Miltary death benefit increase
Flatrater
01-31-2005, 10:58 PM
Pentagon death benefits would rise to $250,000
Extra $150,000 in life insurance payouts would be retroactive
The Associated Press
Updated: 5:39 p.m. ET Jan. 31, 2005
WASHINGTON - President Bush will propose a dramatic increase to $250,000 in government payments to families of U.S. troops killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in future combat zones.
The plan to increase the tax-free “death gratuity,” now $12,420, to $100,000 and provide an extra $150,000 in life insurance payouts will be part the 2006 budget proposal submitted to Congress next week, David Chu, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, told The Associated Press. Veterans groups and many in Congress have been pushing for such increases.“We think the nation ought to make a larger one-time payment, quite apart from insurance, should you be killed in a combat area of operations,” Chu said.
“We can never in any program give someone back their loved one,” he said. “There is nothing we can do about the hurt, to make it go away. But we can make your circumstances reasonable, in terms of finances.”
Chu is to reveal the administration’s full proposal in congressional testimony Tuesday.
Senator sees public demand
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who is sponsoring a bill with the same provisions, said in an interview that the first-year budget cost of the increased benefits would be $459 million, including more than $280 million in retroactive payments of the higher gratuity and the extra life insurance settlements.
“The American people want to be generous to the families of service people who give their lives for their country. It’s not a nickel-and-dime issue,” he said.
In addition to the higher gratuity, the Defense Department would substantially increase life insurance benefits, Chu said. The current $250,000 coverage offered to all service members at a subsidized rate under the Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance program would be raised to $400,000, and for troops in a combat zone the government would pay the premiums on the extra $150,000 coverage.
Even in the case of a service member who did not participate in the basic life insurance program, the surviving spouse would receive a $150,000 settlement if the death happened in a designated combat zone, since the Defense Department is proposing to pay the premiums on that amount of coverage for everyone in a war zone. The spouse or other surviving family member also would get the $100,000 gratuity.
Chu said the extra $150,000 in life insurance and the higher death gratuity would be retroactive to Oct. 7, 2001, the date the United States launched its invasion of Afghanistan in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Some bills in Congress would make the higher gratuity retroactive but not the extra life insurance. Under the administration’s proposal, the 53 military members who were killed in the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon would not get the higher gratuity, a spokeswoman said.
As of Monday, 1,415 Americans had died in the Iraq war, according to the Defense Department’s count, and 156 had died in Afghanistan and other locations deemed part of the war on terrorism.
Program wouldn’t subtract from others
The death gratuity is a one-time payment intended to be given to the family immediately after a service member’s death; it is separate from an array of other survivor benefits such as housing aid.
The $100,000 would apply only when the service member died in a war zone as designated by the defense secretary. Therefore, a soldier killed in a training accident in the United States would get the current $12,420, Chu said. Some in Congress have proposed paying an increased gratuity for all deaths.
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, defense officials decided that the current death payment for troops killed in battle was too little, particularly in light of settlements paid to relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. The government paid an average $2.1 million to those families.
In 2003, the military gratuity was doubled, from $6,000, where it had stood since 1991, to $12,000, with subsequent increases to account for inflation, bringing it to $12,420 on Jan. 1. The 2003 legislation also made the payment fully tax-free. Before that, half was taxable.
Lawmakers in both the House and the Senate have introduced bills to raise both the gratuity and the life insurance coverage, reflecting a broader trend of more generous military benefit programs, including financial benefits for military retirees and their survivors and families of those killed in battle.
These changes are adding billions to defense budgets and raising questions about whether increasingly costly entitlements are forcing the Defense Department to forgo some investments in weapons programs.
Chu said he was concerned that in recent years Congress had gone too far in expanding military retiree benefits, but he said the proposed increase in survivor benefits was well justified.
Bigger military benefits that apply mainly to retirees and their families are making it harder for the Defense Department to afford financial incentives targeted at maintaining today’s military, Chu said.
