Governor Cuomo (and his allies in the Democratic Assembly) again has made it perfectly clear he is against the VEA. He vetoed it in 2014, he vetoed it in 2015, he negotiated against it in 2016 after promising to reform the current law, and now he has prevented its presence in the 2016 budget. He has experienced no significant backlash to his actions against VEA, there is no possibility of overriding his vetoes, and has cloaked himself in the false guise of fiscal responsibility. He will be the governor for at least the next 3 years.
II Our way Forward: Senator Larkin and Assemblywoman Paulin will push (with our assistance) VEA through all the various committees and votes necessary to pass the bill in the legislative branch.
S7160 : Apr 01, 2016 referred to finance, Apr 11 2016 1st Report Cal. 591
Following that time, Governor Cuomo will veto, sign or negotiate the VEA.
III Respond to falsities concerning the bill.
A. When and where it is falsely described as a bill for 'peacetime service' (for example in the April 1 2016 Times Union article, here) respond vigorously. Remind the author the majority of veterans who will be newly eligible for the existing military service credit buyback program are wartime veterans of the current Gulf War Era. Not peacetime at all. Further remind the author that combat veterans of Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia (Blackhawk Down) are currently excluded from the existing buyback program and under the new bill will be eligible. Not peacetime either.
B. When and where it is falsely described as a free benefit, respond vigorously. Veterans want the opportunity to PURCHASE military service credit as part of the current and well-established BUYBACK program. Our service in defense of the United States (and New York State) should not disadvantage us vis a vis our non-serving peers in the New York State retirement system.
C. When and where it is falsely described as a large and expensive new program respond vigorously. It is a modest reform of a current program . Note that the original intent of the law is for all wartime veterans to be included and yet some wartime veterans of the Gulf War Era are now excluded (and all of these veterans, of course, aided in the war effort). Those who served in active combat in Somalia and Afghanistan are among those excluded. Further, the contributions of peacetime soldiers (including Cold War soldiers) should be honored.
D. Educate yourself. Get to know these three slides intimately so you can explain the glaring inequities in the current military service credit buyback system.
Off the top of my head, there is a five year wait time under current law before a new hiree can purchase. There is also a 10 year vesting period for employees and any purchase prior to this is very risky. And there is currently no 'sunset' - should the currently qualifying actually be hit with a sunset? Just the newly qualifying? Plus some might want time to scrape funds together. That is just for starters. I won't deny that some sort of a 'window' has been discussed. But would it slam shut for military service credit for everybody or just a certain category (Cold War...in that case would not save $)? or would it be rolling forever and be different for each individual veteran? That is just for starters. May very well do much more harm than good when you consider the broad range of qualifying veterans.
ReplyDeleteHaving the legislature add "additional countries to the lists of conflicts and to 'theater of operations'" would be a charlie foxtrot. It would have to be amended annually at the rate we are going, and some would still be left out. Just look at the dozens of operations the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal was awarded for, yet only two or three are covered by the state statute!
ReplyDeleteInstead, the law should use the criteria that the military uses -- specific medals and ribbons show if a veteran has been "in" a combat zone (expeditionary medals, medals with a "V" for valor, purple heart, combat infantryman badge, etc.), while others show service "during" a conflict (national defense service medal, etc.). The DD214 clearly shows eligibility. What's so hard about this?
Medals and ribbons might exclude the women we are trying to get in. In the 80s they were heavily restricted on where they can serve. Male veterans who did 2 years active and the rest in the reserves would not have the medals or ribbons either.
DeleteI have 2 OSR and NDSM + 7 years active and would not favor a bill that excludes women.
Yes, I was just speaking to the first two points about what needs to be negotiated. The NSDM would cover women during Viet Nam, Gulf War up to 11/30/95 and GWOT from 9/11/01 to present. The third point, Cold War vets, would cover women from Viet Nam to Gulf War. I don't see why the fifth point is needed (Adding Gulf War Wartime Service for DESERT STORM era veterans) as it seems that is more than adequately covered by the NDSM.
DeleteI'm not aware of how any male on active duty for at least 90 days would be left out, so I must be missing something there.
This is a list of various items to be negotiated (or not) and some may or may not overlap.
DeleteI served horably in the Marine Corps from Oct 84 to Oct 88, I don't recall seeing NDSM on my 214 or should I look at it again? No I I'm pretty sure it's not on there.
