After the disappointing November 2014 override-proof veto of The Veterans' Equality Act/Veterans' Buyback Bill and again after the equally disappointing November 2015 override-proof veto for the identical legislation, smarter proposed reforms to the current buyback program are in order. The most offensive defects of the inadequate Laws of 2000 are cured with a buyback option for:
1. All who served honorably during a Federal Wartime Era. :
Would look like this in the Law of 2000 (Bold is Added Text):
1. A member, upon application to such retirement system, may obtain a
4 total not to exceed three years of service credit for up to three years
5 of military duty, as defined in section two hundred forty-three of the
6 military law, if the member was honorably discharged from the military
7 and all or part of such military service was rendered during the
8 following periods: (a) commencing December seventh, nineteen hundred
9 forty-one and terminating December thirty-first, nineteen hundred
10 forty-six; (b) commencing June twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred fifty
11 and terminating January thirty-first, nineteen hundred fifty-five; or
12 (c) commencing February twenty-eighth, nineteen hundred sixty-one and
13 terminating May seventh, nineteen hundred seventy-five; or (d) commencing August second, nineteen hundred ninety and terminating upon the cessation of hostilities
and (text to be omitted)
Note 1: As illustrated, this would align the current Gulf War Era with NY's past and present practice on the WW II, Korea, and Vietnam War Eras.
Note 2: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia hostilities fall within this current federal wartime period
Note 3: Servicewomen during this federal Gulf War Era were essentially excluded from the combat zone or forbidden from certain combat assignments (infantry, armor, etc.). This reform fixes the effect of that discrimination. All combat and assignment restrictions on women will be lifted on January 1, 2016 (here).
2. All who served honorably during conflicts currently recognized in the Laws of 2000: Lebanon 6/1/83-12/1/87; Grenada10/23/83 -11-21-83; Panama12/20/89-1/31/90 (dates are already in current law).
Would look like this in the Law of 2000:
2. A member, upon application to such retirement system, may obtain a
15 total not to exceed three years of service credit for up to three years
16 of military duty, as defined in section two hundred forty-three of the
17 military law, if honorably discharged therefrom, if all or part of such
18 services was rendered
19 follows:
20 (a) hostilities participated in by the military forces of the United
21 States in Lebanon, from the first day of June, nineteen hundred eighty-
22 three to the first day of December, nineteen hundred eighty-seven,
23 established by receipt of the armed forces expeditionary medal, the navy
24 expeditionary medal, or the marine corps expeditionary medal;
25 (b) hostilities participated in by the military forces of the United
26 States in Grenada, from the twenty-third day of October, nineteen
27 hundred eighty-three to the twenty-first day of November, nineteen
28 hundred eighty-three,
29 expeditionary medal, the navy expeditionary medal, or the marine corps
30 expeditionary medal;
31 (c) hostilities participated in by the military forces of the United
32 States in Panama, from the twentieth day of December, nineteen hundred
33 eighty-nine to the thirty-first day of January, nineteen hundred ninety,
34
35 navy expeditionary medal, or the marine corps expeditionary medal; or
Note: Servicewomen at this time were essentially excluded from the combat zone or forbidden from certain combat assignments (infantry, armor, etc.). This reform fixes the effect of that discrimination. All combat and assignment restrictions on women will be lifted on January 1, 2016 (here).
3. Veterans whose entire service was outside of these recognized wartime and conflict periods may purchase up to three years 'at full cost'.
Note: The 'full cost' language from the Chapter of Chapter 644 of the Laws of 1998 would apply. This means that there would be no cost to the state or municipality and veterans would pay 100% of the incurred benefit as a purchase price.
Keeping in mind that we must learn from the level of public and veterans' groups support for the bills (2014 and 2015) as well as the double override-proof veto (2014 and 2015) from the governor - and the certainty he would continue in this manner - it is obvious that only smart reforms to the buyback program are in order.
Thoughts?
I continue to think it would be a miracle if our friends in the legislature can pull this off given the double veto. Hits all the gaping holes in coverage.
ReplyDelete#3 might be a poison pill but shouldn't grab the headlines and sink the whole enterprise. Bit of a risk.
All of this (#1 to #2 at least) does seem to sort of fit in the press release.
It would be really really nice if we could purchase all of our military years (up to seven), could purchase additional years if we have a VA disability, could purchase if we are peacetime veterans, could purchase if we retired from state service with military years, or could receive the years without actually purchasing at 3% or 6%. That is dreamland and the double veto (as we have to remind ourselves) sent a message. I agree this combat/wartime expansion is a very long shot but we'll see how ours reps do fighting for it.
DeleteThis is consistent with all of the language used in joint statements. Don't see anything that hasn't already played out.
DeleteExcept for the 3rd item. The 1st and 2nd make sense, were mentioned in the joint statement/press release, fit the whole concept of the wartime/conflict buyback program, and are not deal killers.
Delete3rd item would grab the headlines (again) and turn the public against the whole bill...and enable another veto.
DiBlasio mentioned number three himself. No down side for the public. The Pols will know best. This time there will be a real negotiation.
DeleteThe downside is not with the public for number 3, the downside is for all the other excluded veterans if number 3 becomes again the public face of the bill. Whether it should be or not. Best to leave it out entirely then risk another backlash.
DeleteDitch #3. Too close to the double-vetoed bill. Not the time to break new ground (peacetime veteran coverage). Didn't we learn this from the double-veto?
DeleteI originally posted this about 18 months ago and have lightly edited it to reflect the most recent veto and to reflect the officially announced end of restrictions on women's service. Any lessons learned from the first veto were certainly reinforced by the second. Risk incurred by attempted inclusion of all veterans are understood. Would be a wonderful and smart reform to current law and enable equity and honor for all veterans.
