1. Are Afghanistan vets as good as Iraq vets?
2. Are female vets as good as male vets?
3. Are Somalia vets as good as Panama vets?
4. Are Cold War Vets as good as Stateside Vietnam Era Vets ?
The answer, in the New York State budget, NO!
The Governor and legislators sent the clear message they want to keep it that way.
Last year both bills for military service credit passed virtually unanimously thru both houses (57-0 Senate, 133-1 Assembly) and were vetoed by the Governor in November. He wrote (in his veto message) that the bills must go thru the normal budget process. This year, the funding for the bills (with 100 sponsors in the Assembly and 25 in the Senate) went thru the normal budget process and was dumped in negotiations.
We have reason to believe the Senate strongly supported the effort during the budgeting process, the Assembly weakly supported the effort during the budgeting process and the governor was against the effort.
Unlike the NYC Mayor who has an ideological antipathy for the victorious Cold War veterans (his side lost the Cold War), the roots of the Governor's apparent disdain for military veterans are difficult to discern. It could be a behind-the -scenes deal-making issue gone awry, it could be a failure to grasp the monumental shamefulness of current law, it could be an ideological blind spot, it could be a number of things. Nevertheless, the Governor's actions were and are disgraceful.
Next Steps:
1. We understand that the relentless Assemblywoman Paulin and equally relentless Senator Larkin will work to get a vote on their bills in the House and Senate within the next two months. With the proper encouragement, both should again pass easily.
2. Following a vote in both Houses, the modest and funded bills (The Veterans' Equality Act) will be sent to the Governor for signature or veto.
The answer, in the New York State budget, NO!
The Governor and legislators sent the clear message they want to keep it that way.
Last year both bills for military service credit passed virtually unanimously thru both houses (57-0 Senate, 133-1 Assembly) and were vetoed by the Governor in November. He wrote (in his veto message) that the bills must go thru the normal budget process. This year, the funding for the bills (with 100 sponsors in the Assembly and 25 in the Senate) went thru the normal budget process and was dumped in negotiations.
We have reason to believe the Senate strongly supported the effort during the budgeting process, the Assembly weakly supported the effort during the budgeting process and the governor was against the effort.
Unlike the NYC Mayor who has an ideological antipathy for the victorious Cold War veterans (his side lost the Cold War), the roots of the Governor's apparent disdain for military veterans are difficult to discern. It could be a behind-the -scenes deal-making issue gone awry, it could be a failure to grasp the monumental shamefulness of current law, it could be an ideological blind spot, it could be a number of things. Nevertheless, the Governor's actions were and are disgraceful.
Next Steps:
1. We understand that the relentless Assemblywoman Paulin and equally relentless Senator Larkin will work to get a vote on their bills in the House and Senate within the next two months. With the proper encouragement, both should again pass easily.
2. Following a vote in both Houses, the modest and funded bills (The Veterans' Equality Act) will be sent to the Governor for signature or veto.
 |
NY Governor Cuomo happy for the photo op with 10th Mountain troops from upstate NY in Afghanistan. Any chance he told them they are less deserving of military service credit than troops in Iraq? One month after this October 2014 visit he vetoed the bill that would have put Afghanistan vets on equal footing with Iraq vets for military service credit, 6 months later he doubled down and killed its funding. Defies words.
|
Great news. How should we work to gain wider support?
ReplyDeleteAs a start, see items 3 and 5 here
ReplyDeleteWe shall see what emerges as far as the bill and its nomenclature and its funding are concerned.
I've read Ms. Paulin's statement about the Governor "committing" to work funding out during the budget. My question is, did she simply make this statement due to the wording in the veto memo (in which the Governor said this law needed to be funded through the State budget process) or has she and her staff secured an actual verbal committment from the Governor's office since the veto?
ReplyDeletePlease ask her or her staff and let us know her response.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone found the all veterans bill on legiscan?
ReplyDeleteIt has not yet been introduced... See above post.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
Deleteis the above S01101 and A00996 the new bills? If so it wouldn't cover me
ReplyDeletePlease read above post and this year, as in every year since 1998, there will be several bills offering many flavors of military service credit.
ReplyDeleteGreat news for 2015, although I cannot fathom how the ers can estimate how many honorably discharged vets working for the state will take advantage of this incentive or how Mayor De Blasio and Gov Cuomo came up with the 57 million dollar figure when the last bill was vetoed just before Veteran's day. Thank you Veteran State Employee for maintaining this blog.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's very strange that they have an estimate. I'm guessing they have to consider and calculate how many public service employees could take advantage of the buyback and assume that all those eligible then actually buy back time. I have spoken to many public service veterans that I know and at least half have told me they would likely not opt to buy back (citing things like not being able to retire because they need either full time income, health insurance, still have mortgages to pay, kids going to college and the list goes on). I'm not a math major but I have absolutely no idea how they could make such an estimate. Perhaps they could set a sum of money aside (an interest gaining fund?) that would offset costs for the state going forward. There are other funding options. Speaking for me alone, I would be willing to pay a larger percent (6-10 %?). They could extend the time allowed to make the purchase to span the public servants entire career, they could automatically deduct the cost from the public servant's retirement benefits (pay them less during retirement until its paid off), etc.... Many things could be done to make this happen.
DeleteAgreed.
DeleteReading the fiscal notes, you will see the actuaries actually admit but somewhat understate the impact of the unknowns: "The exact number of current members as well as future members who could be affected by this legislation cannot be readily determined." I honestly think the approximate number of current members as well as future members who could be affected by this legislation cannot be determined at all.
and
"Since a member can apply for this service credit at any time prior to retirement, a precise cost can't be determined until each member, as well as future members, applies for the service credit." I would honestly say since a member can apply for this service credit at any time prior to retirement and may apply for one, two, or three years an approximate cost can't be determined until each member as well as future members applies for service credit.
(http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S1101-2015)
That is why Paulin and Larkin essentially ridiculed De Blasio's faux numbers.
(PS - This is an extremely inexpensive bit of legislation within the state's budget and one you deserve if you served honorably so don't sweat it. It is not the cost.)
If it's not cost then what is it?
DeleteRead De Blasio's letter: http://www.scribd.com/doc/245876507/vet-memos. He would support the bill if it had been for wartime veterans only. See especially his underlining on p. 2. Not the cost - it is a very inexpensive bill even with the wild overguesstimation of cost.
