more than military families can afford, especially with frequent moves.

Senators Casey and Moran are hoping to ease that burden with a tax credit to military spouses to cover recertification costs. They have proposed an amendment to the defense bill that would reimburse military spouses up to $500 for the costs of re-licensure and re-certification that stems from a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) to a another state.

Reimbursement for recertification costs would include:

  • Application fees to a state board, bar association or other certifying or licensing body.
  • Exam fees and registration fees paid to a licensing body.
  • Costs of additional coursework required for eligibility for licensing or certification specific to the state, not including the cost of continuing education courses.

Limitations include:

  • The total amount of reimbursement for recertification costs cannot exceed $500 per PCS.
  • Eligibility for reimbursement of recertification costs for spouses would not be limited by the pay grade of the service member.
  • Reimbursements would be distributed quarterly.
  • The cap on the reimbursement program would be $2 million a year.

There are more than 860,000 military spouses and only 55 percent of them were in the workforce in the past decade. If this passes, it would give many spouses the opportunity to continue their careers after relocation.

The government would also benefit from the program as a recent study by Blue Star Families showed. The report stated that it costs the U.S. economy between $710 million and $1.07 billion annually in lost tax revenue, unemployment benefits and health costs because so many military spouses were not employed in career fields that they otherwise could be without the hardship of moving.

These two senators are working to get recertification costs reimbursed to military spouses so that they can get back in the career field of their choice. This simple act of reimbursement can actually have a huge impact on the economy, as well as at home for military families.

Luckily, they are not the only ones fighting for military spouses. First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden started a campaign in 2011, known as Joining Forces, to make it easier for military spouses to gain employment in portable carriers.

They also saw the struggle that military spouses faced with PCSing, especially with recertification costs. Together, they urged governors in every state to take action, whether executive or legislative, to make state licensing for military spouses easier. This month they announced that all 50 states have created a way to help streamline the process of licensing and credentialing military spouses.

The Department of Defense along with state legislators and regulators has developed 3 ways to help military spouses transfer licenses: licensure through endorsement; temporary licensure; and expedited processes for issuing licenses.

Licensure through endorsement can be difficult for military spouses, so a best practice has been developed that allows spouses to show their competency in their occupation through various methods determined by boards such as recent experience and continuing education units.

Temporary licensure is offered by many states that allows military spouses to enter employment while completing state requirements or while awaiting verification of current license, certification or employment history for an endorsement.

An expedited process for issuing licenses is a quick way to get spouses back in the workforce. States have varying ways in which they expedite the process. Washington, for example, allows a board to approve a license based on an application certified by affidavit.

With recertification costs keeping many military spouses out of the workforce, hopefully these initiatives will be able to get them back into it.

How much have you spent on recertification costs when you moved as a military spouse? Share your story in the comments section.

Is the Military an Easy Target for Budget Cuts?

By

Oh, budget cuts. We military families cringe when we hear that in association with the military. Why do we see these cuts happen and why do they have to hurt so much? Why is cutting Tricare, housing and other benefits the best way to handle the budget?

Is the Military an Easy Target for Budget Cuts?

The truth is, only 1 percent are serving and because of that, a lot of people don’t understand what we need.

I have been a military spouse for more than 10 years now and I have seen plenty of other ways to cut the budget instead of cutting where it hurts the most. That makes me wonder, why is the military an easy target for budget cuts?

One reader wrote this in a comment about proposed changes to the commissaries:

This is a reduction in benefits any way you look at it. Another pay cut. The military is an easy target since they aren’t allowed to be political.

Is this true? Is the military an easy target for cuts because the military is not allowed to be political? I think there is some truth to this but it isn’t the main reason.

The biggest reason is because few people in the government have a real connection to the military. You are more likely to make cuts to something you think that a small percentage of the population will actually be affected by.

Although military members themselves can not be political, others who are associated with the military and who care just as much can be. Spouses and those who have served in the past. Those with children serving or with parents who have served. They are people who can get political about the cuts.

Because of this, there has to be more to the cuts than just the fact that those who serve can’t be political.

When my husband joined the military, we didn’t know too many people who were also making that choice. Over the years that has changed as we have met more and more military families. However, when we go home we still feel like the minority when it comes to the military. This isn’t true for everyone of course. Others come from big military communities and have known the military life before they became a part of the service themselves.

The truth is, only 1 percent are serving and because of that, a lot of people don’t understand what we need. They don’t understand that when you sign up to fight for your country, you expect your family to be taken care of in return. That you shouldn’t have to worry that your health care will be cut, that services for your special needs kids will suddenly be taken away or that you have to worry that you will not make enough each month to support them.

If we could figure out a way to make sure everyone with the power to change this knows what military families need and what we don’t, things might change. If they could hear the voices of the military spouses and other family members, maybe they would find another way to make their cuts. If they could truly understand what the budget cuts do to the 1 percent serving in the military, maybe they would do something else.

This means that change needs to come from us, those that stand behind those serving in the military. We need to be aware of the changes that are being made and do what we can to stand up against them. This won’t always be easy and sometimes things will feel like we are not even making a difference, but the more people understand what military families need, the better chance we have for things to change.

Do you agree with that statement the “military is an easy target since they aren’t allowed to be political?” Why or why not?

Proposed Changes to the Commissaries in 2016

By

For the last 40 years the commissaries have been put on the chopping block only to come out strong.

