Notwithstanding any negotiations that may or may not have taken place for the 2016 legislative process, the following military service credit bills have been reintroduced or introduced (January 6, 2016):
A04313 and S04124 Provides 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; requi...
S01101 (matching bill not yet reintroduced) Increases years purchaseable to 7 (seven) and adds Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey (etc) to the list of eligible geographic areas (w/certain dates)...
A06453 and S04546 Provides credit to members of public retirement systems of the state for military service in certain hostilities in Afghanistan.
A07534 and S05065 Veterans retiring prior to 1998 who otherwise qualify for the military service credit program...
S04525 (matching bill not yet reintroduced) Adjusts dates for Lebanon (moves Lebanon start date 10 months prior to current start date)
S03033 (matching bill not yet reintroduced) Provides three years of
retirement service credit to certain retirement system members
discharged from military service due to injuries suffered during certain
military conflicts even if they did not serve three years in the
military.
There are other bills without matching legislation. See LegiScan
Horrid and self defeating language of the twice-vetoed A4313 and S4124 is repeated as presented.
Don't see the legislature doing anything for peacetime 'veterans' or long- retired veterans. If the choicer is between these top three than the choice is obvious...
ReplyDeleteWartime vets need to write their own bill - lumping in with the doomed peace-timers is a recipe for failure.
Wow, I never thought the retired wartime veterans could possibly get matching bills into the legislature. Since they are wartime they certainly have a better chance then the peacetime veterans.
ReplyDeleteIt is an interesting bill (that is why it is linked, above) and apparently it would cover all retirees who otherwise qualify but were retired before an applicable bill passed. Including WW II, Korea, and Vietnam veteran retirees. Tens of thousands I am sure. I guess if you say "all vets" you gotta include all vets and these wartime folks are most certainly vets.
DeleteA retired vet from Vietnam is certainly as deserving as a working peacetime vet. All who serve do deserve!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou don't think a peacetime and retiree bill would be cost prohibitive?
DeleteI don't think those who could be included up to this point would be a problem. I think The Gov and the Mayor of NYC are looking at future obligations. The reason I say this is because they are willing to include wartime vets (which maybe a lot)and those in say Tier III and IV have mostly retired so their population is small (which would cover the women equality issue). These two buttheads are willing to include them if the rumors that have been presented here are true. However, in reality there will be a point in time in the future where the state pretty much goes to a 401k system and therefore there won't be a need for the VEA bill. I am surprised why Cuomo hasn't pushed this agenda though he would probably get blowback from the current elected officials since they are part of the retirement system.
DeleteOn a side note having an enhanced 401k in place (vice the current system) would placate those who are screaming for not allowing retirement funds paid by tax payers to be doled out to those elected officials convicted of a crime since most of the money would be what the official put into their retirement account.
"I don't think those who could be included up to this point would be a problem." There has to be tens of thousands of wartime retirees dating back to the 1960's who missed out on military service credit (remember, for example, the Vietnam veterans were not covered until 1998...when most of them had already retired). And if you add the peacetime retirees over the last 45 years of so ...
Delete401K is a ways off and Tier IV has a long long way to go.
I was referring to those who are not retired yet. The proposed bill is not retro to those who have retired already the way I read it. Therefore all those folks would be excluded reducing the size of those eligible. Therefore the majority of the vets would be those who are later tiers. From what I have been reading here is the gov is willing to compromise but I don't think he wants to pay for future vets who will retire which the mayor of NYC is complaining about...15 million per (future) years would be my interpretation of the reservation these two have. They may make one big snapshot to include those who haven't retired yet up to a given date but beyond that they will have to come up with a different pay in structure. The snapshot would clear up the women's equality issue for past discrimination, leave future vets with a higher pay in rate than what is proposed making it not financially sound.
DeleteOK. If you look at the top of this page you will see several military service credit bills are linked and described. One of those new bills, (A07534/S05065) again see above, would enable retired wartime veterans to purchase military service credit. I take it you are against those wartime veterans purchasing military service credit.
DeleteI agree that a wartime bill that snapshots (sunsets) with the change on women regulations would seem a possibility. After that snapshot, going forward only combat vets eligible?
Peacetime and retiree veterans don't seem to be the ones the pols will be compromising about.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe mayor, the governor, the public, wartime veterans organizations, and wartime veterans don't view peacetime veterans with the same respect as wartime veterans. Right or wrong, that is not news. Putting the word peacetime as the lead in the description guarantees defeat for the bill.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou don't think a peacetime and retiree bill would be cost prohibitive?
ReplyDeleteIf it's not retro...maybe not
ReplyDeleteAren't retirees, by definition, all retro?
DeleteA07534 and S05065 Veterans retiring prior to 1998 who otherwise qualify for the military service credit program...
So, all veterans...except the retired veterans who are pushing bill A07534 and S05065 this year?
I guess one has to draw the line somewhere.
Retro in terms of payments. Salaries were not that high, and life span is substantially shorter
DeleteThe 2000 bill had a look back period of 1.5 specific years ('98-2000) because of the bad 1998 bill. So why not a 40 year look back for the retirees?
DeleteThe retiree bill is pure dreamland and peacetime is a nonstarter (remember the double veto?. Those two delusional groups deserve each other and would ruin the wartime veterans' chances.
ReplyDeleteWere these bills introduced to put pressure on the budget negotiations? Or to scoop up anything left out of the budget? I don't see the political play here, since the Gov is willing to discuss some kind of veterans' retirement compensation as part of the budget process. Why start a second thread (of bills) when it was difficult to get even the first thread considered (and nobody even knows what IS being considered anyhow)? I don't get it.
