This is a HUGE step forward for NY's excluded veterans.
A close reading of the press release (again, here) indicates the stakeholders' concern with excluded (Afghanistan, Somalia, etc) combat veterans and with women veterans denied the opportunity for earning service credit during wartime and conflicts.
Thus Assembly Woman Paulin's quote:
"...veterans who served in these conflicts have been unfairly excluded from purchasing pension credit for far too long. I am especially pleased that women veterans who have been disproportionately excluded, will finally be able to obtain the benefits they are entitled to.”
Also in the mutually agreed quote:
"...expand the pool of eligible veterans that were not previously covered by law and will also remove restrictions that prevented women from being eligible for the additional pension credit because of prior military policy that barred women from being deployed to a military conflict."And in an excerpt from the final quote:
"....including everyone who served during conflicts as well as our sisters who were not eligible to serve in combat - to buy back military time for their pensions."Reforming the program to include the overlooked combat veterans and all those who served during our recognized conflicts and wars seems a safe way to describe aims of all those quoted in the press release.
In response to the governor's double and override-proof veto (2014 and 2015) of The Veterans' Equality Act, this site has already suggested important, wise, and realistic reforms to the current buyback law. The press release does present very similar ideas. See this site's propsed reforms here.
The absence of other categories of veterans from the press release should not be read as their complete exclusion from military service credit reform. Look for more info and active negotiations as we approach the Governor's budget (early January 2016) and later April 1, 2016 budget deadline.
________________________________________________________________________________
Initial Press Coverage:
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/243207/following-veto-cuomo-agrees-to-push-for-veteran-pension-credit-legislation/
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/11/8582558/cuomo-plans-push-veteran-measure-he-previously-vetoed
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/11/on-veterans-day-ny-reaches-deal-on-veterans-pension-credits/75590480/
http://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2015/11/11/governor-cuomo-expands-federal-aid-to-military-vets-on-veterans-day.html
http://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/local/new-york/2015/11/11/state-reaches-deal-veterans-pension-credits/75602932/
http://www.wgy.com/onair/chuck-and-kelly-40688/governor-does-about-face-on-vets-14115340
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/spin-cycle/agreement-reached-on-veteran-pension-benefit-bill-1.11112621
IAVA Press Release
 |
| APRIL 29, 2014...Indefatigable Assemblywoman Paulin and Others Marshalling the Troops...her legislative commitment to this bipartisan cause matched only by her friend Senator Larkin |
Happy Thanksgiving to all my fellow veterans. Honor and equity for all in the New Year.
ReplyDeleteSo expected process is budget proposed by Gov. Then negotiations and adoption. Then proposed legislation? Then adoption by both houses? Then Gov signs? Anyone projecting a timeline for these activities or discussions around the effective date?
ReplyDeleteWild guess is effective date of November 2016 for all conflict and wartime era veterans.
Deletei say 4/1/16 will be the effective date !
Deleteveteran's have waited long enough !
I'd like to see an effective backdate to 2000 because all wartime should have been covered like the 1998 bill and all bills before that. I have waited long enough!
DeleteEffective date September 11 2001 would send the message loud and clear.
DeleteIf the intentions expressed in the press release become reality, I won't expect anything prior to November 2016. Anything prior to that would be a pleasant surprise.
DeleteBeware of rumor mongering.
Why 11/16? To line up with Veterans Day?
DeleteI thought that the hope last year was that if the funding was written into an approved budget the change would take effect immediately?
That's an interesting observation VSE. A bit unsettling though. Not sure why it would wait until next November. But if your looking for a safe planning position I understand. IF more than that has been telegraphed, I'm disappointed as it sounds like trying to get credit for the same thing twice.
DeleteNot worth getting anxious - not that big a deal. I won't expect anything prior to November 2016. Anything prior to that would be a pleasant surprise.
DeleteBeware of rumor mongering.
I'm sorry it all sounds good but this is NEW YORK and I like most in our state no longer trust any of these politicians any longer.... Afghanistan War Veteran.
ReplyDeleteI agree... but the press release quotes actually indicate somebody is concerned with the right talking points (at least) to get some reform of the military service credit program.
DeleteSo when the submarine Parchee when on a secret mission to tap the communications wires of former Soviet Union (one of the best cases of intelligence gathering in US history) and that the divers and crew almost all lost their lives during a time of no conflicts the "compromise" being discussed here is going to ignore those people? I thought we Vets were going to stick together and force the issue of getting rid of picking and choosing whose role in the defense of the country is important. These politicians have absolutely no clue of the number of secret missions carried out all because they aren't listed in some history book. The support of terror networks in places like the Philippines (as an example) by special forces have been going on for a long time and never mentioned. So if this is how the governor plans on splitting up the veterans on this issue then we have failed as a team to end this convoluted process once and for all. I say we "remind" the politicians that these kinds of operations have gone on and will continue to go on and they are just as important as any other conflict.
ReplyDeleteWhat 'compromise'? Rumor control.
DeleteEveryone knows peacetime can be dangerous. Range 301 Graf (CALFEX) in 1988 was nuts. Don't get me started about Todendorf ASP (Vulcan/Cobra gunnery...not a typo) 1987. And everyone knows peacetime contributions to the nations' defense are vital.
Philippine counter insurgency operations, as a reminder, is during wartime (1990-present) .
Anon 12:26 No need to find peacetime episodes of danger, or appeal for equal medals/treatment/respect/benefits for peacetime service, or panic over a press release. This marginal and particular benefit seems to be sorting itself out in an equitable manner that will benefit all veterans - if you carefully read the press release.
DeletePoints well made all around. It might be worth relaying some of these scenarios to Senator Larkin and Assembywoman Paulin. I am hopeful that all vets will be included somehow. The spirit for veterans and service is growing in this country. Its a refreshing feel. Long overdue. Keep the faith
DeleteGreat news that more veterans will be fully included in the program and will have the option to buy back a few of their years. Barely a benefit (if you are good at mathematics) as somebody pointed out earlier but nice to have more vets eligible.
DeleteLarkin and Paulin have doubled down on their push for 'equitable' treatment of all vets - wouldn't be fair for male combat veterans to be eligible when women during those same conflicts (and same wartime era) were excluded from combat. That would be inequitable. Treating peacetime veterans differently from other peacetime veterans would be inequitable too. Almost there - time will tell.
Aren't peacetime veterans already treated equally to other peacetime veterans.
DeleteThe inequities are within the ranks of wartime/conflict folks (women, medals, locations).
Yes. The pols in the press release are looking for equitable treatment of vets...not necessarily equal treatment. Sounds reasonable.
DeleteJust a reminder: NO ONE KNOWS WHAT WILL BE IN THE BUDGET. It might be all vets, some vets or no vets added. The cost can be calculated by going to your individual pension sites. Everyone is different. Hopefully we'll all be included. Enjoy your holidays.
ReplyDeleteCurrent costs under the current program can be calculated as indicated, above.
DeleteGood catch VSE.
DeleteExactly! Happy Christmas, Merry Everything! Enjoy!
DeleteJust called both Larkin and Paulin to thank them for never giving up. Finally the horrid system is going to be improved. Of course it won't be perfect (I'd like the credits to be free of charge and I'd like to be able to buy all five of my years and I'd like new groups of vets to be covered) but it is a huge improvement. Never get all you want in life. I am hoping by the end of next summer I can purchase (fingers crossed).
ReplyDeleteSince the inequities against SOME wartime and conflict era veterans (including women) began with the 2000 bill, it is perfectly reasonable for those folks to backdate their purchase costs (i.e. 3 percent of their 2000 salary).
ReplyDeleteLet's demand this!
I see the logic. As someone included in the 1998 law and subsequently excluded by the 'restrictions' in the 2000 law, I really think that is a good idea. And the state has those 2000 pay records. Just don't see it happening.
DeleteStill got obsessed Vietnam -era retro-vets (retired by the time the 1998 bill was passed...calling me a sellout of 'all vets' for supporting a bill without retroactive purchases) and panicked peacetime vets emailing with faux visions/plans of veterans returning their purchased credits and refusing to purchase credits until all veterans (retired and otherwise) can purchase. Just don't see that happening either.
I'd rather see an age limitation than a bill that excludes any vets.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that be age discrimination? I think getting rid of the restrictions (women, medals, and locations relative to wars/conflicts) rather than adding more restrictions is the smart direction we're going.
DeleteI agree the retired veterans have a point - after all they are veterans (some even served in active combat in Vietnam) and the goal is all veterans - but I don't see that as a possibility. Pols would have to justify such an unprecedented move and now is not the time for that. Would hope they don't begrudge the opportunity of some other veterans. Most don't.
Anyone think this is going to throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing?
ReplyDeletehttp://buffalochronicle.com/2015/12/01/emboldened-by-silver-conviction-bharara-to-indict-cuomo-jan-2nd/
Rumor control. This is not considered a reliable source. At all.
DeleteYeah the Buffalo Chronicle is owned by Paladino and is known for stretching the truth so to speak. I would not put much credence in that article...
DeleteRemember that it was the governor who vetoed the legislation. Both houses passed it (assembly less so) . Raising the ire of the honorable because of the crimes of the corrupt isn't a great course of action. Besides, when Spitzer left life went on.....nothing really changes that place. Frankly it a miracle we were able to get any movement, and makes the power and leadership of Larkin and Paulin so compelling.
ReplyDeleteIt is only when today's veterans realize that Vietnam Era veterans took 35 years (not a misprint) to gain the option of purchasing wartime military service credit - as Korean Era wartime veterans already could - that they realize how difficult ANY progress on this front is. Again, that was thirty-five years for wartime veterans. So many of that wartime era retired without seeing the fruits of their struggle.
DeleteThe press release agreement was a HUGE step forward.
The press release was masterful. It avoided the word that galvanizes opposition to the bill.
Delete'Resolving inequities and irrational restrictions within the current buyback system' is a workable talking point nowadays. The press reported it that way too. The press and potential enemies of the bill couldn't and didn't throw around the 'p' word like they did when reporting the two vetoes. Smart.
DeleteGiven how difficult (essentially impossible) military service credit buyback reform is here in New York (see my 5:43 historical reminder), I'm strongly supporting any deal that can be hammered out by the pols in Albany.
ReplyDeleteAny step that includes more honorably-discharged veterans in the program is a HUGE step (again, given the near impossibility of military service credit buyback reform here in New York).
it has been announced that the governor's budget release date and state of the state speech will be on 1/13. hopefully we will get a better idea of who will be included at that time !
ReplyDeleteWon't be anything close to the specifics you are probably looking for. Given the tiny cost it will barely be a line number in January.
DeleteSmart money bets he won't even mention Afghanistan or Women wartime veterans until after April 1 (if at all).
Agreed. And less might be more in terms of specifics early in in the budget process in any case.
DeleteLess is definitely more when it comes to stirring up the anti-pension crowd with new categories of veterans...stick to plugging the wartime veteran gaps. There are certainly enough of those.
DeleteYes....wartime and conflict...then see how many our left.....hopefully the remaining numbers will be inconsequential and a no brainer
DeleteOur allies in the legislature will have to fight tooth and nail for the greatest percentage of the wartime and conflict era veterans possible. Wartime covers many many years at this point. And has a start date but as of yet no end date. That'll be the the toughest part of the planned fight. Those two categories should be supported by veterans and veterans groups with limited press push back but even so it will be a tough negotiation and don't expect all veterans from those two categories to get in. Losing focus on those two categories will doom us again.
DeleteAnon 3:35 Less is definitely more when it comes to stirring up the anti-pension crowd with new categories of veterans...stick to plugging the wartime veteran gaps. There are certainly enough of those.
DeleteThe only anti pension crowd is the Governor and the Mayor of NYC (which by the way has a 300 million dollar surplus)! The money there is going towards illegal immigrants vice those who served. This is pure nonsense at this point. Every vet should be included period! Conflicts are not going to end and vets will be forced to fight piecemeal for another buyback piece of legislation in the future. The Governor doesn't get it nor does the Mayor of NYC. Two people hold up the entire democratic process. This isn't democracy it is autocratic rule. Term limits are in order with the proposed constitutional conference to be held in a couple of years. If the legislators don't have the spine to stand up to these two people then then shouldn't be in office. The overwhelming votes for approval (with funding included) serves to show just how out of touch these two officials are and the incredible control that they have over the entire state. Who voted for them and why is the real question.
DeleteAnon 4:15: The anti-pension crowd in New York state is quite large and is against anything that might be considered a public worker 'pension sweetener'. This large crowd is a prized constituency for certain politicians. We must all realize this.
DeleteFound the link... http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/244114/are-you-ready-to-rock-cuomos-state-of-the-statebudget-address-set-for-jan-13/
ReplyDeleteHope this doesn't jam us up by generating anti-buyback feelings among the anti-pension crowd: http://bit.ly/1U5DK2C
ReplyDeleteThe policy which allows women to serve in all jobs creates a clear line of demarcation. All veterans who served during conflicts could be included due to the exclusionary policies that existed prior to the change in policy. It does not place an end time on the current wartime era, just the inequities. Moving forward, "in and during" become issues again. Frankly, due to the nature of modern warfare, its artificial again.....everyone everywhere is a potential combatant....but government is so slow to act, that this will be a new fight moving forward. Perhaps Chris Gibson would understand this issue differently.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't shock me if all the stakeholders could negotiate towards a compromise suggested on this site following the Governor's second consecutive override-proof veto of identical legislation. Here
DeleteI am still hoping that all vets will be included somehow.
ReplyDeleteThere are many Cold War Vets who are hoping to be included in the new bill.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget the retired vets!
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
ReplyDeleteGood point. Dream land won't work and I think our legislative friends know that. There is also the public relations battle to be won and now we know what is smart and what is not.
DeleteThe only positive outcome of the double (and veto-proof) veto are the lessons learned. The press release reflects those lessons learned in what it says and what it does not say. So does my post, below.
VSE: I served just like you did and retired prior to the 1998 law. Just because I retired and missed out on the buyback does not mean I should now be left behind. Again. It is not dream land - we could easily get service credit for all retired veterans if we would stick together and fight for it. If you would add retired veterans to the list of eligible veterans the people would have supported it and so would the governor. Look, we weren't included and it was voted down. twice. What more proof do you need?
DeleteThe 'lesson learned" is without fighting for the retired veterans, the bill failed. Twice.
Nobody gets left behind!!
Anonymous 8:13 - Are you and ANON 6:10 serious?
DeleteAs long as there are retiree, peacetime, etc. dreamers how about being able to purchase years in Reserve service?
DeleteIf we serve, we deserve.
DeleteHow about serving in the guard/reserves during wartime? That is more important and potentially much more dangerous than serving on active duty in peacetime. Plus it aided the war effort. The bill and the ideas I read are so unfair to retired, reserves, peacetime, and those who have more than three years they would want to buy. And the cost should be free.
DeleteThe only positive outcome of the double (and veto-proof) veto are the lessons learned.
DeleteAnyone who learned we must include reservists, retirees, peacetime, 0% cost, more than three years, disabled more than three years, etc etc was simply not paying attention...or is in denial.
The press release reflects the rational and obvious lessons learned in what it says and what it does not say. So does my post, below.
The pols have stated where they have mutual agreement. Hopefully the door is opened....what is fair and what is doable are the same things.
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I am wrong, but your interpretation is:
DeleteNo mutual agreement on peacetime, retirees, reservists in the pols' press release so I guess those are out. Fair enough.
What about all those from the Gulf War Era (1990-Present)? That was not stated so I guess there was no mutual agreement. Only 'conflicts' were. As in recognized conflicts and currently unrecognized conflicts. Wartime folks who were not in during the conflicts (say 1991-2000) are out too? Got it.
Pretty clear when you state it like that.
I don't think its authoritative in that way. I think wartime rules will follow previous wartime rules. I think the door to peacetime at full cost is open ...although unmentioned, but I have not heard anyone object to DiBlasio's opinion on that issue, other then the clear statement by Paulin that it is unfair. But not enough is better than nothing to start with.
DeleteOk, think that's just about the idea from last year on the below post (not comment).
ReplyDeleteI served active duty from June 77 to June 81 and then did 6 years in the IRR. I fall through the wartime/conflict cracks. Thankfully we did not have any conflicts during this time but having said that I still don't feel it's fair that people like me are not considered worthy. I went into the Army knowing that I could obviously be deployed should the need arise. There are many people in this situation. im sure I'm more fortunate than many others in this same situation as I have Tricare through my husbands military retirement but there are so many benefits that people in my situation aren't eligible for. The NYS retirement is just one part of it. Somehow it just isn't fair that because our duty fell during times of peace that we aren't viewed as veterans in the full sense. I know people that barely served the 180 days in the service that get so many benefits just because of the time frame they were in. Fortunately I don't need most of those benefits other than the NYS retirement one. But I feel for all those Cold War veterans that could really use some help.
ReplyDeleteI sent a similar email to Paulin and Larkin,I feel that if you have already retired, you have taken yourself out of the game and no cost for credit is a pipe dream. All Cold War Vets who are still employed by NYS should be sending similar emails to the sponsors of the VEA. When I joined the fight for the VEA bill 15 years ago, I thought it stood for Veterans Equality Act, not Veterans Equitability Act. Had I known that Cold War Vets were going to be considered unworthy, I wouldn't have wasted my time. Like VSE said though, no one knows what will be worked out, hang in there.