DeleteNDSM
DeleteCriteria
It is awarded for honorable active military service as a member of the armed forces of the United States including the Coast Guard, between June 27, 1950 and July 27, 1954, (Korean War), between Jan. 1, 1961 and Aug. 14, 1974, (Vietnam War), between Aug. 2, 1990 to Nov. 30, 1995 (operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm), and currently from Sept. 11, 2001 to a date to be determined (terrorism attacks on the United States). Service members who earned the medal during the first qualifying period, and who again became entitled to the medal, wear a bronze star on the ribbon to denote the second award of the medal.
Anon 2:59 and 3:03
DeleteNDSM is for wartime service. I have two. It may be awarded for Reserve and Guard service FYI. There is a difference between war and conflicts. Wartime service was too broad and expensive for the 2000 Law so one suspects the same for this Governor. This may be moot.
Perhaps a bill that includes NDSM for the time period of 8/2/90 to 11/30/95 and then adding Afghanistan and Somalia to current law ( for post 9/11/01 service ) would work for the Governor ?
Delete"AnonymousApril 1, 2016 at 2:59 PM
DeleteI served horably in the Marine Corps from Oct 84 to Oct 88, I don't recall seeing NDSM on my 214 or should I look at it again? No I I'm pretty sure it's not on there."
What's your point, comrade? That's exactly why the third point, for Cold War vets, is needed.
No matter what path is chosen, the first step must be to get an accurate count of how many veterans are employed in the public sector.
ReplyDeleteIt is not enough to simply state that Cuomo or DeBlasio's math is faulty, without evidence to the contrary.
Gathering this information cannot be done by any of us, as it would not be considered acceptable by all.
At best, one or more of us who knows their way around FOIL requests may be able to find out how many of us called, emailed, an mailed the governor and various legislators over the last three years (Hell, someone ought to do that just for shits and giggles).
There exists a New York State division of Veterans Affairs, as well as a mayors office of veteran affairs.
Perhaps we can convince Larkin and Paulin to utilize the State office to conduct a census, which includes New York City, to determine and maintain an accurate count of current veterans in public service, and other information that may be useful for any of a number of veterans benefits (for example, the dates for which they start municipal service, and what tier they are in, etc.).
Until such a time that an accurate count exists, the mayor and the Gov. hold the cards.
As I have said before, take a shot at this. Consider your count a 'close hold' number because you don't always find what you expect in life. That happened when folks researched other state treatment of buybacks and....
DeleteThe Gov. has been getting plenty of negative comments for not allowing the VEA into the budget on his Facebook page ! Well deserved as he definitely broke the promise he made on 11/11/15 !
ReplyDeleteI've been reading his fb page comments for some time now alot of vicious comments on all matters. It's good for a laff. But with his personality he could not care less, I'm sure. But again good for a laff, and to see how many people can't stand him.
DeletePlease understand, he doesn't even read his Facebook. Some aide does that and reports what's worthy to him. This Governor can care less what's on FB. I've written my share on his FB page and on his internet page. It falls on deaf ears. I do believe that we have made every attempt we could on the VEA bill. VSE has said that maybe we should break it down. One bill to cover War vets, another bill for Cold War vets(with a close end) even the war vets should be close end. I do believe this is our best shot.
DeleteIt is tough to remember that this is an existing program we want to see continue. And that folks at all stages of their career are currently signing up for it as they pass their 5 and 10 year marks. (A fair number of already qualifying veterans are youngish with qualifying Iraq/Kuwait service). If you think about it, sun setting the existing program in exchange for admitting a few excluded folks [who themselves may be young Afghan vets] is probably not a smart idea.
ReplyDeleteSen. Larkins facebook link regarding the VEA.
ReplyDeletehttps://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=972171536151516&id=310849198950423&refid=17&_ft_=top_level_post_id.972171536151516%3Atl_objid.972171536151516&__tn__=%2As
Senator Bill Larkin
DeleteWe kept fighting for the Veterans' Equality Act (VEA) down to the last minute of the budget process. I regret to inform our veterans that Governor Cuomo has not included the VEA in this year's State Budget. Despite its popularity and bipartisan support in both Houses of the State Legislature, Governor Cuomo has once again refused to recognize the sacrifices made by ALL veterans. The governor's failure to take action on this issue, in the face of the fact that he committed to doing so, is very disappointing. Be assured, I will not be deterred, The fight for the Veterans' Equality Act is not over. #SupportOurTroops
Every Veteran should keep hammering his Facebook page until it overwhelms it to the point that he has to shut it down! Include the sacrifices made by all Veterans and the fact that women Veterans continue to be discriminated against.