“They are starting to crowd out two things: first, our ability to reward the person who is bearing the burden right now in Iraq or Afghanistan,” Chu said. Second, “we are undercutting our ability to finance the new gear that is going to make that military person successful five, 10, 15 years from now.”
Extra $150,000 in life insurance payouts would be retroactive
The Associated Press
Updated: 5:39 p.m. ET Jan. 31, 2005
WASHINGTON - President Bush will propose a dramatic increase to $250,000 in government payments to families of U.S. troops killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in future combat zones.
The plan to increase the tax-free “death gratuity,” now $12,420, to $100,000 and provide an extra $150,000 in life insurance payouts will be part the 2006 budget proposal submitted to Congress next week, David Chu, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, told The Associated Press. Veterans groups and many in Congress have been pushing for such increases.“We think the nation ought to make a larger one-time payment, quite apart from insurance, should you be killed in a combat area of operations,” Chu said.
“We can never in any program give someone back their loved one,” he said. “There is nothing we can do about the hurt, to make it go away. But we can make your circumstances reasonable, in terms of finances.”
Chu is to reveal the administration’s full proposal in congressional testimony Tuesday.
Senator sees public demand
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who is sponsoring a bill with the same provisions, said in an interview that the first-year budget cost of the increased benefits would be $459 million, including more than $280 million in retroactive payments of the higher gratuity and the extra life insurance settlements.
“The American people want to be generous to the families of service people who give their lives for their country. It’s not a nickel-and-dime issue,” he said.
In addition to the higher gratuity, the Defense Department would substantially increase life insurance benefits, Chu said. The current $250,000 coverage offered to all service members at a subsidized rate under the Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance program would be raised to $400,000, and for troops in a combat zone the government would pay the premiums on the extra $150,000 coverage.
Even in the case of a service member who did not participate in the basic life insurance program, the surviving spouse would receive a $150,000 settlement if the death happened in a designated combat zone, since the Defense Department is proposing to pay the premiums on that amount of coverage for everyone in a war zone. The spouse or other surviving family member also would get the $100,000 gratuity.
Chu said the extra $150,000 in life insurance and the higher death gratuity would be retroactive to Oct. 7, 2001, the date the United States launched its invasion of Afghanistan in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Some bills in Congress would make the higher gratuity retroactive but not the extra life insurance. Under the administration’s proposal, the 53 military members who were killed in the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon would not get the higher gratuity, a spokeswoman said.
As of Monday, 1,415 Americans had died in the Iraq war, according to the Defense Department’s count, and 156 had died in Afghanistan and other locations deemed part of the war on terrorism.
Program wouldn’t subtract from others
The death gratuity is a one-time payment intended to be given to the family immediately after a service member’s death; it is separate from an array of other survivor benefits such as housing aid.
The $100,000 would apply only when the service member died in a war zone as designated by the defense secretary. Therefore, a soldier killed in a training accident in the United States would get the current $12,420, Chu said. Some in Congress have proposed paying an increased gratuity for all deaths.
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, defense officials decided that the current death payment for troops killed in battle was too little, particularly in light of settlements paid to relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. The government paid an average $2.1 million to those families.
In 2003, the military gratuity was doubled, from $6,000, where it had stood since 1991, to $12,000, with subsequent increases to account for inflation, bringing it to $12,420 on Jan. 1. The 2003 legislation also made the payment fully tax-free. Before that, half was taxable.
Lawmakers in both the House and the Senate have introduced bills to raise both the gratuity and the life insurance coverage, reflecting a broader trend of more generous military benefit programs, including financial benefits for military retirees and their survivors and families of those killed in battle.
These changes are adding billions to defense budgets and raising questions about whether increasingly costly entitlements are forcing the Defense Department to forgo some investments in weapons programs.
Chu said he was concerned that in recent years Congress had gone too far in expanding military retiree benefits, but he said the proposed increase in survivor benefits was well justified.
Bigger military benefits that apply mainly to retirees and their families are making it harder for the Defense Department to afford financial incentives targeted at maintaining today’s military, Chu said.