ReplyDeleteOne suspects the Governor WAS willing to discuss SOMETHING on Afghanistan and SOMETHING related to wartime women. Heavens knows the specifics and how that turned out. That is a long long way from what is proposed in the above 2016 bills - and others when you query LegiScan. (Just giving one possible explanation for the introduction/reintroduction of various military service credit bills.)
ReplyDeleteI wish they would have removed the word peace, the mayor does not recognize nor respect "peacetime" Veterans and will fight hard to have this vetoed.
ReplyDeleteThe mayor, the governor, the public, wartime veterans organizations, and wartime veterans don't view peacetime veterans with the same respect as wartime veterans. Right or wrong, that is not news. Putting the word peacetime as the lead in the description guarantees defeat for the bill.
DeleteMy thoughts, at this time is "let the games begin." We will have a better idea of what is what once the Governor's proposed budget is put forth and by what he alludes to in his press conference. This is also only the beginning of the legislative session. Whatever leads the pack will have to get to the floor once again.
ReplyDeleteAll of the above bills appear to be automatic reintroductions of bills that did not get passed last year ( even the retiree bill is a reintroduction ! ). The bill we are all anxiously looking forward to seeing will be part of the budget bill!
ReplyDeletewhen the one house budget bills get posted we will be finally able to see the details !
the details of the retiree bill ( only proposed by the assembly in may ) show that the increase in pension will only apply to the first 15k of retirement payments ( same as the lousy NYS Retirement COLA law) , this will greatly reduce the potential costs !
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely no way a peacetime 'veteran' will be eligible prior to a retired wartime veteran becoming eligible. Under NYS law, a veteran is someone who served during wartime so a peacetime 'veteran' will never be eligible for the wartime military service credit program. Peacetimers thought they could slip in under the shame and confusion associated with the exclusion of Afghanistan and women veterans. Not so fast fellas.
ReplyDeleteI am a wartime veteran of the Gulf war (did not serve in theatre) and even I say the combat Afghan/Somalia/Kosovo/Bosnia issue has and deserves immediate priority.
while I don't agree with everything you have stated you have touched upon the peacetime issue. Peacetime veterans cannot claim they are now inequitably treated (as a wartime or combat soldier can) because no other peacetime veterans in US history have been permitted to purchase military service credit. That is cold hard logic.
DeleteIn contrast, excluded combat soldiers can point to other included combat soldiers who can purchase military service credit and excluded wartime soldiers can point to other included wartime soldiers who can purchase military service credit. Similarly situated and disparately treated is a definition of inequitable treatment. Inequity has a very strong appeal to lawmakers.
Excluded Long time retired wartime veterans who can point to NYS state allowing other long time retired wartime veterans to purchase military service credit could put forth a very specific and compelling equity case.
Some women veterans can make the case that they were inequitably treated during their wartime service vis a vis similarly situated males (some included in combat zone some excluded)and seek a well-grounded and logical remedy.
Too much conjecture. Read the press statements. During conflicts. Language is clear. Introduce any bills you want. Governor will pick one and negotiate language. Maybe more. My guess is that we see what vse proposed in three parts earlier. Wartime period will likely be covered as well. He never complained about that either. Neither had diblassio.
ReplyDeleteNon conflict Era at full cost..
If at all. Introduction of bills keeps all the phone calls at bay. Pure. Ploitics
100% of the message of the press release was recognizing ignored conflicts AND remedying the effects of anti-female regulations and rules in the military during conflicts and wars. The latter will fully address the former:
DeleteThe phrase "remove restrictions" relative to the women's issue and interpreted as favorably (broadly) as possible would mean a removal of Expeditionary Medal restriction (since women who were serving during these conflicts [Leb, Gren, Pan])were not permitted into the zone. Equally, it would mean a removal of the geographic restrictions listed in the Wartime Era 'hostilities' since women were similarly not permitted in certain zones or jobs in the military. The press release pointedly notes (relative to erasing restrictions), "The military ended its policy against women being deployed to combat in 2013".
Note: This would, of course cover the current Wartime Era's conflicts in Afghan, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc...no need to go further on this.
I have heard nothing so far that flatly contradicts items 1 and 2 here: http://nyvetsforservicecredit.blogspot.com/2015/04/is-it-time-to-consider-and-alternative.html
Don't see any appetite from the press release for peacetime veterans (refer to paragraph 1 of this comment) or retired veterans. Was an elliptical reference from one participant that might (best case) open the door for a full cost option (if at all) for peace time veterans. This does not, of course, rule out a separate bill for peacetime or retired veterans.
Again, this was my broadest and most favorable interpretation of what I carefully read (and perhaps read into) the press release. As to an adjustment on dates for some of the above...remember this is my most favorable interpretation of the language.
That is as clean a read of the objectively published information as I have seen. And don't I remain hopeful for more....
DeleteVSE
DeleteThank you for this cold and clear analysis. I cannot argue with it.
Perhaps Cuomo will note this small item in his budget address and perhaps not. Either way, phone calls to the Reps in Albany will be in order.
Afghanistan Veteran
Delusional? Didn't this start out as ALL Veterans? Maybe you are the one who is delusional.
ReplyDeleteDustoff
ReplyDeleteI just realized, because two veterans emailed me, there is some confusion. When Coumo's office writes "expand the pool of eligible veterans that were not previously covered by law..." This is using the word 'veterans' in its traditional NY sense (i.e. wartime/conflict veterans)and is alluding to Afghanistan veterans, etc. This is precisely buttressed by Paulin's quote later in the press release: "...and the veterans who served in these conflicts have been unfairly excluded from purchasing pension credit for far too long.".