DeleteJust thinking out loud here.....I don't get it. How is Senator Avella able to get this new bill out so fast? He was obviously working on this last year while the rest of us were fighting for an "all Vets" bill. His bill is a very good bill for those combat zone vets not currently covered, but terrible for the rest of vets. Overall, I don't see how this is a good thing at all. If a newly written bill with funding language that would cover ALL VETERANS has a good chance this year, then I see his bill as unnecessary and redundant since the vets in his bill would all be covered in the other newly written bill. Unless he knows that the other bill really has no chance at all and is trying to do the right thing for the other combat vets not currently covered. Which brings me to my next point. I've read Senator Paulin's comments several times, but I've also read Cuomo's veto MANY times. If he was truly committed to this, his wording in the veto is horrendous. As a governor, if I was committed to Veterans, in a veto of a Veterans bill, I would have included language such as, "My apologies to NY Veterans, but...." or "I am committed to NY's Veterans, however, this bill, as written..." There was none of that. I don't think he's committed at all and I don't see an all vets bill becoming a reality. I truly hope I'm wrong and I would love to eat those words, but we've been waiting for 15 years for this and we are actually further away from this becoming a reality than we were 3 months ago.
ReplyDeleteThose are reasonable thoughts IMHO. Avella's is actually very very good for previously covered and newly covered (in this bill) in that purchaseable years are increased and these are total active years.
DeleteIf our bill is again portrayed as a peacetime bill we lose hands down and twice on Sunday's to this bill.
Avella is listed as a co-sponsor to the original senate version of last year's bill. That being the case, he would know of the history of the bill. Why introduce something different, like this one which covers some but not all? Scary.
DeleteHe is sticking to the excluded combat zones on this one (not even 'wartime'): Afghnistan, Somalia, Kosovo, Pakistan, etc. This is the lowest hanging fruit ('no brainers') of military service credit ommissions. The most embarrassing ommissions.
DeleteThis bill would seem guaranteed to move through Albany and would have the support of De Blasio (if his letter is to be believed) and even the single 'nay' vote on the 'all vets' bill (she voted yes on an Afghanistan-only bill the same day as her nay vote on the all-vets). Interesting.
Let's all hope that an "All Vets" bill will be supported by all. Hopefully we have enough Friends in Albany and that it is budgeted for in the upcoming budget.
ReplyDeleteWhen does the draft budget come out?
ReplyDeleteNot very encouraging for cold war vets, starting to get tired of keeping up with this.
ReplyDeleteSo much for Cold War vets and other wartime veterans who were on active duty but did not deploy to a "area of operation" but supported the deploying troops and equipment stateside or overseas. Typical of New York politicians dividing troops of the armed forces to the ones that have and haven't deployed. We served, followed orders, did what we had to and went to where we were ordered to. Unfortunately after the veto, we didn't see any courage for any politician to step forward, go to Albany, stand at the podium and demand fellow politicians to return and vote the veto down. USAF retired member.
ReplyDeleteWhy are they increasing number of yrs to buy back instead of including all vets. I served for 20 yrs, remote without family for one. Seems even more unfair to all vets. Is there any legal recourse, discrimination.
ReplyDeleteHopefully an "All Vets" bill will be sponsored soon. I served in the USAF from 1985-1989. Was overseas multiple times, and yet I am not covered under the current law or the two newly written bills. Let's hope someone steps up and sponsors a bill that covers everyone who served and was honorably discharged.
ReplyDeleteS01101 still discriminates against women vets.
ReplyDeleteI hope they they sponsor "all vets" bill as well. The above referenced would still exclude my husband. They were all (say 1) "on board" before and the hang up was suppossedly budgeting, there was no reason to modify the bill to this extent. Staying positive..:)
ReplyDeleteSee above post. expect several bills related to MSC - this has been the case since 1998.
DeleteRead De Blasio letter - link is in my comment, above.
I read them and thank you for them..:) Keeping an open mind and a positive outlook..:)
DeleteI have a feeling they....once again will play political football with this all vets bill, its reallysimple just include all veterans!
ReplyDeleteI don't think 'they' believe peacetime vets deserve this benefit. A bill for wartime era plus Somalia plus Bosnia would pass easily. So far this year there is none like that (Avella's is not wartime).
DeleteEveryone has to remember and portray this as equality. And realize we have been at war. Cold War, Desert Storm, War on Terror, etc. everyone would pretty well be included if just the timeframes of conflict are noted, and not specific theaters. If we got all my above conflicts listed as time frames, if I'm not mistaken everyone is covered. That would give them their wartime service.
ReplyDeleteI RECEIVED THIS EMAIL FROM ASSEMBLY WOMAN PAULIN Thank you for writing to inquire about the status of the veterans' pension
ReplyDeletebuyback bill and your kind words.
Despite the Governor's veto of the veterans' pension buyback bill (A.6974-B)
late last year, I remain fully committed to fighting for pension benefits
for all veterans. Since the veto, I have been working with the state pension
systems to address the Governor's concerns. The Veterans' Equality Act will
be reintroduced shortly in both the Assembly and the Senate. Additionally, I
am working to include the language from the Veterans' Equality Act in the
Assembly budget.
Thanks again for writing and for your continued support. Please do not
hesitate to contact my office for an update.
Sincerely,
Amy Paulin
Member of Assembly
Yet the governor can decide what to do with a budget surplus...smh
Deletehttp://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/spin-cycle-1.812042/cuomo-would-spend-billions-on-nyc-li-airports-rails-1.9825476?pts=890139
Women need to speak up loudly and clearly. If women's groups do not stand up for an all veterans bill, we will not have the clout we need to get it through.
ReplyDeleteHow about some women who will benefit by this contact some of the various womens veterans organizations, and bring them on board
ReplyDeleteAlso don't forget on the stance of equality for female veterans, that the women's rights related committees in the senate and assembly should be reminded how our cause and theirs are so closely related. After the many emails and calls we made last year, it became pretty clear that most at first we're not realizing and not furthering our veterans bill because they felt it was a whole seperate issue.
ReplyDeleteWill anything be determined today during cuomos state of the state, as far as funding for a new "All Vets" bill?
ReplyDeletedidn't see anything in cuomo's 550 page book for this years budget. but it is not over yet !
ReplyDeleteI worked on Nuclear Weapons from July 1975 to 1980. How close to a combat zone did I come? The Cold War was real.
ReplyDeleteI would have been better served to have emptied garbage cans for the parks department instead of serving our country and this state in the Navy off the coast of Libya when he was acting up, in the Persian Gulf during the Iranian hostage crises or in the Black Sea during the Cold War. A very sad commentary on how our Governor and his puppet Billy view military service. The issue for them is not cost it is about their ignorance on what it means to serve.