Last year the Senate and House debated privatizing the commissaries over the next several years to save money. They wanted to cut the $1.3 billion annual Department of Defense subsidy for the commissary system. Luckily, this proposal didn’t make it through.

Don’t relax too much thinking the commissaries will be safe now. This year the politicians are at it again.

The House and Senate have come together on a new plan for the FY 2016 Defense Authorization Act. This consists of:

  • reducing the FY 2016 commissaries budget cut from $322 million to $30 million;
  • they scrapped the idea of privatizing the system and are now requiring a DoD plan to make the commissary and exchange benefit “budget neutral” by the end of 2018;
  • authorized DoD to conduct pilot programs to evaluate ways to achieve commissary and exchange budget neutrality; and
  • specified that these must maintain high levels of customer satisfaction, provide high-quality products, and sustain the current level of savings for customers.

What does this mean for the average shopper at their local commissaries? The most notable change would be prices. Some patrons would notice their prices going up while a select few might find them going down.

How could this be?

What lawmakers are considering here is variable pricing. Currently, prices are set at commissaries across the board. Under this change, commissaries would see price changes based on location.

Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., a brigadier general in the Army Reserves chairs an Armed Services subcommittee that lead the hearings recently on overhauling the stores. He says commissaries could improve how they sell products and become more efficient if they utilized a variable pricing method. Following commercial grocery stores strategies, prices would be set by the market.

For example, prices at commercial grocery stores are higher in New York then they are in Alabama. Just reading this proposal, Fort Drum patrons will be balking at the idea, whereas those at Maxwell AFB may be more open to it since they would be the ones possibly seeing the lower prices.

Heck hopes this plan will help get commissaries to a break-even plan. He says that they currently lose money on every sale.

If that doesn’t do the job, the other plan proposed is to create a commissary brand, much like commercial grocery stores have. Selling items under a Defense Commissary Agency label was part of a consultant lead study that was presented to Congress last fall. This is likely to be the main topic of discussion on the Hill this year.

The worry here for most people is that the quality of the products might not be the same as the commercial brands that are currently being sold at commissaries. The study claims that the products would be at the same level and patrons would still save money over local grocery stores. To match that quality however, there would likely be an increase in prices.

If either of these proposals get enough lawmakers to support it, they could be added to the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a huge bill that shapes military policies and takes most of the year to work through.

Will commissaries see changes this year or are they safe, at least for another year?

Only time will tell, but if the last 40 years of failed proposals to cut the DoD subsidy have a standing basis then maybe things won’t change.

Once the presidency changes, initiatives might as well. Everything is a big “if” for the moment and commissary patrons will be watching closely to see if one of the greatest nonpay benefits for service members will see a big change.

What do you think of these proposals to make changes to the commissaries?

Hot Topic: Should the Military Pay for Tributes at NFL Games?

By

The defense budget is getting slimmer. Spending cuts, in some form, are expected to hit the military this year. Congress is looking at retirement reform, cuts to housing allowances and Tricare prescription fee increases. And don’t forget about the sad proposed pay increase of 1.3 percent.

Combine all this doom and gloom funding discussions with this headline,

“The Pentagon paid 14 NFL teams $5.4 million to ‘salute troops’ ”

and many military families, including myself, are left shaking their heads in disbelief.

Should the Military Pay for Tributes at NFL Games?

The NFL was paid to provide salutes to service members. Do you think this type of advertising is effective for recruiting? Or is it a waste of taxpayer money?

The Pentagon reportedly signed contracts with 14 NFL teams stipulating that teams would be paid sums ranging from $60,000 to $1 million each. These 2011-2012 contracts required professional football teams to pause before kick-off and to salute the city’s “hometown heroes.”

What I thought was a kind gesture for our men and women in uniform was basically one giant recruiting poster.

But these patriotic promotions may be prohibited in the future. Arizona Sen. John McCain, along with fellow Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake and Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal presented legislation that would “stop NFL teams from receiving recruiting or advertising money from the Defense Department to honor American soldiers at games.” This amendment also encourages teams “to donate profits from these efforts to charitable organizations that support members of the U.S. military, veterans and their families.”

“Our amendment would put an end to that shameful practice and ask the NFL to return those profits to charities supporting our troops, veterans and their families,” McCain said on the Senate floor.

Related: America’s Support for the Troops is Lip Service

In response, the National Guard and the NFL has defended this relationship. A statement from the NFL said that McCain’s proposed amendment paints a “distorted picture.”

“This amendment paints a completely distorted picture of the relationship between NFL teams and our military. We agree that no one should be paid to honor our troops. Military spending on recruiting efforts should not be confused with programs that support our nation’s active military and veterans,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a written statement.

Should the Military Pay for Tributes at NFL Games?

Army Maj. Gen. Roger Mathews, U.S. Army Pacific deputy commander, looks on during the ceremonial coin toss at the 2012 NFL Pro Bowl game at Aloha Stadium in Honolulu, Hawaii. (U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Michael R. Holzworth)

But then there’s this:

“What makes these expenditures all the more troubling is that at the same time the Guard was spending millions on pro sports advertising, it was also running out of money for critical training for our troops,” McCain said.

Wait, what?

McCain said that in 2014, the National Guard “was facing a shortfall of more than $100 million in the account used to pay its soldiers and potential delays in training.” It should also be noted that last year, the Guard discontinued its sponsorship of NASCAR after spending $88 million over 2 years.

For a complete list of teams that received money to salute the military, click here.

Now it’s your turn: What do you think of DOD spending money on military tributes at sporting events?