Pualin then reiterates Coumo's office's message about women veterans - there seems to be no confusion about that (i.e. veterans = wartime/conflict veterans).
It never occurred to me that Cuomo or Paulin were referencing peacetime or retired veterans. They were not.
While there may be wheeling dealing within the agreed upon parameters (re-read Cuomo and Paulin and you see the parameters match)it would narrow and not widen those parameters (dates, etc.).
This fight is not over. The cost for wartime veterans should be 3% or 6% of salary for year 5 in state employment. That is the year wartime veterans are first able to purchase. Basing it on what I earn now (in year 29 of state employment) is saying it was OK to discriminate against some wartime veterans while other wartime were able to purchase year 5.
ReplyDeleteWhy should I be financially liable for the discriminatory and inequitable military service laws of the past?
I can't complain about the 3% and 6% because that has always been the price for wartime veterans.
More likely that someday you would be able to buy all your years of service (not just 3 at 3%, 6%). There is a bill this year raising limit to 7 years.
DeleteBoth of the ideas will happen prior to peacetimers and retirees purchasing.
Just recieved an email from Assemblyman Brian Curran. He is looking for input on his Facebook page for the 2016 Legislation. Let our voices be heard.
ReplyDeletehttps://m.facebook.com/AssemblymanBrianCurran
So I am a little confused. Is there a new bill on the table for conflict vets that removes the geographical location??
ReplyDeleteNo. As I take it, there is not currently a written bill to do that, but as referenced from Cuomo's press release, linked from this page, there is an agreement from him to the sponsors and stake holders,to do something along those lines we will see what they are yet to come up with.
DeleteAll vets (Guard, Reserve, Retired, Peacetime, Wartime, etc) deserve this. Fight for 'all vets' and don't let the pols sell us out!!
ReplyDeleteBy "us" are you referring to peacetime veterans?
DeleteWhy yes, I believe he is. A handful of peacetimers don't want ANY improvements to the program (Afghanistan combat veterans, etc.) if it means they (the peace timers) continue to be outside the wartime military service credit program. Kind of sad and delusional.
Delete"All vets (Guard, Reserve, Retired, Peacetime, Wartime, etc) deserve this. Fight for 'all vets' and don't let the pols sell us out!!"
ReplyDeleteMight as well add veterinarians ("vets") and vegetarians ("vegets") if you are going to be completely delusional.
For anyone interested in watching the Governor's address, the live link is: http://www.governor.ny.gov/
ReplyDeleteAny news what in Coumo's budget proposal?
ReplyDeleteNot a mention of veterans at all
ReplyDeleteNo expectation he would mention this in his speech. In the first case it is a tiny bill not meriting a mention and in the second case he would never allude to any possible pension enhancements given the predictable backlash.
ReplyDeleteThis will be hashed out during the budget wrangling.
Agreed
DeleteFirst things first. The 2016 Joint Legislative Public Hearings Schedule has been posted (https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/john-defrancisco/state-legislature-releases-joint-legislative-hearing). Any and all amendments to the Retirement and Social Security Law in the Governor's forthcoming budget will begin at 10:00 AM on Tuesday, January 26th as part of Local Government Officials/General Government hearings. If you want your voice heard, that is the time and day.
ReplyDeleteSecond, a simple review of the sponsorship of the above mentioned bills reveals that there is no significant support in the Assembly or State Senate for anything besides the Veterans' Equality Act, vetoed these last two years by Governor Cuomo.
NYS Senate Temporary President and Majority Leader John Flanagan, Deputy Majority Leader Senator John DeFrancisco, Senator William Larkin and the new Senate Finance Chair Catharine Young all seem to be solidly behind the non-discrimanatory Veterans' Equality Act. Ditto, Assemblywoman Amy Paulin in the Assembly and Ways & Means Chair Denny Farrell.
The Governor's proposed budget will likely not be so broad as to include all veterans, but I fully expect the Governor will have to compromise this year if he wants another on-time budget.
One could make the same argument the last three years: "a simple review of the sponsorship of the above mentioned bills reveals that there is no significant support in the Assembly or State Senate for anything besides the Veterans' Equality Act"
DeleteWe have to be smarter than that - obviously the Bill will not become law. Keep the stuff all agree on. Ditch the stuff that prevents the bill's passage. Deserving wartime vets (Afghanistan, etc) have been screwed while because this turkey of a bill has flopped repeatedly.
If the Democratic Assembly can stand firmly with the Republican Senate (a huge if) there should be some sort of bill negotiated, budgeted and passed (and not vetoed).
ReplyDeletePress release is a very clear road map to the eventual agreement.
Since the Gov is override-proof they'll have to hammer out a compromise at budget time.
Well then fund the bill! Or override is veto. One person dose not have all the power. The senate keeps saying the Assembly will not override is veto. Fine, then if that's the case pass a override then send it to the Dems. Other wise your not any different. Maybe we need new leadership in the Senate!
ReplyDeleteIf like to think every single veteran now realizes there are no veto overrides. None. Senate knows it, assembly knows it, Governor knows it, citizens know it.
DeleteIt is my understanding that it is Senator Larkin's last year in office. If that is the case then the bill has to be passed this year.
ReplyDeleteI think he knows he'll have to get a negotiated bill funded this year. Will add to his legacy. Insisting on the same twice - vetoed bill would be idiotic and self defeating.