ReplyDeleteKeep writing emails and letters. I wrote the Fraternal Order of Police, all police unions, all 10-13 clubs for retirees in NYS and out of NYS, the AMAC, the AARP, local congressman, the Marine Corps League, the VFW, the American Legion. Keep the issue in their faces.
ReplyDeleteSo far very little response. Maybe, this will be decided by class action lawsuits by female veterans who were not able to receive veteran's points on civil service exams or apply for buyback time because they weren't allowed in Lebanon or Grenada etc.. That will wind up costing the state far more than this bill would.
Speaking of points on civil service exams, I served 3 years in the Navy from June '87-June '90. I left for boot camp a month and a half AFTER the USS Stark was attacked. I did 2 Med. Cruises in '88 and '90 including anchoring off the coast of Libya when Gaddafi made threats against America. Went to General Quarters when 2 Russian submarines surfaced port and starboard in front of my ship coming towards us with its' radar locked on us. Also mobilized and went to Ground Zero right after 9/11. Was told the "wartime era" started 8/2/90. (Why the hell it doesn't start when the Stark was attacked on 5/17/87 is beyond me) I get no points, no service credit. My brother, on the other hand, did less than a 2 year stint stateside in '98/'99. Was supposed to go to a ship but faked an injury so he could stay in New Jersey on shore duty. Left before his EAOS because he didn't feel like doing a separation physical. Never was actually discharged. Convinced the Navy years later to send him a DD-214. He gets the points for civil service exams. Am I bitter? Yes. None of what NY does for its' Veterans makes any sense.
DeleteSo eldest brother served in the Navy from 1959 - 1963. He was on a ship in the Pacific...never saw any conflict. Got service credit when he retired. Brother #2 was also in the Navy (1965-1969). He was stationed in Adak, Alaska as an air traffic controller. He got service credit. I (female) served from 1975-1978 in a military intelligence unit in Germany. We had to draw weapons and deploy to the roof when it was thought the Baader - Meinhof gang were in the area. (Baader-Meinhof = German terrorists. Look it up) Service credit: zero.
ReplyDeleteNYS Military Service Credit law is arbitrary as shown in one of my handouts
DeleteIf you were in the army June 7, 1975 or prior you already qualify to purchase military service credit. You must have just barely missed :(
Keep fighting!
Maybe Sen. Avella's bill is a ploy. If currently qualifying veterans AND those who would be newly eligible under his bill could buy 50% of total active service (up to 7 years) instead of just 3 years, maybe the Governor will just say, "Holy cow, that's gonna be expensive. I'd rather just go with the "all Vets" bill and 3 years." Hmm....
ReplyDeleteGov may soon be in handcuffs with his buddy Silver
ReplyDeleteI spoke to Paulin's office today. there is no support for a partial bill, they are pushing for the original bill with a funding mechanism that does not burden the municipalities. We need to get the County executives behind us because they led the charge behind the scenes to get Cuomo to veto this bill. As always follow the money. The municipalities don't want to be responsible for any additional costs, especially with the 2% tax cap. However if the State picks up the tab the Municipalities benefit since they will replace higher cost employees with lower cost employees who will also be Tier 5. So if the State funds the cost they will all jump onboard and support the bill. call your County executive and pressure them to support the bill they are the ones who supported the veto and the reason there was no override is because they got a hold of their legislative counterparts and demanded funding. This is all about money and politics and not much about respecting veterans.
ReplyDeleteAssemblywoman Paulin is wisely following the words in Cuomo's veto message - funding first.
DeleteCuomo's vetos have never been overturned (sign of weakness and a slap in the face) so I don't put much stock in particular reasons.
Tier 6 newbies are cheaper than older workers. Not knowing the numbers of veterans involved (Who the heck does- except it is a very small number?) I can't even guess what percentage of newly eligible veterans would buy 1 or 2 or 3 years and then retire before their originally planned date v retire at planned time (after buying 1 or 2 or 3 years) with a slightly increased pension. I'm in the latter group - so my newbie's arrival is unaffected by this bill. To pump up the 'cost', DeBlasio and municipal folks projected all vets (after highballing their numbers) would buy three years and retire three years early...Paulin and others ridiculed this obvious exaggeration)
The wartime v peacetime issue is only significant in that it prevented grassroots support from our only prominent veterans groups (Legion, VFW, IAVA, etc are solely comprised of wartime vets) and gave pretext to a few critics. At this point the actual issue between the players involved is gaining funding prior to introducing the bill.
Did the office say if possible funding is buried in the draft budget already? The cost is so small it would not garner its own line item nor (of course) a headline at this early stage.
Has anyone heard anything from the Senate side especially Senator Larkin's office
ReplyDeleteNot in a few weeks. Why not call and ask for the status and post what you learn?
ReplyDeletePaulin Office said the current budget is what the Governor put forward and to that the House and Senate add their wish list and then everything has to be hammered out. Also was told that ERS already had looked at the bill and there was no way to provide a cost because of all the unknowns. This make sense because how do you determine how many people in the future will qualify. So the funding is not a particular dollar amount but rather a method of collecting the funds to pay for this Act. For instance you could take the variable ERS rate employees pay and add a percent or two. However municipalities, think County Executives, will balk at that since that then becomes a municipal budget item impact. A sales tax increase of 1/2 % for instance would not affect municipal budgets and therefor County Executives would probably be OK with that by way of example. Funding has to be in a manner that does not impact municipal budgets or it's not going to pass in my opinion. So we need to suggest, since in this case we need to lead the horses to the water, a method of funding that doesn't impact municipal budgets. Any suggestions?? Sales tax, Military lotto tickets, French fry tax, ????????
ReplyDeleteI would avoid engaging municipalities or brainstorming revenue-raisers for this miniscule bill.
DeleteI would push for exactly why Deblasio said it would cost. They came up with the figure. That gives them a hard figure to follow. I too would stay away from municipalities. That cost us the veto to begin with. It is a very small cost to the overall NY budget.
ReplyDeleteGood point they said 57 million so take that from the 5.2 billion dollar surplus and get it done.
ReplyDelete18 million is DeBlasio's made up number that nobody believes (the politicians ridiculed it) and the 57 million is based on the silly 18 million so I wouldn't go in that direction - both numbers are so easily proved wildly speculative. I stay away from the financial discussion entirely and see nothing to gain in engaging in it.
ReplyDeleteIt will have a budget impact. Any time the government honors the service of their soldiers its going to have an impact. Would the state and our nation be better served if we began our state employment, and chose to forgo the hardships and commitment of military service? The issue is veterans who would like credit for their public service while serving faithfully in harms way. Yes, it will cost some money.
ReplyDeleteOf course equity for veterans under the law will have a tiny impact on the state budget. And the issue is that some honorably discharged military veterans are arbitrarily and disparately treated under the law as compared to other honorably discharged military veterans.
DeleteSheldon Silver to step down on Monday..Good or bad for our bill?
ReplyDeleteOur tiny and financially insignificant bill should not be affected by the absence or presence of Sheldon Silver in the Assembly. Look for Assembly version to appear within the next two weeks - at the latest..
DeleteDoes both the senate and assembly have to offer their own versions or will they both work with just one?
ReplyDeleteIf things progress as they did last year, the Assembly and Senate will introduce essentially identical companion bills. Look for both to be introduced by mid February or sooner.
ReplyDeleteYou would think they'd essentially submit the exact same bill as last year (that they worked tirelessly to get passed) with the addition of some funding language. Why reinvent the wheel?
DeleteOf course.
DeleteIf both the senate and assembly offer bills and if the funding is actually in place when the budget passes, how does this play out? Does the legislature then have to vote on the 2015 bills again and then send it to the Governor?
ReplyDeleteAssembly Bill 4313, Summary
ReplyDeleteProvides up to three years of service credit to members of public retirement systems of the state for military service rendered during times of peace; removes requirement that such military service occur during specified periods of hostilities; requires such members have at least five years of credited service, not including military service. Introduced on January 30 2015
And so it begins once again, of course it contains "times of peace" so that could be an issue, wonder how its going to be funded.
Sounds like great news. Assembly woman paulin must be confident that the wording will not be an issue. Does anyone have the inside track on the funding issue. I may be a little optimistic but I wouldn't think this would be re- introduced unless there was a high probability that the funding was secure. Just makes sense.
ReplyDeleteI am optimistic too! Hoping to see the Senate (companion) Bill for this in the next two weeks and then a fairly rapid move into law!
ReplyDeleteThe big question is will the funding be there? Without the funding we are no better off then we were last year when it got vetoed
ReplyDeleteThat's great. Not to jump the gun, but when you say fairly rapid, what time frame are you thinking? A month or two. Or summer time? I know I am getting ahead of this, again thinking positive. Also, a lot of co-sponsors for the bill.
ReplyDelete93 sponsors/co-sponsors plus Paulin makes 94. Assuming it makes it out of committee, the vote for passage in the Assembly is assured (you don't think anyone would vote down their own bill right?). Let's see the Senate bill now!
ReplyDeleteWish wording was for all US military veterans who honorably served or still serving
ReplyDeleteActual text of the bill says all vets. Authors don't think peculiar and inaccurate and unofficial description is a problem. I disagree- peculiar and inaccurate description forestalls strong support from wartime vets ( the majority at this point) and wartime veteran organizations. (VFW, American Legion).
ReplyDeleteThe person who wrote the peculiar, inaccurate, and unofficial (though widely circulated) description is not the author of the bill. I suspect the description's author mistakenly assumes all wartime vets are already covered (as they already are in 49 states) in NY and deduces from the bill that the change proposed must be for 'peacetime' veterans. The word peacetime is not in the bill.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the truth is that a majority of excluded vets are wartime vets who- if they don't read the actual bill's official text or read this blog- will think this bill doesn't apply to them (or their veterans associations).
Thanks for the reply. True, need to see actual wording of bill going forward.
ReplyDeleteI have been informed it is essentially identical to last year's bill (funding language being an exception): If you are an honorably discharged veteran currently working for New York State you may be eligible to purchase up to three years of your active honorable service for 3% or 6% of your current salary....etc.). Text should be publicly available on the internet very early this coming week or check last year's text..
ReplyDeleteThanks for the continued updates, I will be very interested to see how the funding language is integrated into last years bill. In my last year of employment how ever this plays out but it would be nice to be able to go a year early.
Delete:-)
Even it this passes this year, there is no guarantee it will be advantageous for every veteran to purchase as many years as possible in every instance. Each veteran will have to do the math and decide whether it is advantageous to purchase and retire slightly earlier then planned (and live with the reduced income that a pension represents) or purchase and retire as planned with a slightly increased state pension. Again, do the math.
DeleteI agree, at this point the cost (3% per year) to me seems to outweigh the tiny increase I'll see in my pension. But everyone is different - and that is assuming the bill passes in any case.
DeleteThis statement posted today on Assemblywoman Paulin's facebook page: "I’m happy to announce the Veterans’ Equality Act (A.6974 of 2014) has been reintroduced this year as A.4313 of 201."
ReplyDeleteThe text to A4313 is now available.
ReplyDeleteI read the text but I don't see anything as far as "funding" explained anywhere. If anyone else reads the text and you see anything please post it. Maybe when the details of the budget are hammered out it will be explained?
ReplyDelete6. All costs for service credited to a member pursuant to this
ReplyDeletesection, other than the member costs set forth in subdivision [three]
TWO of this section, shall be paid by the state and all employers which
participate in the retirement system in which such member is granted
credit.
Identical reintroduced bill as noted by Assemblywoman Paulin. Seems reasonable - Senate should take the lead in funding via inclusion in the State Budget.
DeleteI'm concerned with the wording "shall be paid bt the state and all employers". Does that mean the local governments would still be paying some of the costs? Wasn't that the reason the local governments opposed the bill?
DeleteLocal gov't default response is to object to what they term 'partially funded or unfunded mandates'. Seemed very muted in regards to the low cost bill.
DeleteI served in the Marine corps from 1978 to 1983 would I be eligible to purchase credit under this new bill.
ReplyDeleteRead Feb 1 comment, above, and then read bill. You know your details better than anyone.
DeleteLOL, I think that was a goof question. But smart answer in any case (could be dishonorable, not a state worker, etc. etc.).
DeleteI think the bill will have a hard time being approved unless their is something more specific regarding funding. The default response will continue to be it is not funded and since this is a multi-year cost putting an amount in this years budget won't solve the issue long term. The Governor and Municipalities will latch on to this for sure. Sorry folks but without a concrete method of financing this bill long term I don't see it getting past the Governor. I will hope the senate does something concrete regarding funding but the political will on this ACT was displayed when no attempt to override the veto was made. I really feel this is just a half hearted attempt at generating goodwill for politicians from veterans. Hope I am wrong.
ReplyDeleteGiven the low cost I am confident it will be signed into existing law once it passes the Senate and House. This is an equitable and slight expansion of current law - the Senate leadership can work the funding side with the governor. Of course there may be some squawking - to be expected.
DeleteThis legislature has NEVER attempted a veto override of this Governor so I don't read much into their relative inaction over the veto of this modest bill.
Should be able to override governor this time. Last year didn't get to govs desk till after session was out
ReplyDeleteThere will be no override folks - that is a non-starter and always has been. Senate bill should be out by next week. Watch for the appropriation and the fiscal notes at the bottom when it is out. Don
ReplyDeleteWill the fiscal notes be any different than those noted on the Assembly bill? Granted, the Assembly bill fiscal section is probably as specific as possible given the unknowns but the DeBlasio types might cling to that as another excuse to fight against passage. Will the senate bill have a better estimate? Will there be specific wording that addresses funding? I thought A4313 was a little thin on funding specifics.
DeleteI second Don's comment.
ReplyDeleteIf the budget contains retirement funding for part time lifeguards and summer kids emptying garbage cans for municipalities seems like it should contain funding for full time military personnel who put their lives at risk everyday. Am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteNew York State employee v non New York State employee might not be the best argument for New York State pension credit.
Deletei just read the memo of A04313 , see http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A04313&term=2015&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Votes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y , it is very strongly worded and refers to other states like NJ, which allows a 10 year buyback and CA which allows a 4 year buyback. The memo also says it is impossible to cost out the bill , in fact this memo reads like it could have been written by The Veteran State Employee himself ! he should post it up on the most recent blog page !
ReplyDeleteLink is aready on the first page, but I do like the memo. Makes our point that the current law is both arbitrary and discriminatory in effect and that the bill is an inexpensive remedy for NY's veterans.
ReplyDeleteI hope it passes this year. From what I read from this very informative blog is that the bill has a better chance passing this year. Here's hoping...
ReplyDeleteWhy is everyone optimistic about this bill passing this year? It's basically the same bill. So unless funding is provided I can't see Cuomo signing it
ReplyDeleteI would like to see the all vets bill be voted into law.
ReplyDeleteGreat recruiting commercial video - I remember it well. Freedom is not free - that is the point of the notes that accompany this bill. And equity for ALL those who signed up to defend freedom is not asking too much.
ReplyDeleteWaiting patiently for the senate companion bill. Everything seems to hinge on the funding language. If there is funding for the bill it appears as though it will pass easily. If not, even though I am optimistic, I don't believe it has a chance. C'mon funding, it is such a small amount compared to the 140 billion dollar budget.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see the tiny cost of this bill in the final and enacted budget. I don't expect that sort of thing to be in the senate companion bill itself.
DeleteWhere would we find the information regarding funding if its there? Would it be a line item in the state budget? How will we know if its actually made part of budget?
DeleteSenator Larkin's office would be the best source to find out what is going on with Senator Larkin's bill and his plans to avoid another veto.
DeleteFor those who are thinking that it can't pass because it didn't last year. Don't you believe it. Politics is a matter of that last man and woman standing. If we don't give up or go away, its unlikely they will not relent. So many things that are less clearly worthy pass this way, certainly this one should.
ReplyDeleteSen Larkin letter to Senator Skelos (Senate Majority Leader) requesting his forthcoming 'all vets' bill be included in the final enacted NYS budget is here: https://www.facebook.com/senatorbilllarkin/posts/781774495191222. Please read and respectfully comment in support.
ReplyDeleteI believe the USS Stark and USS Cole incidents took place during "peacetime" In both cases numerous lives were lost and many injured. Also the submarine Thrasher incident occurred during "peacetime". Serving in the military our men and women put their lives on the line everyday for this country and THIS STATE! It is shameful that NY State fails to recognize the sacrifices our service members make defending this country.
ReplyDeleteLOL The longest shooting war (15 years and counting) in our nation's history, the War in Afghanistan, is still not recognized for military service credit. It's been in all the papers. I swear. Started immediately after NYC's World Trade Center was demolished in a terrorist attack. Remember? If they can't get that right, how do you expect the NY pols to recognize the sacrifices made w/Stark, Cole, and Thrasher...?
DeleteI check this blog daily. hopeful the all veterans bill becomes law soon. i appreciate this blog and look forward to hearing about any movement toward the all vets bill becoming law.
ReplyDeleteUnbelievable!! Read the following http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/11/14/government-report-more-military-deaths-in-some-years-peace-than-war/. In 1981 and 1982 there were 4699 military deaths during peacetime, more than in some years of conflict in Iraq. This was a government report in November 2007. So when people say peacetime we should be throwing that right in their faces! Randall Dobler USN "One more hill to take........and it is in Albany." PS I served 1978-1982.
ReplyDeleteChuck Pohanka USMC 79-82 , If you were stationed at Camp Lejeune between the 1950s and 1985 you were exposed to contaminated drinking water.These toxic Volatile organic compounds(VOCs) include trichloroethylene (TCE),tetrachloroethylene (PCE), benzene, 1,2-dichloroethylene(DCE), and vinyl chloride. In 2012 President Obama signed into law the" Honoring American's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act 2012".In 1979 i was there for a year,and toured south east Asia until being discharged. Now because of my exposure i'm covered for 15 types of cancers all fatal. i am in good health now, but should something happen the V.A. has my co-pays.(LoL) If any body has been at Lejeune for more then 30 days between these years, your eligible. Call 877-222-8387. ALL VETERANS ARE CREATED EQUAL! no matter where you served
ReplyDeleteI really hope this passes, I'll write the buyback check the moment it does.
ReplyDeletei am paying for mine with deferred comp funds !
ReplyDeleteRetiring at 65 regardless. Doesn't seem to pay for me. But hope it passes and lets some veterans retire a year or two early.
ReplyDeleteCosts and funding??? Lets see, My thoughts lead me to believe that if some senior employees buy back military time they can retire 1, 2 or maybe 3 years earlier. Given they are apt to be at top pay they will retire before they reach the higher salary increase, that is if they have settled their contract. Wouldn't this lead to a new hiring that would start at a lower step salary scale? As with my contract over the next 3 years (I work for the city) increases as follows 2016, 1.5%, 2017 2,5% and 2017, 3%. for a total of 7% compounded.. I would be leaving sooner not collecting the extra 7% half of which is pensionable (3,5% compounded). Hence, a buy back is already being funded, wouldn't you agree??
ReplyDeleteLast 3% is effective 2018 not 2017, sorry.
DeleteFolks who are up there in salary and age will have to run the numbers to see if it is worth it (especially if they already have the years necessary to retire and are only buying the service credit years to retire with a slightly larger [3 years = 4.5% increased pension] percentage). Two of my colleagues are in this boat and will probably not purchase. 10K right now is just too costly for them.
DeleteVeterans with less than 5 years (when their costs would be cheapest) aren't eligible to purchase and those under 10 (not vested) are unlikely to do so.
The number of veterans who would immediately purchase is FAR lower than the wild NYC estimation. Paulin's notes (see the bill) point that out. For one thing, NYC bean counters assume all newly eligible will immediately buy three years. Flat-out false. This is the direct opposite of your well-considered comments. This is in addition to the fact NYC really has no idea how many newly eligible veterans there are in any case. Very inexpensive bill even with the crazy exaggeration from NYC.
DeleteI agree not all eligible veterans would buy the max allowable of three years. That is why I stated 1, 2 or 3 and used a 3 year purchase as an example. As stated in above the cost of buying back isn't feasible for many who have considerable amount of time in the pension system.
DeleteAbsolutely astounding that DeBlasio and cronies can come up with dollar costs for veteran credits but has no problem dreaming of benefits for DREAMERS with costs amount not an obstacle.
Agreed. The bottom 3rd of eligible vets won't purchase (under 5 years [not yet eligible]and under 10 years [not vested]). Those already (or nearly) maxed in years probably won't purchase. The remainder may or may not purchase 1, 2, or 3 years - and may or may not retire earlier than previously planned. Given that plus the already tiny number of vets working for the state it is no wonder this is a very very modest little bill.
DeleteSo how do the actuaries and legislatures arrive at a usable dollar amount to be used for purposes of negotiating?
DeleteReading the de Blasio NYC letter, the fiscal notes within Paulin's bill, and Paulin's 'Notes' now attached to her bill will give you a general idea of the discussion.
Delete( I am no expert but the total number of vets in NYS - by age group - is known. Deriving veteran population as a percentage of NYS population by age group is therefore simple. Applying that percentage to NYC's total workforce would yield an estimated sum of veterans. Assuming all of those are newly eligible and all of those would immediately purchase three years and retire early would yield a number (the actuarial cost of each individual pension year to city/state is commonly know). Once you figure NYC you extrapolate to NYS since their workforce size is known also. I have no idea if this is how NYC derived its wild over-guess-timation but it is one possibility...many of the flaws are obvious...again, see the referenced de Blasio and Paulin writings.
I'm tier 2 and would leave 3 years earlier. It would essentially be a early buy out. In the long run, it would be one more tier 2 person off the books. With tier six, it's much cheaper for the state/ municipality.
DeleteA larger part of this law is that it would simply offer every NYS honorably serving veteran / public servant the option to be recognized equally and not in the current fragmented, hopskotched way that it's being done.
DeleteFemale and over 55 in a high risk occupation, still needing two more years service to reach the 25 required for the NYS pension. ..because of this veto it is unlikely I will finish this career early. Everyday of service is an increasing chance of on the job injury. What might that cost NYS ? Never intended to be at it for this long, but I got started late because I squandered five years in the US Coast Guard. The Grenada medal went only to the crew of one cutter and two C-130s, not to anyone else intimately involved in the planning and execution of that mission. No medals for the war on drugs or migrant interdiction. I worked on this legislation with Amy Paulin's office almost ten years ago, wrote a paper for a masters level statistics class, and again last session with Didi Barrett. Thanks for keeping it alive.
ReplyDeleteWHY DON'T YOU CALL EVERY SINGLE FEMALE MEMBER OF THE ASSEMBLY AND EXPLAIN THAT IF YOU WERE A MALE YOU COULD HAVE BEEN IN THE 82ND AIRBORNE AND RECEIVED AN EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL FOR GRENADA BUT YOU COULD NOT BECAUSE YOU WERE FEMALE? EXPLAIN THAT THE DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT OF OUR NOW-REPEALED SEXIST LAWS BANNING FEMALES FROM COMBAT JOBS IS HARMING YOU. NOW. AND THAT A04313 WILL ADDRESS THAT PAST DISCRIMINATION AND EXTEND TO YOU AND ALL OTHER FEMALE VETERANS THE HONOR AND EQUITY YOU - AND THEY - DESERVE. (I KNOW THIS IS ALL CAPS).
DeleteHas anyone heard anything positive about the senate companion bill? I've reached out to a couple of people but haven't heard anything.
ReplyDeleteSEN Larkin is working it and it should be out shortly. I will post it on the blog when it is introduced.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad it's finally out. And that it has a budgetary appropriation in it. But it, AGAIN, uses the P-word. After all that has been said, and explained, to his office, the bill comes out with that word anyway? Disappointing really. Why make the fight harder than it needs to be?
ReplyDeleteBill, notes, and memo do not mention 'p' word. Unofficial description still does-apparently this is not an issue. Time to call Mr. Heastie and Mr. Skelos to get this into the budget.
Deletethe funding appropriation to be added to the assembly bill . right now the 2 bills do not match , we need them to be identical to become law !
ReplyDeleteI would think Senator Larkin's office would be in contact with Assemblywoman Paulin's office trying to come to an agreement on the dollar amount.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere are the names of the co-sponsors listed for Senator Larkin's bill. If you do not see your Senator's name, please reach out to them. I e-mailed Senator Bonacic. There are a total of 57 Senators, so quite a few are missing and need to be brought on board or respectfully held to there former support. If you do, perhaps call and thank them for there support of this initiative. COSPNSR AVELLA, CROCI, FARLEY, FLANAGAN, GALLIVAN, GOLDEN, LAVALLE, LIBOUS, MARTINS, NOZZOLIO, ORTT, RANZENHOFER, RITCHIE, ROBACH, SEWARD, SKELOS, YOUNG
ReplyDeletePlease excuse any typos..:)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHere is a link from one of the prior board pages for the list of NY Senators. It is as follows: http://www.nysenate.gov/senators
DeleteI call gallavan he supports the bill his office said
ReplyDeleteWhy is funding support in the Assembly in trouble? Is it that they do not agree with funding it at all or cannot agree on an amount? Who are the ones holding this up?
ReplyDeletePlease call Assemblywoman Paulin's office and let us know her answer.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that she could not get support within the Assembly for the sort of language the Senate bill has. That may or may not change. Before or after the vote on her bill.
We saw what happened last year in the Assembly (see Larkin's letter to Skelos as a refresher).
We shall soon see what the Assembly's spending priorities are and we can publicly contrast that with the need for equity and honor for NY's veterans.
Assembly members need to be constantly reminded as to the importance of this effort.
The Senate's projected cost seems more realistic than NYC's laughable number but I really don't see disagreements about that as an issue.
Keep us posted.
PEF has posted this on their website ( currently a top story )
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pef.org/blog/2015/03/03/support-the-veterans-equality-act/
I have put in a call to Paulins Office this morning, I will post the response re why no funding in her bill and what degree of support is there for the bill now that the election has passed. Typical, politicians are for something before the election and then after the election they could care less. Call your Assembly person and hold their feet to the fire, and get this bill through.
