Clay continues: “Should the Commission seek to include SSDI as a topic of investigation…its enabling Legislation does not provide a bulletproof basis on which to do so and that additional authority is needed. Frankly, I am not certain what that authority would be. I am certain that it is not post-enactment guidance from the United States Congress or some committee thereof. The United States Supreme Court has confirmed that such ‘authority’ has no value.”

Then Clay sets forward a scenario that could tie up the VDBC for years. Clay writes: “I suppose that some might consider looking for the additional authority in the form of a declaratory judgment, but it is unclear to me who the parties to that litigation would be, unless disagreeing Commissioners wanted to start suing each other. Conversely, if the Commission simply chose to expand its focus to include SSDI, it would almost certainly invite a declaratory judgment lawsuit from a disabled veteran, a veterans’ organization or both…The Commission has two choices. The first is to limit its investigation to Title 38 benefits, thereby embracing a clear and unassailable interpretation of its enabling legislation. The second is to expand its investigation to include SSDI, thereby almost guaranteeing collateral litigation...”

Where does this leave us? Gen. Scott, with his newfound “authority” from four members of Congress, could tell the VDBC they are studying SSDI benefits for veterans. In theory, the 13 Commission members should vote on this, which presents another problem. Many feel the VDBC is a politically stacked deck with nine members being appointed by Republicans, including the President, and only four members being appointed by Democratic legislators. There is an overwhelming feeling in the veterans’ community that the Commission majority is intent on finding ways to cut vets’ benefits.

If the VDBC studies SSDI and recommends a payment offset to VA benefits, many disabled veterans could find their income decimated. An offset would mean that the veteran could receive one of the payments (the higher dollar amount) but not both. Also of importance is the fact that at age 65 SSDI benefits revert to regular Social Security. This would mean the payments recognized as Social Security “retirement” would be reduced, as well.

This complicated situation should be decided at the VDBC’s May 19 meeting. Concerned veterans and their families are urged to write Commission members, especially Gen. Scott. 

The Commission’s email is: veterans@vetscommission.intranets.com. For more information on the VDBC and its members go to: http://www.vetscommission.org/index.htm