ReplyDeleteI will also like to emphasize that you need to hit up both the Assembly Speaker Carl E. Heastie and Senate Leader Flanagan's Facebook page. If the Governor can be unrelenting we should be too!
ReplyDeleteShit is starting to hit the fan:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/assemblywomanpaulin/?notif_t=notify_me_page¬if_id=1459436765064722
That link isn't working.
Deletehttp://www.bing.com/images/search?q=iranian+hostage+rescue&FORM=HDRSC2
ReplyDeleteRemember these Vets aren't included.
I spoke to senator larkins camp today and he told me they are absolutely fighting to push to push this forward again this year as a bill. When I suggested it be sent the the furor on Veterans Day he told me that was exactly what hope to do. (Not that it matters to that spineless loser). At this point I hope Hillary wins so she brings Andy with her to Washington maybe then we will have a chance. I didn't serve In any of the time frames that are currently included so I can't begin to imagine what they went through but I do know had I been active duty during that time frame I would have jumped onto that plane to get there. I also was the duty officer on my birthday in 2000 when I had to collect dental records because the rest of my platoon had just crashed while testing an ofsprey. I just wonder how many fast food workers had to do that.
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/247766/larkin-blames-cuomo-for-failure-to-include-military-pension-credit-in-budget/ Governor Cuomo's spokesman Rich Azzopardi said negotiations were unable to arrive at either a proposal for inclusion in the executive budget plan or the final budget deal. He said the governor hopes to nail something down by the end of the session.
ReplyDeleteWow ! those embaressing facebook posts may be working !
DeleteThe governor's page is fullof angry VEA supporters!
and now his spokesman says the above !
Hmmm. Not that I believe anything Governor Veto's spokesman says, but didn't they once veto us (2014) saying we must go thru the normal budget process? Well, that attempt failed, so now they'd rather do it during the session? Talk about moving the goalposts, flip flopping, and double talking.
DeleteNYC doesn't care about Vets or public servents so why would he that's where his votes come from maybe next year attach transwhatever to it and it might get somewhere
DeleteIt didn't take long for some asshole reporter to taint this story by using that piss-poor language to describe that bill again, to deliver another misleading statement from cuomo's office.
DeleteI guess, technically, if Heastie and Flanagan dropped these bills from their respective one house budget proposals, then Cuomo considers himself blameless.
The secrecy surrounding the "three-men-in-a-room" method of administering government needs to be banned.
Transparency and accountability is needed.
The New York State Constitution needs to be upheld.
Naturally, it is reported as a 'peacetime' bill. Don't be afraid to comment on that story. And the author's weird use of the term 'peacetime' in his opening.
DeleteIt appears the Governor was not sincere in his press release following his veto last year. Not only was he insincere, he comes to the table with the purpose of undermining existing veteran's legislation, so we have that. These actions have earned him the total shunning of New York's veteran community until he can demonstrate a modicum of appreciation and respect for those who serve. It is time for him to feel the political downside of two straight vetoes, broken promises, and underhanded negotiating. He has earned this. Will he become vindictive? Perhaps. He needs to understand that there is a price to be paid, especially this year, on our legislation.
ReplyDeleteA agree with you 100% however he knows he can win this state without stepping foot out of New York City Nothing will change I was just hoping it passed so I could get out of this State 3 years quicker. Oh well I'll help pay for everyone else another 3 years then spend my pension somewhere else
Deleteme too.
ReplyDeleteTotally Agree
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone report the fact that veterans have to pay for this? Every article you read says credit Veterans without explaining that it costs the Veteran money. The State just doesn't give it to you
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I think all veterans should receive this benefit, however until we get rid of this Governor it will never happen. And New York city is to blame for this, upstate is firmly against him. That said, I am one of those Expeditionary medal winners that does not qualify for this benefit. I feel I am being descriminated against.
ReplyDeleteI agree. It is very simple. You can't change a wartime benefit to apply to peacetime veterans with Cuomo, his Democratic allies, and an anti-pension public. No need to overthink it. Wrong bill at wrong time. And proven.
Delete