DeleteI took the time to read through his new budget and I did NOT see anything about the VEA bill. No mention of it anywhere. That promise on Veterans Day to Sen.Larkin and Sen. Curran also Assemblywoman Pualin seems it wasn't a promise or maybe just another line of B.S. Unless they didn't show his whole budget ! 178 pages of it hmmm.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't expecting anything in his budget on veterans service credit. I am expecting a battle over including some veterans into the program along the lines of the press release. And hoping to see that in the final budget. I am certainly not expecting the full VEA to make it to the final budget given the press release and the huge and shameful holes to be filled first in the wartime ranks, for starters.(Not saying right or wrong just calling it as I see it).
DeleteI found this interesting 1999 Article (after the disastrous 1998 wartime service credit law and prior to the 2000 sellout of some wartime veterans previously covered under the 1998 wartime service credit law: Here
Here is how that July 1999 article starts:
DeleteIt appears the legislation needed that would allow civil servants who served during wartime to buy back pension time lost to that service is going to have to wait another year. Civil Service unions and veterans groups across the state have been waiting more than 20 years to see the Veterans Service Credit Act signed into law. The bill would allow those wartime veterans, from World War II to the Persian Gulf war, a chance to buy back up to three years of pension credit. "We thought we'd get it done this year," said John Rowan, president of the New York State Council of the Vietnam Veterans of America. "But it looks like we're going to have to wait until after January."
(Kind of funny and not to whine too much but the bill that finally passed the next year EXCLUDED some wartime veterans who had been INCLUDED in 1998...some of us are still fighting to get back into the wartime service credit program...end of whining)
That's not whining ! I totally agree what you say. It seems today's pols don't really care much about who or how many gave their time and some their lives so that we have the government we have. I'm starting to believe Sen. Cruz has it right about New York pols and its Governor don't have a clue. It's just so disrespectful how they barter with taxpayers and veterans lives. All I wanted to do was retire a little early but looks like I'll be sticking it out for another 18 months I guess. Well till the smoke clears in April we will know ! Have a great new year !
DeleteThis Gov has given everything to everybody in this budget! Who knows maybe 3rd times a charm.
ReplyDeleteWhy can't I get information when I click on the link to A04313?
ReplyDeleteRe-linked - give it a shot. No updates/edits from last year on the bill BTW.
DeleteNot surprised that it isn't in his budget. It is a initiative of the legislature. Something will be there in April. Saying that he wants it in the budget process, and that he will agree to some expansion, does not imply that he will introduce it.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
DeleteVSE - thanks for all you have done. Your interpretations and opinions have been enormously helpful. I served overseas on active duty from 81 to 88 (1st AD, Ansbach Germany) with no expeditionary medals. This rollercoaster ride of emotions over the past several months has been strenuous, to say the least. For a lay person (like me) who knows little about the business of legislation, this blog has been extremely helpful. The joint media release a couple months back provided real hope that something positive is on the way for our military veterans. Let us hope and pray that it happens soon for all deserving Vets and their families. Putting my own selfishness aside (concerning geograhic location), I truly hope, first and foremost, that those Vets who actually saw combat and who have been ignored for so long, are granted what they are owed, once and for all. Anything less is pathetic. I personally believe that something good will come soon. Not sure how to interpret some of your comments lately and hoping you are not losing hope! Thanks again for your regular input...it helps keep me (somewhat) sane in my attempts get this thing figured out. Please keep it going. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteAppreciate your service and your sentiments.
DeleteAs I gain knowledge of the service credit program and its history, as I learn the Albany political system, and as events unfold... I have shifted my view on what can/will happen near-term.
First of all, military service credit has always been a wartime program (w/some conflicts added). There is a recognition in Albany and NYC mayor's office of this. Now, in 2016, there are some huge gaps in wartime veterans eligibility. Huge. There is a recognition in Albany and NYC mayor's office of this. The current and large pension cost hypersensitivity may be outweighed by the embarrassment over SOME of the particular gaps. Press release confirms this (this is not to say the press release promises complete conflict/wartime coverage).
The current and large pension cost hypersensitivity may also be outweighed by the women's issue. Press release confirms this (this is not to say the press release promises complete wartime/conflict coverage).
Just as many wartime veterans (including myself) were sacrificed on the altar of pension cost-cutting for the 2000 bill, there may be slight or great date adjustments for wartime or conflicts in the scenario I see unfolding.
I base the above on my knowledge of wartime military service credit legislation here in NY (I don't claim to know more than another veteran but I lived through a good bit of it and have researched a bit), limited back channel discussions, observed Albany political machinations, and unfolding events.
This has nothing to do with my personal wants, comparative dangers and sacrifices of various categories of veterans, detailed cost analysis, etc. Just calling it as I see it now and remaining open to adjust fire as we affect events and as events subsequently unfold.
Interesting observations vse. Difficult to change dates that already exist. But other conflicts and dates are undefined.let's hope for the best
ReplyDeleteYes, extracting various combat operations within the current wartime era (1991-Present) is doubtlessly tempting to the bean counters...but some who are currently eligible would no longer be eligible. VFW does have formal eligibility dates one could consider adopting (due to women's issue we would require service 'during' these eligibility dates). As I have just noted, some veterans would no longer be eligible.
DeleteKeep in mind that I (yes, me personally) was eligible due to my date during DESERT STORM and location of service to purchase under the wartime military service credit law of 1998. I held off due to the expense. Then, under the Law of 2000, my eligibility was yanked under the new geographic restrictions. Don M., a proponent of reform who has had numerous articles published concerning its inequities, was similarly qualified under the law of 1998 and similarly held off purchasing. He even holds the expeditionary medal for Desert Storm. He too was deemed ineligible once the 2000 law came into effect. So, it has happened before FYI.