DeleteRetired vets could purchase under the 2000 Bill. Just read the bill. Peacetime vets could not. Never.
DeleteDon't most folks who are still working and served during the Cold War have some service during the recognized conflicts and wartime? It looks like they might qualify.
Thanks for the feedback. I have a question I haven't seen addresses yet, or may have missed it. I am vested for the NYS retirement. I am currently out of work due to a RIF in my previous job. I do not plan on collecting any retirement benefits yet as I am looking for another state job. Do I have to be actively employed when and if I could ever try to buy back any military time? Or can I just wait to see what happens for this bill and buy it back even if I don't take another state job?
DeleteIt is correct that some retired state workers could purchase military service credit under the 2000 bill but only going back 2 or 3 years. I don't see this upcoming reform including that.
DeleteThere is some logic to the idea that retired wartime veterans have purchased before so they should be able to purchase again. But, like the peacetime issue, I wouldn't bet on it.
I realize that peacetime vets were never included, ever...and that is why the VEA was drafted...to change that. The Cold War Vets who are still working and served prior to May 8th, 1975, do qualify. Doesn't look good for those who served after that date... but who knows what will happen?
DeleteCompletely wrong. Peacetime service - overlapping for even one day with recognized conflicts - may soon qualify for the current buyback program.
DeleteIf you enlisted for 3 years or more AFTER June of 1980 you are most likely covered....only those whose entire term started after May 8 1975 and whose entire term ended before June 1, 1983 are likely to be not covered.
Anon 9:26 - With so many holes in wartime/conflict veteran coverage within the wartime/conflict veteran buyback program, any inclusion of peacetime veterans at full cost is - as we all know - a long shot. But you never know.
DeleteFilling the wartime/conflict holes within the current program - given the fiscal realities and double (override proof) veto - is in and of itself a stretch.
Corrine, I'm in the same situation as you. I don't believe that you have to be actively employed by the state when and if you buy back any military time. The only catch is that you are not retired. (BTW, like you, I am considering another hitch with the state, but only if I can buy back three years.) Let's see what January brings. -Rob
DeleteThe TRS gave me the same answer, You would be purchasing credit in, and retiring from, the retirement system, not an employer
DeleteSent in to me and verified on OMCE website (http://www.nysomce.org/):
ReplyDelete"Veteran’s Pension Equity although vetoed twice by the Governor has now been targeted by the Executive for a cooperative effort to achieve passage. OMCE supported and continues to support Veterans’ Pension Equity and will continue our work with all other AFL-CIO affiliated unions to achieve a fair resolution of this issue.
The Governor has announced that his State of the State message will be combined with his 2016-2017 Fiscal Year Budget message on January 13, 2016."
Good to see it is still part of the discussion and perhaps will gain a non-detailed mention in the Governor's Budget Message.
"If you enlisted for 3 years or more AFTER June of 1980 you are most likely covered....only those whose entire term started after May 8 1975 and whose entire term ended before June 1, 1983 are likely to be not covered"
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see the actuarial on how much extra it would cost to cover these vets. It can't be that much because most have retired by now. So why is the gov even contemplating excluding them? It makes no sense. There was a lot of action going on between the Soviets and the US at that time. He doesn't have a clue as to some of the risks that were taken by the people in uniform during those time periods.
The fiscal notes in the twice-vetoed bill itself stated it is impossible to determine the number of vets currently working for the state. The state, therefore, has no breakdown on peacetime veterans and wartime veterans and combat veterans among its employees.
DeleteI haven't heard that peacetime veterans will not be part of a negotiated reform to the current buyback program.
Rumor control.
"He doesn't have a clue as to some of the risks that were taken by the people in uniform during those time periods."
DeleteThe concept of 'risk' has NEVER been a consideration for the military buyback program. It is a given that those who served stateside during Vietnam (or Korea, or WW II) were at relatively low risk; nevertheless, stateside service for these eras qualifies for the buyback program.
Appeals based on peacetime risk, or tension, or action, or importance are simply unavailing.
If the buyback program was based on risk, these would be good arguments. But it is not.
(Not saying this is right, just saying how it is.)
To VSE:
ReplyDeleteWhen the Governor gives his State of the State speech and says he is including the veterans bill, how long would we have to wait for him to sign the bill so it is final?
Just wondering.....
No idea. Don't count on a mention of negotiated reform to the current buy back program.
DeleteHappy new year, remember whatever the outcome health is the most important thing that matters. God bless everyone and stay safe.
ReplyDeleteOn 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.
In addition to the modest and noted town/municipality-based wartime (plus combat plus disability, if applicable)and Cold War property exemptions, local school districts here in NY may also offer a modest exemption to wartime veterans. Not Cold War.
DeleteThe local school district exemption (again, wartime only)is a 2-year old program.
My town does not do the Cold War version but does do the property tax exemptions for the wartime categories. Funny that so many of the wartime veterans can qualify for exemptions but not military service credit. Hopefully that'll change soon so the state is consistent.
DeleteWe receive the property tax exemption but my assessor's office does not know of any changes regarding a school district exemption. Who can I contact (or where c an I find ) for more information? I'm not having much luck online. Thank you!
DeleteIf your school district adopted the NYS exemption (the option is only 2 years old) your town assessor definitely knows about it. This is the first year my school district adopted it and the assessor had to apply it to the school district portion of wartime veterans' property taxes.
DeleteAs you know, the traditional veterans exemption (wartime, combat zone, disability and Cold War) does NOT apply to the school district portion.
Very available on line. Google NYS school district veterans exemption and you'll get a thousand hits. You'll see that like service credit, a good number are against it.
I was able to look up my school tax bill receipts and the exemption is listed there. Thank you, VSE!
DeleteThis is the latest from Senator Larkin: "Happy New Year. We have been working with the Governor's office to try our best to come to terms on this bill. Unfortunately it looks as if he is no interested in serving ALL our veterans. We will continue fighting for it."
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that we can still hope for the recognition of the overlooked wars/conflicts. Downright embarrassing for the pols that some wars are overlooked. And we can hope for the application of the word 'during' instead of 'in' regarding veterans contributions to our wars/conflict - an outgrowth of the women's issue. Downright embarrassing discrimination against female wartime veterans. These would repair the holes in NY's wartime service credit program.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Maybe there can be a different bill that peacetime veterans can fight for to recognize their contributions during times of peace. Since pols view this type of veteran differently in state benefits programs like tax exemptions and civil service credits it makes sense to create something different for them too. Would not be an easy bill to pass but it is the only possibility for peacetime veterans.
DeleteNY does have a separate peacetime veterans web page: http://www.veterans.ny.gov/content/peacetime-veteran
DeleteI say regardless of where the "chips" fall in the end we call the Governor out on this now.
DeleteCuomo will look like a hero by letting the wartime folks into the wartime program and not bloating it with another category of veteran. The more peacetime folks complain, the better he looks to the public for saving pension cash.
DeleteKind of a catch 22 for the peace timers. If Cuomo announces a plan for wartime veterans and peace timers loudly complain, this builds support for the bill..and Cuomo is more likely to sign it.
DeleteHe will, yes but I want him to explain himself by being asked the direct question, not dance around it. Why, in his eyes, are all oaths and sacrifices NOT equal? He's the one pushing for modification of the bill, so he gets the hot seat question.
DeleteHe won't be asked that question but, if he was, he would refer to similar state policies on wartime veterans (current military service credit, current civil service exam credit, current property tax exemptions, etc). And the public (and wartime veterans organizations) would appreciate his answer.
DeleteI asked him on his facebook page and will do so repeatedly so others will ask him as well.
DeleteI did not see that statement from Senator Larkin where is it posted?
ReplyDeleteIt's a response to a message and from the Senator. Message him yourself.
Deleteon his facebook page
ReplyDeleteWell, January 13 is his budget/policy speech and I would not be shocked if he slipped in something about finally recognizing the contributions of all combat veterans and the overlooked female wartime veterans in the state's wartime military service credit program. Who could argue with that? Might provide some balance to his pronouncements on raising the state's minimum wage and common core verbiage.
ReplyDeleteJAN 6 2016 Updates via Legiscan
ReplyDeleteReintroduction of S04546 and A06453 (Afghan only). Apparently there has been an unrecognized (for military service credit purposes) shooting war there for the last 15 years following the terror attack on New York's largest city.
Reintroduction of A04313 and S04124 (all vets) along with the horrid and self defeating peacetime description.
Introduction of A07534 and S5065 (Retired vets) If retired prior to 1998 and otherwise qualify for military service credit may now be eligible for wartime military service credit program. Very Interesting.
FOR MORE INFORMATION LOOK UP ON LEGISCAN: https://legiscan.com/gaits/search?state=NY&keyword=service+credit+military
USE YOUR OWN SEARCH TERMS IF YOU WOULD LIKE