“They are starting to crowd out two things: first, our ability to reward the person who is bearing the burden right now in Iraq or Afghanistan,” Chu said. Second, “we are undercutting our ability to finance the new gear that is going to make that military person successful five, 10, 15 years from now.”
YogsVR4
02-01-2005, 09:27 AM
Obviously nobody here (except a select few) wants to see any of our servicemen die. However, the families of those men/women should be taken care of and this is one way to help make that happen. I didn't agree with the government payouts to the families of 9/11 but I do agree with this.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Flatrater
02-01-2005, 09:39 PM
If you notice Bush is the one that wants this and I wanted to point that out.
taranaki
02-02-2005, 02:10 PM
Myself,I'd rather not see Amercican soldiers sentt to die for commercial and strategic advantage.
codycool
02-02-2005, 05:57 PM
Myself,I'd rather not see Amercican soldiers sentt to die for commercial and strategic advantage.
Well its a good thing that they are not, and that they are dieing for what they believe in..
Well its a good thing that they are not, and that they are dieing for what they believe in..
KustmAce
02-02-2005, 06:31 PM
Well its a good thing that they are not, and that they are dieing for what they believe in..
You speak for every single American soldier over there?
You speak for every single American soldier over there?
sivic02
02-02-2005, 08:30 PM
Well its a good thing that they are not, and that they are dieing for what they believe in..
No, I know plenty of soldiers and none of them believe in it, they are there for a paycheck and to be able to get a decent job in the future. They are dying for other peoples beliefs.
No, I know plenty of soldiers and none of them believe in it, they are there for a paycheck and to be able to get a decent job in the future. They are dying for other peoples beliefs.
codycool
02-02-2005, 10:48 PM
No, I know plenty of soldiers and none of them believe in it, they are there for a paycheck and to be able to get a decent job in the future. They are dying for other peoples beliefs.
I dont know everyone, but im willing to bet that i know more than you both combined! And I do realize that some do not believe they should be over there, and a great majority of them are found in the "elite" National Gaurd!...
Either way, each and everyone of them have died for the better of the United States.
I dont know everyone, but im willing to bet that i know more than you both combined! And I do realize that some do not believe they should be over there, and a great majority of them are found in the "elite" National Gaurd!...
Either way, each and everyone of them have died for the better of the United States.
sivic02
02-02-2005, 11:13 PM
Either way, each and everyone of them have died for the better of the United States.
BWAHAHAHAHA! thats the funniest thing ive heard in a LONG time!
BWAHAHAHAHA! thats the funniest thing ive heard in a LONG time!
codycool
02-02-2005, 11:36 PM
BWAHAHAHAHA! thats the funniest thing ive heard in a LONG time!
Well considering a few were my friends and 1 cousin, im sorry that you feel that way.
Well considering a few were my friends and 1 cousin, im sorry that you feel that way.
sivic02
02-02-2005, 11:49 PM
What exactly were we doing to benefit our country?
taranaki
02-03-2005, 01:41 AM
Either way, each and everyone of them have died for the better of the United States.
Sure hope their widows and orphans have soaked up as much of the bullshit as you have.
The average American gains nothing from Bush's war.Except a bigger national debt and a longer list of people with a grudge against America. Thes people don't measure war in weeks,months or years, they measure it in generations.
Well its a good thing that they are not, and that they are dieing for what they believe in..
What they believe they are dying for,and what they have been sent to die for ,are entirely different things.
1400 dead men so that Americans can continue to squander the worlds oil reserves with cheap gas.What a fucking sellout.
Sure hope their widows and orphans have soaked up as much of the bullshit as you have.
The average American gains nothing from Bush's war.Except a bigger national debt and a longer list of people with a grudge against America. Thes people don't measure war in weeks,months or years, they measure it in generations.
Well its a good thing that they are not, and that they are dieing for what they believe in..
What they believe they are dying for,and what they have been sent to die for ,are entirely different things.
1400 dead men so that Americans can continue to squander the worlds oil reserves with cheap gas.What a fucking sellout.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025