Sorry to hear that for both of you. I am hopeful that they will stick to the language which calls for expanding the pool of eligible veterans (not reconfiguring) and removing language that prohibited participation. This language implies some expansion and elimination of restrictions. However, the use of the language "conflicts" doea open the door for suggesting that 1990 to the present is not a wartime era.
DeleteHow do we/will we know if the Governor has put this into his budget? Is it a line item that is bill specific? How does it work and how is inclusion confirmed?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.budget.ny.gov/citizen/process/process.html
ReplyDeleteMy reading of the budget process is that, if done as part of the normal budget appropriations process (as I understand was a condition the governor requested) it should be approved and adopted as part of the process by the deadline (April 1). This would be the case as well for an appropriation proposed and approved by both houses of the legislature and submitted to the governor during the normal budget process. For such appropriations that are put forward solely by the legislature, the governor has line item veto authority.
ReplyDeleteWe stick together what ever happened to no man left behind?? We all get it or know one get's it..A veteran is a Veteran regardless when and where they served...If we all don't get it ,tell cuomo to go to hell....
ReplyDeleteAre you a peacetime veteran or a retired veteran? Retired veterans have started their own bill and peacetime veterans should start their own too. Neither category has a shot if trying to slip in this session with wartime veterans according to the double veto and the press release. Learn from the double veto and the press release or you'll be on the outside forever.
DeleteThe Iraq and Vietnam Veterans have not left you behind. Unless you are writing from Iraq or Vietnam.
DeleteStick together? So, I guess those Vets that have already bought back their time should give it back until we all can buyback?
DeleteI am not sure this is the year retiree, reservist, and peacetime veterans will gain access to the program. Not saying right or wrong just calling it as I see it now.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSo if Vietnam veterans had only accepted military service credit if peacetime and retired veterans did, they would be better off? Get real.
DeleteOf course it is silly to suggest all veterans have been treated alike in the past or to convince all Iraq or Vietnam veterans to give back their military service credit until reservists, retirees, or peace-timers can purchase for an equal rate. Of course it is silly to demand that Afghanistan veterans sacrifice their military serviced credit chances by insisting reservists, retirees, or peace-timers get included in the wartime plan. But desperation breeds silliness.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere are essentially 12 budget bills. A9000/S6400 through A9011/S6411. A9000 through A9004 are line item appropriation bills introduced directly by Governor Cuomo's Division of the Budget. No bill text is available on the Assembly and Senate websites for these bills but they can be found on the Division of Budget's website. See 2016-17 Executive Budget Legislation. None provide ANY appropriations for ANY proposed veteran pension reforms.
ReplyDeleteA9005 through A9009 are initiative bills amending various laws. None reference amending Article 20 of the Retirement and Social Security Law.
A9010 and A9011 are ethics reform bills and do not directly concern us.
It appears the Governor has spoken but not written. A cursory call to Senator Larkin's office revealed that he does not support the Governor's (spoken) limited veterans' equity measure and is still fighting for the inclusion of all veterans in this year's budget.
No expectation the governor would propose an appropriation for a legislative initiative.
DeleteYep. Legislature has to present the bill. Governor will have line item authority. So regardless of supporting a position, the question of compromise is obvious. As for standing together, exactly what will be accomplished by not using whatever enhancements pass this process other than giving Cuomo and dilation a reason to smile.
DeleteSo I'm a year short of retirement....,I left service with 19 years and this would give me three and the ability to retire. So you want me to say to hell with my family because every person is not recognized? It's like any other war. You when it battle by battle and not by trying to do it all the first day. This is merely the first step towards recognizing all. We take each victory as they come. How well have you done on your own?
ReplyDeleteLatest jab at the Governor by Assemblyman Brian Curran:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/AssemblymanBrianCurran/posts/924350587619157
All who served in the United States military are Veterans. All who served should have the opportunity to buy back their service time. I served from 1985 - 1989. I served overseas for my first 3 years.Some events that occurred during my 3 years serving in Spain: My roommate was blown of a deck by a bomb directed against Americans. Our cars were flipped over in riots as we tried to get onto our base. We were taught how to check for bombs under our cars daily. We bombed libya and F111's came back to the base in emergency landings, on fire ! This is not WAR.
ReplyDeleteALL of us raised our right hand and swore to defend our country! And ALL of us did serve our country. We are ALL VETS.
How many CLASSIFIED MISSIONS were conducted EVERYDAY for the past 30 years! These missions were not in "times of war" because they're classified.
God Bless ALL who Served!
Pracetime can be very dangerous in the service...unfortunately, relative danger is not the criteria for military service credit here in NY.
DeleteOne could list dangerous jobs, important jobs, and military deaths during peacetime forever.
DeleteThat has nothing to do with NY's wartime military service credit system set up to include those who contributed to the wartime effort.
i believe jeff would be able to buy back 3 years as he served during the time of the lebanon conflict period !
DeleteYes. If women's issue results in all those who served DURING our recognized conflicts to qualify and Lebanon dates remain, he would qualify.
DeleteDepending on his precise ETS, he may have additionally served during Operation Just Cause (Panama).
I thought the whole point of this exercise was to C_H A N G E the military service credit law in NY to be more like those other states and the Federal law that recognizes all military service, not simply get the f%$^ers to finally include wartime folks twenty *%cking years later!
DeleteI don't want the 'full cost' option of other states but it is better than nothing.
DeleteI can see Cuomo agreeing to a 'full cost' inclusion of all peacetime vets if Larkin and Paulin stay strong in their negotiations. If they waffle, the peace-timers won't be included.
Deleteonce the one house budget bills are introduced we will see exactly what time periods and locations will be included for a veterans buyback !