ReplyDeleteSenate and Assembly bills are not "same as". Fred Theile office said that each house puts forth their budget plan which should be in the next two weeks and then those and the Governors proposal are melded together into something they can agree on and the Governor would be willing to sign. So we need to wait and see the budget proposals from both houses to see what they actually put forth into the budget and then of course the final budget. Still waiting for a call from Paulin's office re lack of specific funding.
ReplyDelete20 Co - sponsors for the senate bill now. Keep fighting!
ReplyDeleteGood news continues in the Senate. As I noted on the blog page, Senate President Skelos is an actual co-sponsor of the terrific Senate Bill on Military Service Credit (includes funding). The letter from Senator Larkin to Senate President Skelos shows their mutual support for honor and equity for all NY's veterans .
DeleteThe Assembly is the weak link in this - we have to get Speaker Heastie on board now.
I e-mailed Assembly Ray Walter who is not listed as a co-sponsor, etc. He expressed support last year and is a heavy advocate for woman as illustrated by his facebook page. As many as we can get on board the better. Thank you for your update.
DeleteI sent speaker Heastie a email through the www.Pef link above and asked for him to bring A4313 to the final budget and to back it. No reply as of yet . Sent it this morning.
ReplyDeleteI also e-mailed Speaker Heastie today and called his office. They took down my name, address and the reason I was calling.
ReplyDeleteCalled Speaker Heastie's office and left name and address but they had no information they were willing to share about funding this bill, recommended I call Assemblywoman Paulin's office for that. Spoke to Senator Little's legal council over the weekend and asked him to nudge the Senator into joining the bill as a co-sponsor. Let's keep the pressure up and hope for the best.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the P-word?
ReplyDeletePeace time
Deletethanks for clarifying that for me.
DeleteThe P word is not in the Bill, not in the official memo accompanying the bill, and not used by anyone supporting the bill. It is the unfortunate and inaccurate word included ONLY in the foolish and unofficial description of the bill and seized upon by folks like de Blasio to oppose the bill. Its use in the foolish and unofficial description originally tricked the American Legion and VFW, organizations solely comprised of wartime veterans and combat veterans, into thinking their members would not be covered by the bill. I attempted to move heaven and earth but could not get an accurate unofficial description written for this year's iteration of the bill.
DeleteGotta wonder why Assemblyman Heastie is not signed on as a sponsor, I called and had other vets call
ReplyDeleteI called Heastie's office and asked for his support. May be that he wants something so using the process and the bill to barter for something he has a greater interest in.
ReplyDeleteLike it or not, that's part of budget negotiations in Albany. Although it leaves an uneasy feeling, I understand that's part of the legislative process. I believe both houses must make some concessions to "get" other "things" but I certainly hope that, after 12 + years of trying to pass similar versions of this bill, the two houses can finally find common ground for the sake of the Veterans they represent and stop kicking this can down the road. This must be the year.
DeleteI see he is a co-sponsor on the Dream Act...................................
ReplyDeleteAssembly is our greater concern at this point. And Speaker Heastie is one of keys. He was a co sponsor last year and voted for the unfunded bill. All our friends and families and organizations should be calling and emailing him to put funding in the budget in support of the bill.
ReplyDeleteCalled Speaker Heastie this morning. Left my name and number and a message urging for him to support this bill.
ReplyDeleteHeastie' office stated that "as Speaker he doesn't sign on or co-sponsor a bill" but "he (Heastie) is behind this bill and they are all working with the Gov to get it passed".
ReplyDeleteThey should have rode over his veto back in november and we wouldn't be going through this.........true or not true?
ReplyDeleteNot true. Give it up on the veto override fantasy - those simply do not happen as has been pointed out on numerous occasions on this blog. Focus forward and fight for the bill.
DeleteI give the same message to those still lamenting the non-retroactivity of the 2000 Bill and those who think British veterans should be covered.
Got an email from Assembly Woman Aileen Gunther this morning stating that she will do all she can to work with her colleagues to see that this bill becomes law.
ReplyDeleteThat is one more supporter in the Assembly!
I feel like something very positive is about to happen. Feeling optimistic , hopefully the assembly will add funding to this bill and it will get done. There is a lot of co sponsors for this bill, let's hope they all get on the same page.
ReplyDeleteThe Senate bill has 23 co-sponsors at this point. Both bills continue to gain support since being drafted. The imperative issue at this point is that both houses need to agree to "some amount" towards funding. Please call your representatives (or call them all) and urge them to support funding. NYS Veterans have waited long enough.
ReplyDeleteI just called Senator Hannon's office, the seceratary said he would call me back. He was on board last time around, and he called me when it was vetoed by the Gov.
ReplyDeleteA quick question: My retirement date is 1/6/15, do you think it will pass before then?
Thanks
Then you want this bill to add percentage points, because if you got 30 yrs in this past January you should be retired. Unless you buy back 3 yrs for 4.5 percent increased pension. I want to buy 3 yrs so I'll have 30 yrs. just to retire.
DeleteThat is a good point and a reason why a friend of mine at the Legion won't even bother purchasing if this passes. Wonder if the actuaries made allowances for the many newly eligible who won't bother purchasing? It appears from the fiscal notes (A04313A) that they assume all eligible veterans will purchase (to an average of 2.5 years per veteran) which of course further pumps up the "estimate''. And those who aren't vested (10 year mark) probably wouldn't/shouldn't purchase either.
DeleteThat date already came and went...
ReplyDeleteSorry I meant 1/6/16
ReplyDeleteIf this gets adopted, it'll take effect immediately. Then you buy back up too 3 yrs but you'll only need one. Won't pay to buy more than the one year. Two more for the 3 percent increase in pension
DeleteThe Assembly bill was amended and recommitted to government operations. Preliminary observation semms to show more numbers...
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of numbers are they throwing out? Does it match or is it near the Senate version?
DeleteSee the link for the bill.
DeleteFrom what I interpret from the actuarial s figures the initial cost would be $15.7 million total for the first year(About half of what Senator Larkin proposed-$31.5million)and 132.5 million employer cost over the next 15 years - -estimated.it would seem to me that neither the NYCRS nor the NYSRS would have to commit any monies to the retirement system until the member actually retires, why tie up monies in the retirement system -maybe for years. I also didn't detect any wording accounting for the loss for those veterans who will unfortunately die during those15 yrs as well as the fact that after tier 2 the tier 5/6 veterans who will be contributing 6%for their whole careers may not purchase the additional credit at all. That being said I don't see why the legislation wouldn't pass the costs are minimal.
DeleteAgree, except
Delete1. The tiny number of in-service deaths is a standard actuarial calculation that we can be certain was done (although based on complete guesses as to number of public sector honorably discharged vets currently working for NYS who would consider buying 1, 2, or 3 years, etc)
2. A greater error is lumping the already qualifying (Iraq and Kuwait, etc under the 2000 Bill) with the newly qualifying (the new bill) and assigning those combined costs to the new bill.
3. The assumption that all vets will purchase and will average 2.5 years of purchase is a joke. See above for a discussion on that topic.
4. Non-vested (under 10 years) won't take the obvious risk in purchasing. Those who leave during that time, of course, will never purchase.
But 1-4 is nibbling at the margins when you consider: "Insofar as this proposed legislation relates to the NYCRS, the number of members who could potentially benefit from this proposed legislation cannot be readily determined." and "Assuming that all eligible members were to purchase the eligible Military Service during Fiscal Year 2015..."
The costs are so minimal that even with the wild assumptions I don't think this modest bill will fail this year.
Yes costs appear small. Regardless, everyone should continue to call their representatives throughout the week asking them to push hard for this. An article I read said both houses would likely submit their preliminary budget proposals before the end of this week.
DeleteThanks for the response too my post. Let's hope that the legislators see the same modest costs and move this out of committee and onto the floor for a vote
ReplyDelete25 co-signers to the Senate bill now.
ReplyDeleteAssembly is the key.
DeleteI sure do hope this is the year. I am slated to retire in 2020...if this passes, I am out in 2017.
ReplyDeleteYou are lucky - I can't afford the cut in pay that comes with retirement. Same goes for my friends - they are debating whether it is worth purchasing for the tiny percentage increase. 2 of 2 have decided no.
ReplyDeleteSkelos and Heastie Announce Joint
ReplyDeleteLegislative Budget Schedule
Senate Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos, Assembly Speaker Carl E. Heastie, Senate Finance Chair John A. DeFrancisco, and Assembly Ways and Means Committee Chair Herman D. Farrell, Jr. today announced an agreement on a joint legislative budget schedule that sets deadlines for the adoption of a fifth consecutive on-time state budget.
The agreed-to legislative budget schedule for 2015 is as follows:
February 26 (on or before)Senate & Assembly Economic / Revenue Reports Released
February 26Joint Revenue Forecasting Conference
March 1 (on or before)Revenue Consensus Report
March 12Senate & Assembly Budget Actions
March 12Joint Senate & Assembly Budget Conference Committees Commence
March 19Final Report of the Joint Conference Committee
March 23-26Joint Legislative Budget Bills Taken Up by Senate & Assembly
I called Senator Larkins office to find out what background he used for his $31.5 million. His legislative director said it was derived on previous calculations put forward by various groups including the governors budget office so it was not an arbitrary number. He also said that Assemblywoman Paulin was having some difficulties with Speaker Heastie in ensuring the Bill is included in the final Assembly Budget however, she is working hard to make sure it's included. I was further told that more telephone calls to his office(which I made immediately after talking to him) supporting this issue-the better! If you know any veterans that have not been actively on this issue, please get them on board to help make the calls
DeleteSo he originally backed the bill by cosigning it but doesn't want it funded?
DeleteIt seem that as an assemblyman its easier to support a bill and see it fail, he's just a vote, than it is to be one of the "3 people in the room" that actually has to hash out a State Budget. There are different political dynamics in his position.
DeleteSpeaker Heastie supported the assembly version in 2014, he cosponsored it with many others. He surely knew that bill was vetoed and vetoed largely due to funding. Yet, he cosigns the new bill this year knowing that the fight to fund it would be moving forward (the only reason why it would be brought up again this year). Why on earth would he not support the funding?
ReplyDeleteCalled Heastie Office just now. People need to put pressure on his office. They said he supports the bill but not sure he will put it in the budget???? What the hell! So you support the bill but not sure regarding the funding? See the game....I support the bill................unfortunately it couldn't be funded..................what a crock.
ReplyDeleteI hope the Senate doesn't give up on this. The Governor and Assembly seem to be pushing very expensive agendas this year. Dream act, minimum wage, education funding, etc, etc... The Senate should block their initiatives moving forward. Huge surpluses, Assembly pushing their own expensive agendas and then trying to ditch this very inexpensive bill. Shameful.
ReplyDeleteAssemblyman Ray Walter responded to my post on facebook that he is on board and will be supporting this bill as a sponsor. His name is currently not listed. He said he'd follow up on that he does support the bill.
ReplyDeleteWill the Assembly support equity and honor for NY's excluded veterans (Afghanistan, Women, and Cold War) or will they fund other projects? It is that simple.
ReplyDeleteAssembly proposes $150 billion budget today but can't set aside $13 - $31 million for this bill?
ReplyDeleteOur biggest problem is that veterans are by nature, obedient and non confrontational in the face of elected officials. We are not the loud mouth activists that get every handout that can be invented. If New York veterans want something bad enough, then we need to start working the phones and stop being invisible.
ReplyDeletePaulins office said dollar amount cannot be determined so no amount put in, but Article 7(?) should have language regarding funding..........does anyone see any language regarding the bill? Lets face it, if the Governor wanted this bill he would have provided funding in his budget for it. Absent a massive movement from veterans I do not see the bill being passed or funded. Shameful. 150 billion dollar budget but can't afford 15 million....................what a complete and utter and inexcusable lack of respect for our veterans.............
DeleteHopefully the Senate will stand true to Veterans and add this funding to their budget proposal. Then the houses can negotiate for compromise for the next 2 weeks.
ReplyDeleteNot enough Assembly member at this point see equity and honor for all veterans (Afghanistan, Women, Cold War) as a priority. The Senate has enough members who see current law as shameful and have set equity and honor for all our veterans as a priority. You are right - we shall see who prevails and fight for equity and honor all the way.
DeleteThe above comments does not make me feel fuzzy inside. So are we dead before we start. Seems to me that they amended the assembly bill and put more fiscal information in there for a reason. When will we know for sure which way this tips?
ReplyDeleteThe Bill is now referred to Gov't Employees, the head of which is Assemblyman Abbate (518-455-3053) whose rep. says is in full support of this bill. I asked,and they said they would, be in touch with Speaker Heastie' office to get this put in the budget. They also said that even if it were to be omitted from the budget Abbate and others could put it in as a 'stand alone' bill,as it was last year, and it would then have until June to pass. Obviously being in the budget is better. I would suggest searching Assembly Leaders on Google, etc.. and call Majority leader, Chair of Ways and Means, etc..
ReplyDelete