City
lawmakers passed Councilman Eric Ulrich’s resolution supporting
legislation in Albany that they said would better protect the state’s
veterans. Photo courtesy William Alatriste/NYC Council
City legislators last week backed Councilman Eric Ulrich’s
(R-Ozone Park) resolution calling on state lawmakers to pass and sign
legislation that would allow veterans who served in the military during
peacetime to more equitably participate in the state’s retirement
systems.
The state legislation, sponsored by state Sen. William
Larkin (R-New Larkin) and Assemblywoman Amy Paulin (D-Scarsdale), would
allow veterans who rendered peacetime military service to purchase and
apply up to a maximum of three years’ credit towards the state’s
retirement systems. Current law permits active public employees who
served in the military during specific conflicts to purchase credit for
their military service. No individuals who served after Feb. 28, 1991
are eligible for buyback – including those who were in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Somalia.
As a result, Ulrich, who is chairman of the Council’s
Veterans Committee, said the law in its current form excludes all
peacetime veterans.
“This bill acknowledges the value of all veterans who
served our country,” Ulrich said. “These brave men and women were ready
for action if their country beckoned, and they should be entitled to buy
back their military time. Albany should pass this legislation swiftly
and give all our veterans the respect they deserve.”
Paulin said that the bill is “about the equal and fair treatment that all veterans deserve.”
“If you are in the armed services, you are called upon to
put your life on the line at a moment’s notice,” Paulin continued.
“That, above all else, entitles you to certain things. The pension
buyback is one such program. To put restrictions on when you can
participate in the pension buyback program is not acceptable.”
The state legislation has not only drawn support from the
City Council, but from a number of other groups, including the Jewish
War Veterans, the Transit Workers Union, the AFL-CIO, the New York State
Council of Vietnam War Veterans of America, and the Public Employees
Federation.
“The people who serve do so voluntarily, and we need to do everything
we can to show our appreciation for their service to this country,”
Paulin said. “They are the ones who are called upon to protect us. It is
up to us to protect them as well whenever possible.”By Anna Gustafson
De Blasio is a different issue:
Preparation of the battlefield for potential
5. Confront Mayor de Blasio of NYC via letters to the press, marches, communications with the supportive NYC Council, etc.
a. Mayor de Blasio, who opposed the bill last year, is an ideological enemy of this 'equity for all veterans' bill (although he cloaks his argument in dramatic and inflated fiscal terms).
b. He was firmly on the side of communism during the Cold War (NYT Article here) and actively worked in New York City and in Nicaragua for the communist Sandinistas . He toured the Soviet Union and even honeymooned in Cuba.
c. In his world, the US military represents a force for oppression and, worse than that, led the US to victory over communism in the Cold War.
d. It would be unreasonable to expect him to support a bill finally honoring US Cold War veterans. A portion of them actually fought in El Salvador against communism the exact same time he worked next door in Nicaragua supporting communism. His side lost.
e. Even if he could conceal his outrageous communist past, as a committed 'progressive' de Blasio's concerns are race-class-gender-sexual orientation issues. Military (and ex-military) folks are simply not a priority when weighed against that constituency.
f. This (e) also explains his lack of concern for mistreated women veterans in the the context of military service credit - their membership within the oppressor class (military/ex military/Cold War victors) trumps their mistreatment under current law.
g. This (e) also explains his peculiar letter opposing the bill last year. On the one hand he fully and repeatedly endorses extending military service credit to all wartime veterans. Wartime veterans constitute the VAST majority of veterans who would benefit from this bill since the current wartime era runs from 1990-Present (25 years). Note that all veterans are already covered from 1961-1975. Thus, only one short 15 year (1975-1989) non-wartime period is covered by the bill.
His letter particularly and peculiarly focuses on denying veterans of this period - and only of this period - pension service credits (equity and honor). He repeatedly refers to this Cold War period with the derisive descriptor 'peacetime' and repeatedly insists veterans of this period (and this period alone) are unworthy of military service credit. Of course, this is the very period in which the US won the Cold War and these are the very veterans most often credited with stemming the tide of communism in Latin America (and beyond). As a matter of fact this is the precise period representing his deepest and actual on-the-ground commitment to communist victory.
His pretextual concern with his own inflated cost estimates cannot camouflage his ideological resentment towards the victorious Cold War veterans.
6. The Message (feel free to use any of the ideas presented in any and all letters newspapers, individuals, etc):
The bill will primarily impact wartime service veterans. Excluded US veterans, who served in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Guantanamo Bay, Germany, Israel, Italy, Kosovo, Okinawa, Somalia, South Korea, United States and in all but a handful of nations during the current wartime (Gulf War Era, 1990-Present) era are seeking pension equity with currently qualifying veterans.
Veterans from the much shorter Cold War period (1976-1989) will also qualify. Women from this period are particularly concerned because they were all but banned (via now-repealed discriminatory laws) from the three short periods within this Cold War period that currently qualify to purchase military service credit.
You may or may not be aware that under current law all military veterans who served anywhere during the wartime Vietnam Era (1961-1975) already qualify to purchase military service credit.
Rumor Control:
1.Rumor: The VFW and The American Legion, veterans groups comprised solely of wartime veterans, were tricked by the false and goofy (and unofficial) description of the bill into thinking the bill did not cover wartime veterans. And this accounts for their low profile at a time high profile support is needed.
Truth: The VFW and The American Legion were tricked by the false and goofy (and unofficial) description of the bill and did not realize the VAST majority of veterans covered in A04313A/SO4124 are wartime (1990-Present) veterans and many of those include the currently excluded Afghanistan combat veterans. The Legion now fully supports the bill (see their Legislative Guide) but their strength is not high-energy interviews, demonstrations, and soundbites. The idea of having thousands or tens of thousands of their NY members converge on the Governor's mansion or New York City Hall demanding equity and honor for all veterans simply does not occur to them. Their appetite for a grassroots and public fight for a bill effecting many of their youngest members and numerous potential members is - to be kind - wildly subdued. Essentially nonexistent.(NB: I am a 25 year member of the American Legion.)
I hope this helps.
ReplyDeleteSince these bills will cover the currently excluded combat, wartime, and Post-1975 Cold War veterans I don't know why the word "Peacetime" is a descriptor in the article.
DeleteIn any case, thanks for the heads up on this and it does not seem as if anyone is publicly against this inexpensive amendment to the inequitable and horridly arbitrary current law governing the purchase of military service credit here in NY.