ReplyDeleteJeff you need to post that information on Larkin's, Paulin's, Curran's, the Mayor of NYC and Governor's Facebook pages. They are clueless on these topics and I encourage all vets to tell their side of the story so that they have the facts of personal sacrifices. It doesn't need to hazards but also rescue missions of refugees, Ebola operations, volunteer work...things that show other New Yorker's your service and sacrifice even if it is not under fire. There is a human side to other things we do as vets including the work that veterans volunteering to help other vets like those in the NYC Veterans Association who managed (after persistent pressure) on the Mayor of NYC to come up with recognizing the homeless vets in the city.
ReplyDeleteAgree with everything you say except that Larkin, Paulin and Curran definitely have a clue. They are the reason we are even discussing the possibility of an expanded pool of eligible Vets for this year's budget. Paulin and Larkin have been fighting for us for years. Larkin is a retired Colonel.
DeletePeacetime dangers have always existed and the public and pols already know all about them. Don't expect to convert anyone based on old news.
ReplyDeleteFrom Senator Larkin...."nothing yet. I am standing strong to include ALL Veterans. We are in budget negotiations now"...
ReplyDeleteThank you!
DeleteSenator Larkin Thank You
ReplyDeleteSenator Larkin (and Assembly Woman Paulin) will not return empty-handed this year from any negotiations with the Governor's office. The last two years were dramatic and public failures to achieve ANY improvement in the veterans service credit program. And lessons were learned.
ReplyDeleteNow that the Governor has reached out to the sponsors indicating he wants an improvement, Senator Larkin will wisely get as much improvement (i.e. expand the pool of eligible veterans who served in and during conflicts) as he can.
Yeah, it is kind of a humiliation when you want to cover all veterans and you wind up with a double veto - not even the coverage of Afghanistan combat wounded veterans. Just a double in-your-face veto. Get smart or get nothing this time.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNever heard that before but I don't think there is much taxpayer support for peacetime veterans moving into the wartime military service credit program.
DeleteThese are respectful, honest, patriotic, middle to lower income individuals, it's simply the right thing to do. Respect those who have done their best to protect the liberties and values we have in this country. This is such a small budget matter it should have never been vetoed if the first place.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNon conflict at full cost seems not a bridge too far. Hang in there. Could happen...but realistically its best case. And remember we aren't the ones negotiating....
DeleteThe negotiators now know that peacetime inclusion (at full cost) makes this a peacetime bill... on the road to a triple veto. Keep it simple, try peacetime at full cost next year. This year plug the wsrtime holes and solve the women's conflict issue
DeleteAny of you men or woman remember the name of this bill? That's right VEA Veterans Equality Act. That's the bill that's in negotiations. Not a war bill or a Afganistan bill, not even a peacetime bill. It's a Equality Bill. That's what the bill title is !
DeleteI remember that the name of the bill that was vetoed two years in a row by the governor (who is still the governor) was VEA. That is dead. Could not be clearer. That two year delay was very costly to many wartime veterans. Peacetimers have nothing to lose so of course they'd like to push it again. This year's bill will not be bait for the triple veto.
DeleteWhen was the last Peacetime. There has always been some sort of conflict or war going on that I can remember, including the Cold War. There is no such thing as a Peacetime Vet, Triple Veto or not.
DeleteWhat good would purchase of service credit at full cost be to anyone? Who would do this? Wealthy public employees who want to retire a little early? Pathetic! How would this benefit anyone, especially those who are close to their highest earning at the end of their careers? Why would this even be considered? Am I missing something?
DeleteAnon 8:04
DeleteWhy was 'full cost' the rule for all wartime veterans in the 1998 bill? Why is it the rule in many states?
VSE, I suppose full cost purchase might be considered by someone starting out in a public job they were confident they would retire from. They could setup payroll deduction or make other arrangements when the cost would be lowest. To me, offering full cost purchase is illusory.
Delete"Why was 'full cost' the rule for all wartime veterans in the 1998 bill? Why is it the rule in many states?"
DeleteI'll answer my own questions. It was the best we could get and was better than nothing. It is cheaper on the taxpayers.
AnonymousJanuary 29, 2016 at 12:43 PM
Delete"VSE, I suppose full cost purchase might be considered by someone starting out in a public job they were confident they would retire from. They could setup payroll deduction or make other arrangements when the cost would be lowest. To me, offering full cost purchase is illusory."
I thought the same thing back in 1998 so I didn't bother. Nobody forced me to make the full cost purchase.
I'm currently a police officer and would like to buy back 3 years of my military service. I'm a little confused about my eligibility. I served in the USAF from 1983 to 1991. During which time I was involuntary extended in the USAF due to Desert Storm/Shield. I was not deployed to a combat area during my extention of 6 months military service. I am however a veteran. Am I eligible to buyback 3 years of service? I would appreciate an answer/advice. Thank you in advance.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any of this? If not, the answer is NO!
ReplyDeleteTheater of operations including Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Persian Gulf, Red Sea and airspace above these locations (8/2/90 – present)
Service in one or more of the following military conflicts provided an Armed Forces, Navy or Marine Corps Expeditionary medal was received in connection with this service:
Lebanon (6/1/83 – 12/1/87)
Grenada (10/23/83 – 11/21/83)
Panama (12/20/89 – 1/31/90)
The answer is NO! for now...subject to hopefully change in the next 2 months....standby....
DeleteI guess I was a little abrupt there Mp940@verizon.net. I agree with oshea12566.
DeleteIf it is any comfort, I too was involuntarily extended during Desert Storm (i.e. "STOP LOSS"). In the immortal words directly lifted from my April 20 1991 DD 214: "RETENTION AUTHORIZED FOR 94 DAYS AS ESSENTIAL TO NATIONAL SECURITY, 10USC 673C//NOTHING FOLLOWS"
Not good enough for military service credit here in NY right now.
