Home
Benefits
News
entertainment
shop
finance
careers
education
join military
community
 
Search for Military News:  
Military.com Advisors Early Brief | Headlines | Warfighter's Forum | Discussions | Benefit Updates | Defense Tech
SSIA Not Easing DIC Offset's Sting
Tom Philpott | April 10, 2009

Readers of Tom Philpott's Military Update column sound off.

Widow's Allowance Doesn't Ease SBP Offset's Sting

Thank you for the article on the SBP/DIC Offset.

I am the widow of a retired Coast Guard officer, CWO-3 Thomas E. Stringer, who died in 2002 from the affects of Agent Orange exposure. I have been fighting alongside Gold Star Wives and surviving spouses for quite awhile now. Frankly, I cannot understand why Washington will not give us back what is rightfully ours.

My husband retired in 1973. For the next 29-plus years he paid into what he thought was a Survivor Benefit Plan annuity for me in case he died before me. We did not know he would pass away first, and that it would be a horrible death.

I was entitled to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs but they took away my SBP annuity. One has nothing to do with the other, and the politicians in Washington know this.

Do they think that 54,000 widows and widowers haven't paid a high enough price? We lost our spouses and have had to go on with our lives, but to take away the money we were supposed to receive is so unfair.

Many of us are just barely getting by and that money would go a long way to make life a little more bearable.

No, as you suggested, we are not thrilled with the $95 a month that the House has decided to give us in lieu of eliminating the offset. I lost $1000 a month so it feels like a slap to my face and to my late husband's.

Please keep up the good job you do to make people aware of this injustice. Someday maybe Congress will listen.

Take Action: Tell your public officials how you feel about this issue.

MARIANNE STRINGER
Via e-mail

I wanted to comment on your recent article on the House vote to raise the Special Survivors Indemnity Allowance, in which I am quoted.

Certainly all of us affected by the SBP/DIC offset are grateful that Congress is listening and recognizes the urgent need to finally address this issue. It has been before Congress for years with little attention.

We are pleased that, of all the places they could have spent this $500 million in mandatory spending, they chose to put it towards lowering the offset. However, it concerns us all greatly that the SSIA is the vehicle that they seem to be choosing to do it.

Everyone who spoke out in support of HR 1804 (with its provision to increase SSIA) agreed that much work remains to be done. But for the second time, Congress has chosen to address this issue through that the SSIA. The SSIA only benefits those who are subject to the offset.

Should Congress continue to find money to put towards the offset, without passing the Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act (HR 775), those who are not subject to the offset run the risk of being left out. I'm referring to surviving spouses with young children, like me, who chose the SBP "child option." I do not like the word "chose" here because, in reality, we did not have a choice. Taking the child option over spouse SBP was necessary to have money to raise our children now, because we know that the SBP spouse benefit would be offset by DIC.

Should Congress eventually, and effectively, eliminate the offset through the SSIA, it will leave out those of us who gave up our own SBP benefit to provide for our children. That would be yet another great injustice.

Passing HR 775 and S. 535, its companion bill in the Senate, to eliminate the offset outright is the only manner to truly address this problem and restore the earned retired pay to surviving spouses of those who paid premiums for it or who paid for it with their lives.

We continue to urge Congress to do just that.

MAGGIE McCLOUD
Via e-mail

ROTH ADVANTAGES UNDERSTATED

In your recent column on the House vote to give federal Thrift Savings Plan participants a new Roth investment option, you stated that a Roth TSP would not shelter contributions from taxes. I agree. I also agree with your next statement that instead the Roth would "shift the tax protection to future withdrawals which includes years of investment growth."

But I think you should have mentioned too that a Roth plan's distributions, in most cases, are forever free of federal taxes as well as from state, local and city taxes. In addition, you can bequeath any and all monies to heirs without estate tax. In addition, if you satisfy earned income rules, you can make contributions to a Roth account indefinitely and you do not need to complete making withdrawals or distributions from a Roth at age 70.5 years.

If these facts were known to all the potential TSP participants, then that survey of TSP members cited in the article would have been overwhelming in favor of having that option…in the 90 percentile versus the 56 percent referenced in the article.

Thank you for your Military Update reports. I look forward to them each Sunday.

ERIK M. TJELMELAND
Via e-mail

STIMULUS PAYMENT

I heard that the economic stimulus package contains a one-time payment of $250 for all military retirees. Have you any information on this?

JERRY McVEY
Dental Technician First Class, USN-Ret.
Via e-mail

The stimulus package provides a $250 payment to those drawing VA disability compensation and Social Security but not to those receiving military retired pay alone. – Tom Philpott

BAIT AND SWITCH

The government throws the worst possible scenario at veterans to scare the pants off of them, and then backs off a little to make them think they've got something.

President Obama's decision to back off of his proposal to charge veterans' health insurance for VA treatment will be trumped by a proposal to hike TRICARE fees. Then veterans will be told they should be glad because it could have been worse.

Also you wrote, "More disputes are likely between a White House struggling to impose restraints on federal spending...."

Do you really think they are serious about imposing spending restraints on anything but the military?

BARRY MCCLURE Via e-mail

Letters may be edited for clarity or length. Write to Military Forum, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111, send e-mail to militaryforum@aol.com or visit http://www.militaryupdate.com/.

Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.


Copyright 2009 Tom Philpott. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.

 
About Tom Philpott

Tom Philpott has been breaking news for and about military people since 1977. After service in the Coast Guard, and 17 years as a reporter and senior editor with Army Times Publishing Company, Tom launched "Military Update," his syndicated weekly news column, in 1994. "Military Update" features timely news and analysis on issues affecting active duty members, reservists, retirees and their families. Tom also edits a reader reaction column, "Military Forum." The online "home" for both features is Military.com.

Tom's freelance articles have appeared in numerous magazines including The New Yorker, Reader's Digest and Washingtonian. His critically-acclaimed book, Glory Denied, on the extraordinary ordeal and heroism of Col. Floyd "Jim" Thompson, the longest-held prisoner of war in American history, is available in hardcover and paperback.