(Reprinted from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of July 8, 2003)

For benefits, injured vets fight uphill
by Martha Ezzard

It was easy for politicians to praise America's military men and women at Independence Day celebrations -- so how come it's hard to vote for disability payments to injured soldiers when they retire?

The proposal, which comes with a hefty price tag, has been bounced around for more than a decade. U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall, a freshman Democrat from Macon who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, is tired of the hypocrisy. He has gotten 201 signatures, 16 short of the number needed to blast his bill out of committee over the objections of Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert. The bill would repeal an 1892 law that denies a military retiree the same disability pay an injured soldier who isn't career military receives for life.

Here's the way the complex and unfair system works:

Take the retired U.S. Army major from Gwinnett County described by Charlie Knox, the state American Legion's administrative officer. The man, Knox said, is still carrying shrapnel from a rocket-propelled grenade injury in Vietnam.

But he receives less than two-thirds of the roughly $2,400 monthly retirement to which he's entitled; it's reduced by the monthly disability check he gets. In the intricate veteran disability rating system, he is 30 percent disabled.

Only 23 at the time, the man chose to stay in the Army since his injuries allowed him to continue serving. If he'd chosen a nonmilitary career, he would have received his disability check for life, instead of having his retirement offset by his disability pay.

If he'd gotten out of the Army but gone to work for some other federal agency, he would now be receiving his full government retirement plus his disability check. Only in special cases do career military veterans receive both: if they are Purple Heart recipients who are also 60 percent or more disabled. But if you're 60 percent disabled (lost a limb, for example) you probably can't qualify to stay in the service.

According to Brian Lawrence, who works on federal legislation for the Disabled American Veterans, the ratings aren't particularly generous. Here's a more recent and equally outrageous example. Army Pfc. Chris Shipley, among the first U.S. troops to enter Baghdad in April, was hit in the eye during a vicious firefight with Iraqis on the streets of the capital. Under the current rules, Shipley would receive a 40 percent disability rating for the eye he lost, if his vision is good in the other eye.

If Shipley chooses to stay in the military for 20 years, and barring other disabilities, he would receive no disability pay for the combat injury that forever changed his life.

The cost of extending such benefits ranges from the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of $41 billion over 10 years to the White House estimate of $90 billion. This is clearly a stumbling block. But the big barrier is a cowardly Congress that doesn't want to go on the record opposing any benefits for veterans, especially while American troops are still being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Few of the bill's 340 co-sponsors (more than enough to approve the measure) have signed Marshall's petition to force the bill to the House floor. "Neither party is without shame," says American Legion Assistant Legislative Director Mark Seavey. Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi only became a co-sponsor after Marshall initiated the petition to go around GOP leaders. Knox says he's surprised the six Georgia Republican House co-sponsors aren't supporting Marshall's petition. "They told us they were 100 percent behind us," he said.

President Bush, who has been silent on the issue, is tentatively scheduled to speak at the American Legion convention in August. But Seavy and other Legion officials say they intend to make room for Marshall to speak, too -- and it's no secret Marshall has his eye on the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Zell Miller.

He may well find a warmer welcome among the Legionnaires than our "war president" will receive.