ReplyDeleteToo bad the bill was not re-written last year to reflect this...it seems we have a lost a year by stubbornly sticking with a loser bill. To be fair, many commenters on this site predicted the governor would veto the same legislation again and he did. This one makes sense but I can see the peacetime section again being used to crush it so maybe the pols can weed it out.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with rewriting a bill, until the gov truly weighed in on it, is that you are likely to compromise something, without negotiating on it. I know it sounds crazy, but everything is a negotiation to these people. If it had been presented asking for less, we would have been expected to settle for less. Anyone want to post a link on how sausage is made?
DeleteI have a feeling this is the year that those who served in and during our unrecognized conflicts AND those who served during our already recognized conflicts will finally join their fellow wartime vets in the buyback program!
DeleteKeep it simple and onward to victory.
Nobody can say the above would not be a great victory for all veterans in this long-lasting buyback struggle. All (working) state employee military veterans are honored in the most equitable manner possible.
Delete# three should be out. It divides Vets. Us and them, not at all equal. I signed the check. Did 4 years active duty USAF. I went in when they couldn't recruit or meet quotas after Vietnam ended. I spent time in the most God forsaken places at the height of the cold war. Guess that doesn't count. We get NO benefits anyways so what is one more insult to my Honorable Discharge. '79-'83
ReplyDeleteUmmmm, I think #3 is an opportunity to be a part of the buyback program. Without it, peacetime is out.
DeleteIs there anyone who can explain how to calculate this:
ReplyDelete3. Veterans whose entire service was outside of these recognized wartime and conflict periods may purchase up to three years 'at full cost'.
I would fall into this category and am curious as to how long my "break even" point would be?
Thanks!
'3. Veterans whose entire service was outside of these recognized wartime and conflict periods may purchase up to three years 'at full cost'.
DeleteNote: The 'full cost' language from the Chapter of Chapter 644 of the Laws of 1998 would apply. This means that there would be no cost to the state or municipality and veterans would pay 100% of the incurred benefit as a purchase price.'
TRS was able to run the 'full cost' numbers for all the wartime vets in
1998-2000, so they definitely can provide you with identical answers. Like the 3% and 6% discounted price in the current buyback program, 'full cost' is not necessarily a good financial investment.
I am at 30 years anyway so purchases under any circumstances (3, 6, 10, full cost, etc) make no sense. But I'd still like to see improvement in the number of vets who are eligible to buyback some of their years.
DeleteI have repeatedly explained that the veterans buyback does not provide an economic windfall for any veteran.
DeleteMany veterans, especially those in 30-year retirement plans, will not receive an economic benefit from purchasing. Details such as purchase price, opportunity cost, tax bites, life expectancy, etc. should be weighed. Those working beyond 30 years in a 30-year retirement plan in any case, will have even more details to consider.
Some veterans, especially those in 20-year retirement plans, will have different considerations and may find the purchase of military service credits to be a wise option.
A Veteran who has been carefully planning to purchase credits enabling him/her to retire 3 years 'early' (and hitting the reduced income that comes with retirement three years 'early') has different considerations that a veteran purchasing merely to marginally increase his/her retirement percentage.
Individual circumstances vary and simplistic math (pay X to purchase, receive X in percentage increase) does not replace careful planning.
I’m in a 20 year plan where you accrue 1.66% per year for years 5-19 and 2% per year retroactive to year 1 if you make 20 years. The 3 year credit would be somewhat of a windfall for me. I am currently planning to retire at 72.5 years of age in order to get the 2% per year for 20 years worked, or a 40% pension. If were to retire at 17 years, I would get 1.66% per year or a total pension of 28.22%. Quite a difference in retirement lifestyle for working the extra 3 years as I have no other pension!
DeleteIf the statement below were literally true:
“This means that there would be no cost to the state or municipality and veterans would pay 100% of the incurred benefit as a purchase price.”
There would be zero benefit because you would have to put $1 in for every additional $1 of pension benefit. This makes no sense because they can’t predict your date of death. So, what can it mean?
I personally would be thrilled if I could just get 3 years "credit" to bridge to the 2% per year level and retire after 17 years. That is: 17 years times 2% or a 34% pension and retire at 69.5 years of age.
So, as you can see from my example there are a few of us that the military credit isn’t gravy on an already healthy pension. That’s why I buy 2 Lotto tickets almost every week
But if you retire at 17 after buying 3 years of credit then you are earning less money for three years that you planned to work. Think twice - it is quite a pay cut. Is that part of the calculation for you?
DeleteI'm only planning to work until 72.5 years to get the 40% pension. If I were to retire at 69.5 with a 40% or even a 34% pension I will be OK since I will be getting a healthy social security check since I am waiting until 70 for my first check!
DeleteOne has to call it quits at some point! I think 69.5 is late enough.
On related good news, a recent law passed in the legislature and signed by Gov Cuomo (effective January 2, 2016)gives municipalities the ability to raise the limit on property tax exemptions for the various categories of veterans.
ReplyDeleteMy town currently offers the Alternative Veterans Exemption which provides for a three step wartime exemption (Wartime, Wartime Veteran Combat, Wartime Veteran Disability - all of which may be combined). My town also offers a one step Cold War Veterans exemption.
Call your town property tax assessor to see if they have signed on to the new higher limit...or their plans to do so.
Not exactly a financial windfall when you crunch the numbers wisely but every little bit helps.
The bill reforms the exemption limits to account for the higher property values.