Expeditionary ribbon recipient in 1980 for Indian Ocean/Iran conflict (unrecognized period). Currently employed as a county worker in the NYS pension system. Not anticipating inclusion this time around and unsure if I should stay a few more years waiting, although it would be very beneficial in my case. Good luck to all.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame to me that while we are fighting for Veteran Equality under the law, inequality still exists among the legions. I wonder if that is part of their "out" so to speak during negotiations?
ReplyDeleteWhy must "peacetime" even be mentioned.. All it has to mention is "any honorable service", up to 3 years. This is just getting to be a word game, to exclude some people. This makes it to acceptable to some veterans. I don't have faith in anyone in Albany. Anything can be changed in Albany, if they wanted. But they won't. Others say it's a "wartime" credit. But what about the other states that let all veterans purchase there prior service? They changed there laws. Or am I missing something? This is just sad. US Navy Vet 1977-1981
ReplyDeleteYes. 'Peacetime' in the bill is the kiss of death.
DeleteVSE -Are you saying that another bill for all vets including peacetime is dead on arrival this year?
Deleteor
Are you saying a bill for all vets including peacetime vets that highlights the inclusion of peacetime vets is dead on arrival?
Or both?
Even at 'full cost' for the peacetimers?
Guys and gals, it's counterproductive to make any distinction characterizing our service between "wartime" and "peacetime." Since World War II, there has been only one declared period of war: The Persian Gulf War, August 2, 1990, through April 6, 1991. Every other time period is legally a "conflict," and pretty much everyone is a "peacetime" veteran. See, e.g., https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS21405.pdf.
ReplyDeleteSorry VSE, but let's not allow the politicians to divide us by even mentioning such things. By including prescribed periods in the statute, this will forever be a problem with the law that will require future legislation to fix. Let's not repeat the past mistakes, like what happened to Vietnam era vets. Let's get this thing fixed once and for all.
The wartime veterans of the Vietnam Era - whether they served home or abroad are currently eligible. It took a long time for this huge era to achieve military service credit. Not so long for some shorter conflicts (Lebanon, Grenada, Panama.... timing is everything).
DeleteI wouldn't get hung up over the 'wartime' shorthand New York State and the Federal Government utilizes for periods of war/conflict in their various statutes and laws.
The Persian Gulf War has no official end date (there is a cease-fire date you indicate but currently, the Code of Federal Regulations does not list an official end date). Fed and State laws and statutes reflect this.
Vietnam Era veterans were delayed in receiving the discounted military service credit option because of the cost. If they had not been wartime veterans they would never have received it at all.
DeleteI remember that fight well (again, I was included in 1998 and tossed out due to the cost concerns of the discounted 2000 bill...you can imagine I followed it very closely)
G-Man, your point is well taken. It does seem that the underlying issue has nothing to do with honorable service recognition, and everything to do with money. Soldiers are not viewed as democratic voters, and with no evidence of military service within the current administration, there is little respect for the sacrifice it requires. Simply stated, no one should be disadvantaged over their peers by not having the opportunity to be credited with time in the retirement system. No one is looking to retire early, they are looking to retire on time with full credit for public service...three years of which required considerably more sacrifice than their subsequent state service.
DeleteG-man you are on the money with your comment
DeleteThe Veteran's administration defines periods of war and conflict in 38 CFR for purposes of Veterans' Pension and Compensation benefits. BUT, only Congress can declare war, which defines the start of such period, and the President establishes the end of the war.
DeleteNYS politicians, such as our Governor, merely bandy about loosely such terms as "wartime" and "peacetime" so they can achieve their own objectives, like saving money by reducing benefits.
I fear VSE that you may be missing my point, which is exactly what you said, "[i]t took a long time for this huge [Vietnam] era to achieve military service credit." We all probably agree that is just wrong. If last year's bill were in place before the Vietnam CONFLICT ever happened, no new bill would have been necessary for those veterans to get the benefit, and no veteran would have been left behind.
If it becomes necessary for a bill to establish a proscribed period for this benefit, since no one has a crystal ball, this problem will continue for the next conflict or declared period of war, whether it is fought by veterans in Afghanistan or against ISIS in their own back yards. Do you want vets to have to wait yet again for the slowly turning wheels of government to pass yet another bill? Probably not.
So why not stop this talk of "wartime" and "peacetime," and fix this problem once and for all?
G-Man
DeleteAs I wrote before: "Vietnam Era veterans were delayed in receiving the discounted military service credit option because of the cost. If they had not been wartime veterans they would never have received it at all."
The double override-proof veto (2014, 2015) was indeed instructive for those open to the lesson.
The success of the Cold War property tax exemption is similarly instructive for those open to the lesson. Cold War veterans gained this benefit by wisely NOT attempting (and repeatedly failing) to open the wartime exemption for all.
This is not to say I agree with the above, just telling it like it is. (And I am equally proud of my Cold War and wartime combat service.)
I am aware that if I were a peacetime veteran I might not be receptive to the glaring lessons of the double override-proof veto and the instructive Cold War Tax exemption.
(It is certainly true, as you point out, that IF the military service credit program was open to all categories of veterans, all categories of veterans would be eligible as they enter the NYS system. Can't argue with that. The same goes for all number of Federal and state programs open right now to one or another (or all) categories of veterans.)
If the peace-timers are ever included in the wartime program at full cost than the retired wartime veterans are a slam dunk. The pols know that so it might be a further bar to changing the program to a peacetime/wartime program.
