Law denies military widows benefits

[deadparrot]

As many as 61,000 military widows whose husbands died of causes relating to their military service lose out on thousands of dollars a year in survivor benefits because of a law that dates from the 1970s.

Widows and retirees have spent decades trying to persuade Congress to change the law, which hits hardest at the widows of lower-ranking service members and is referred to by many as the "widow's tax."

The Senate passed such a change last year and again this year as part of the military authorization bill. But House Republican leaders oppose the change because of its steep price tag, nearly $9 billion over 10 years, Senate legislative aides from both parties say. A change was not in the military bill that passed the House, but lawmakers who support the change said they are hoping to make it part of the bill's final version, which is now being worked on by a bipartisan congressional committee.

"My husband thought he was securing my future," said Edie Smith, a member of the Gold Star Wives, a group of military widows who are lobbying to change the law. "He didn't realize his own disability would void the benefit he purchased for me."

http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_4206915

[raging moderate]

1. House Republican leaders are beneath contempt for this one!

The so-called "steep price" is not so much compared to the billions and billions raked in by their corporate masters. How dare they continue to trumpet that they support our troops while fighting to undercut the troops at every turn!

[BeHereNow]

2. Welcome to DU!

Yes, it is a travesty-
The country is coming apart at the seams,
and meanwhile, the elite offshore their money and
the largest corporations pay no taxes at all.
We are so headed for third world days...
BHN

[salin]

8. it seems that it is more important to preserve

estates in excess of 2 million dollars to be passed on to heirs without taxes than it is to live up to promises to those who were willing to risk their lives to serve their country. So what if those passing off riches could, before the law changes, receive 2 million tax free and only pay taxes on the inheritance (treated as income, I believe) the amount received over 2 million (so if I inherited 2.3 million, I would only pay a tax on the .3 million) - they deserve it - and the vets and their widows do not - THEY should be made to PAY!

Interesting priorities we have in this country.

[Double T]

3. SOMEBODY has to pay for ALL these wars..........

and tax cuts to the rich! It seems VERY appropriate that widows of military service persons that gave their lives for their country fighting for freedom and democracy should be the ones to PAY! If this atrocity of justice isn't a damn good reason to FIRE every SOB in congress in the coming elections, then I don't know what is! Our government is broken, only we can fix IT!

[jwirr]

4. Hey, congress idiots, this is part of the cost of war, add it to the

deficit along with helliburton's billions.

[billyoc]

5. If you stop making widows,

it wouldn't cost so much. :grr:

[soothsayer]

6. * hates the military, except when they're healthy cannon fodder.

After that, it's 'screw you' as far as the chickenhawks are concerned. That is just despicable.

[Monkeyman]

7. Speaker Hastert said

This would cost way to much coming from a cut an ran Republican five time asked five times ran. I think our families deserve everything the get. Hell DOD called my mom told her I was dead . I was only wounded but hell that call to mothers who sons where kia had to be the worse thing ever

[salin]

9. that is awful.

How painful for your mother.

The dollars referred to (by republicans) as "too expensive" are mere pennies compared to the on-going and future costs to keep operations in Iraq going. It feels like we are living an absurd cartoon world.

[ShockediSay]

10. wealthiest get tax breaks; military widows get scr*d n/t

[nealmhughes]

11. Now why in the world would House Republicans care a bat turd about

enlisted men's widows? Nine Billion over ten years! That is a lot of money, gee, almost as much as is missing from 2 years in "Iraq reconstruction..."
Privates' widows do not have the $ to have a voice by donations and the generals' widows are doing fine on their own after the generals retire to Halliburton or Bechtel or Grumman or wherever... Now those are the guys that count!
These privates, had they lived, would have only become factory workers or truck drivers, or they would not have been in the conscription army, as they would have been in college...and even though their taxes are lost, their wives get to take up the slack, why some of those privates might have been (shudder at the thought) union members and their wives now can go out and work and pay the taxes the income the dead lose...
Or, they just might be Republicans and not give a flying act of coitus.

[Imagevision]

12. Repugs way of supporting the troops, then and now!

[struggle4progress]

13. The Iraq war is costing about $7.5 billion monthly, and these nitwits ..

.. are fussing about helping widows at a cost of $0.075 billion monthly? Hell, the neocon crony game has MISPLACED at least $9 billion.


The Cost of Iraq War calculator is set to reach $318.5 billion September 30, 2006, the end of fiscal year 2006 ... http://costofwar.com/numbers.html


Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds
Pentagon, Bremer dispute inspector general's report
Monday, January 31, 2005 Posted: 0412 GMT (1212 HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday. An inspector general's report said the U.S.-led administration that ran Iraq until June 2004 is unable to account for the funds ... http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

[Vidar]

14. Way past time for the troops to march on their real enemy--in Washington.

[life long demo]

15. So why isn't this an issue for Democrats this Sunday Morning?

Show the vast majority of Americans that saying you are for the troops, doesn't necessarily mean that you are really for the troops. Make the Democratic party, the party of Veterans, which they are to begin with. Just check how many of our Senators and Congressmen are war Veterans. You might be surprised. So why are we viewed as soft on terrorism? BECAUSE WE ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN!