Why is John McCain getting $58,000 a year in disability income?
The same reason I'm getting $15,120 a year.
He earned it.
He earned it through his military service, and the amount of it was determined by an agency of the federal government you don't find in the Yellow Pages under "Get Free Stuff The Easy Way!" And it was awarded based on rules established by Congress, as implemented by the executive branch, all of whom, last I checked, were duly elected representatives of the people.
Let's get to the heart of the matter - the only reason this is being brought up is because Mr. Aravosis is annoyed that Senator McCain won't vote for the new GI Bill, because it's "too generous"
First off, I find it fascinating that John McCain, who is refusing to vote for the GI Bill for our troops because "it's too generous," is himself getting $58,000 a year, tax-free, from the US government for his military service. Had McCain been getting that amount every year since Vietnam, that would total $2,000,000 for the man who isn't into overgenerous government. I just find that interesting.
Nice way to use the math, badly, in order to maximize the dollar amount, given that it's a less-than-COLA indexed benefit. Additionally, since Senator McCain is a military retiree, he's spent most of that time funding a good chunk of his disability payment out of his retirement check, meaning it was mostly a tax break, vice income.
I'm just not sure that the McCains, who own "eight or nine houses," should be getting $58k a year tax-free from the government for a "technical" disability when others who don't have families worth a gazillion dollars could use that support a lot more. The median household income in the US in 2006 was $48,201. I know vets who have done well for themselves in the workplace and, as a result, refuse to take any federal medical benefits. They feel it would simply be wrong to take what amounts to federal welfare when they're rich.
Heh. No doubt Senator McCain's retirement pay should be means-tested, too.
I'm curious - Mr. Aravosis says the "rich" vets he knows are forgoing "federal medical benefits" - does that include any disability pension they may be due?
The reason I ask - I'm a "technically" disabled vet, too - rated at 70%. Which puts me in the VA Priority Group 1, meaning space-required health care coverage for all of my ills and ailments, not just the ones rated service-connected.
I, too, don't use that health care. For many reasons. One, the coverage I have elsewhere is simply... better. The coverage offered via the VA would be for me alone, and doesn't cover my family - so I'm going to be spending the money on insurance anyway.
And, by not using my priority one status (except once, out in Las Vegas, when I had food poisoning and the VA facility was closest) I leave a space open for those sad, tired vets sitting in the waiting room hoping for Space Available treatment.
My point being that it may not be as noble a sentiment there as he implies, and I am curious if he is perhaps conflating the pension benefit with medical - because on a "technical parsing" of his english - he is (for that whole snark on "technical" to make sense, you need to read his full post - and, as always, you should, rather than just my cherry-picks).
I'd be more impressed with the overall argument if he was arguing for revamping the VA rating and compensation system to bring it into, oh, the late 20th Century Service/Information economy vice the 1930's-1950's Agricultural/Industrial economy paradigm that it currently labors under. I personally despair of the system being able to be brought into the 21st Century.
Or if he argued that means-testing the pension benefit would free up dollars for use elsewhere in the system. Not that I'm going to trust any Congress or any Administration on that issue, seeing as how Democrats and Republicans kept me funding my own disability payment for a decade, until a Republican Congress forced a Republican President to repeal (over nearly a decade, mind you) that offset. Hmmm. Wonder how Senator McCain voted on that. I would guess since he would personally benefit, Mr. Aravosis would argue he should not have voted. No, frankly, I'm *not* going to take the time to go look it up, either.
And no, even though I make a comfortable living, in fact, by some Democrat politico metrics, I'm officially "rich" (heh) I'm going to continue to accept the deposits made in my bank account every month. One reason we've had "Castle Work Days" where our friends come by and help out, and we have a barter arrangement for heavy labor around the Castle, and where I paid people to come in and build some interior walls I know how to build isn't because I like fleecing my friends and supporting my local contractors - it's because I can't swing a hammer over my head. It's because I can't set 50 fence posts. It's because I need to have people come by and do stuff, were it not for my service-connected health issues, I could (and would rather, though having people come by is nice) do myself.
But then, Mr. Aravosis' use of the most recent payment figure for a less-than-COLA-adjusted benefit that was worth less in dollars when originally awarded (though given inflation over time, arguably more in adjusted dollars in the early days than it is now) and completely ignoring the fact (or are ignorant of) that Senator McCain was funding a good chunk of that payment out of his retirement pay (see discussion of the offset above)... I'm thinking this is more about damaging candidate McCain than it is a serious discussion of the issue.
And since Mr. Aravosis brought up Senator Kerry and such - if we're ever going to stop that sort of thing, does this mean that Republicans must stand silent on any similar issue this time around, while the Democrat side whales away, then, will karma be balanced and we can start afresh?
Heh.
14 Comments