ReplyDeleteFar more likely the pols will add retired wartime veterans instead of adding peacetime veterans.
DeleteWith that said, I'd guess neither will have any chance of being added to the program while there are so many wartime veterans currently ineligible.
Look for a common-sense expansion of eligible conflicts/wars (something Larkin, Paulin, de Blsio, and Cuomo can agree on). Yes, some of the pols might more and some of the pols might want less but that is politics and life in general.
The retiree veterans and peacetime veterans are then free to go forward with their own bills.
Retirees already have their bill pending (kudos to them), peace-timers should have resubmitted the Cold War Bill from a few years back. There is something to be said for a narrowly focused bill (although some peace-timers are reflexively against it). The successful Cold War Property Tax Exemption bill provides a roadmap to success for this group.
Note: NYC doesn't honor the.(COLD WAR PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION). That is up to each municipality and county. No surprise NYC don't give. I tried. Put that in context to a COLD WAR VETS PENSION CREDIT BILL. And you will expose an enemy. NYC. Government.
DeleteNYC and other municipalities are frequently not required to participate in fiscal bills. You have to read the fine point. Often these bills permit municipalities to do things (but do not require). That is the case with ALL veterans property tax exemptions (wartime, combat zone, disabled, and Cold War).
DeleteA fairly recent state bill (I'm too lazy to get the exact name but it covered me when I went to Afghanistan) covered state employee mobilized guardsmen/reservists automatically with their service credit (as long as they returned to work for NYS). NYC (separate retirement system from much of the rest of the state of course) did not adopt the benefits in the bill until years later (if my memory serves me correctly it required another state bill focused squarely on NYC). NYC does carry a lot of weight and simplistic observations that governors outrank mayors do not apply.
https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/william-j-larkin-jr/senator-larkin-takes-lead-state-budget-negotiations
ReplyDeleteSenator Larkin is asking for your opinion on the budget...All of you need to please let your voices be heard. April 1 is the budget deadline and he is in the middle of the whole process.
It is pretty obvious not having a 'plan B' for military service credit screwed a lot of veterans who were left with absolutely nothing after Cuomo's veto, again. Gotta be smarter than that. I'll be reminding Larkin of that in the days ahead. He needs to get something done for at least some of the veterans. Better than the last two years of absolutely nada.
ReplyDeleteSomething will happen this year. Lessons were learned.
DeleteIt may not be all the wartime vets, but at least some of them should be covered. Remember, Larkin pointed out last year that it was particularly disgraceful that Afghanistan veterans were not covered. I am guessing the reform will be include Afghanistan and maybe a few other wartime vets.
DeleteAfghanistan only will not cure the issue of past descrimination of women veterans who have been excluded during past conflicts.
DeleteIf Afghanistan are the only newly included vets, that means the Cold War vets won't get in. Or the retired vets.
DeleteAt least all vets that have received a "Expeditionary medal"
DeleteQuick Daily News article on the issue. Doesn't really offer anything new, but at least it's being talked about.
ReplyDeletehttp://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/veterans-gov-cuomo-broke-promise-pension-credits-article-1.2523726
Here is the referenced article:
ReplyDeleteALBANY — Veterans advocates are accusing Gov. Cuomo of reneging on a promise to support measures that would give public employees additional pension credits for military service.
Cuomo said last Veterans Day that he would include provisions for veterans’ pension credits in his budget proposal, critics say. But the budget unveiled last month contained no such provision.
“The governor obviously went back on his word,” said Jerry Alperstein, 77, of the Jewish War Veterans of New York.
Cuomo administration officials said the governor is still committed to giving veterans additional pension credits, but is trying to work out the details with the Legislature.
“We remain committed to this issue and are continuing to work with the sponsors, with the intent to have this be part of the final budget,” said Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi.
Cuomo’s Veterans Day show of support for the pension measure came barely two weeks after veterans advocates ripped him for vetoing a similar measure that had been passed by the Legislature earlier in the year. The governor had cited the bill’s cost and failure to identify a funding source as reason for the veto.
Why the use of the word 'give' and 'giving'? More accurate would be 'opportunity to purchase pension credits'.
DeleteAt least the self-defeating 'p' word is no longer being used.
An idiot would realize he wants to give SOME veterans the opportunity and that is what the negotiation is all about:
Delete"Cuomo administration officials said the governor is still committed to giving veterans additional pension credits, but is trying to work out the details with the Legislature."
Insert the word SOME prior to the word veterans. He's got the veto (w/ no override) and will use it the third time if it is not the SOME that he wants.
I mentioned this the day after his Budget Address. I combed through all 175 pages. I did notify several fellow vets and politicians that I knew including some I didn't . Sen.Larkin was quick to respond telling me that talks were on going and it was extremely difficult to get agreements. But that he and Assemblywoman Paulin were going to press on for as much as they can get up to if possible all veterans bill. Gee someone gave this to the press hmmm. Onward and forward we go . You can't give what's deserving . It was earned !
ReplyDeleteEither we'll get a compromise (between the veterans he wants to see included [Afghanistan only] and the 'everyone' Larkin and Paulin pushed for the last two years) or we get nothing at all. Again. Just like the situation in 2014 and again in 2015.
DeleteCuomo's has the big veto stick with no override and has easily used it the last two years - -Larkin and Paulin know that. Lets all pray we get at least something - for the sake of the excluded veterans.
The author of the NY Daily News article is Glenn Blain. I sent him an email thanking him for his support and keeping the light shining on this issue.
ReplyDeleteHis email address: gblain@nydailynews.com
He also has a Twitter: @gblainnydn I thanked him there too.