OMB trying to change guidance to no back pay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are so many inaccuracies and the language used is offensive and inflammatory. It is clear none of these authors have served a day in the military.

My husband is a 100% disabled veteran and I am APPALLED by the Post article. It is biased and profoundly anti-veteran.

DH is a brain tumor survivor and has memory and serious physical issues; symptoms (including severe headaches) first appeared after he returned from deployment, which included almost 24/7 exposure to burn pits. He has been too sick to work since 2008. We first applied for VA disability in the 2010s, after the VA started the burn pit registry, but he was denied because--even though multiple doctors wrote letters stating that his type of brain tumor was consistent with chemical exposure, and burn pit veterans get brain tumors at a far, far higher rate than the general population--we could not definitively prove it was service connected. We appealed and he was denied. It wasn't until the PACT Act, which includes a presumption of service connection for certain conditions, that he received benefits.

And now the Post publishes this hit job painting all disabled veterans as fraudsters getting paid for acne and ED, without noting the repeated visits with VA-retained doctors and extensive medical review claims are subject to? And without noting the many, many combat veterans with Stage 4 cancers and other serious health issues who languished with no coverage at all for almost two decades--the literal reason the PACT Act was passed? Where was the coverage of that, and what the hell agenda does the Post have here?

Just because your husband’s VA claim is legit doesn’t change the fact that many VA disability claims are fraudulent. That article is not profoundly anti-veteran because it is profoundly true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they don't back pay us, what happens with our back health insurance premiums that would normally be deducted once pay starts again? What if they RIF as threatened and there is no next paycheck? Are they going to give us debt letters? I can go without a couple paychecks, but going into debt while they make me stay home and possibly fire me is going to keep me up at night.

Relax, the sky isn’t falling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are so many inaccuracies and the language used is offensive and inflammatory. It is clear none of these authors have served a day in the military.

My husband is a 100% disabled veteran and I am APPALLED by the Post article. It is biased and profoundly anti-veteran.

DH is a brain tumor survivor and has memory and serious physical issues; symptoms (including severe headaches) first appeared after he returned from deployment, which included almost 24/7 exposure to burn pits. He has been too sick to work since 2008. We first applied for VA disability in the 2010s, after the VA started the burn pit registry, but he was denied because--even though multiple doctors wrote letters stating that his type of brain tumor was consistent with chemical exposure, and burn pit veterans get brain tumors at a far, far higher rate than the general population--we could not definitively prove it was service connected. We appealed and he was denied. It wasn't until the PACT Act, which includes a presumption of service connection for certain conditions, that he received benefits.

And now the Post publishes this hit job painting all disabled veterans as fraudsters getting paid for acne and ED, without noting the repeated visits with VA-retained doctors and extensive medical review claims are subject to? And without noting the many, many combat veterans with Stage 4 cancers and other serious health issues who languished with no coverage at all for almost two decades--the literal reason the PACT Act was passed? Where was the coverage of that, and what the hell agenda does the Post have here?

Just because your husband’s VA claim is legit doesn’t change the fact that many VA disability claims are fraudulent. That article is not profoundly anti-veteran because it is profoundly true.

So many “disabled” veterans. It’s the easiest path to a lifetime pension after working for three years from 18-21.

What they need is a windfall elimination clause where if the disabled veteran is able to work and earn a livable wage their disability payments are reduced or rescinded.

There’s a 100% disabled veteran in my neighborhood who works as a commercial airline pilot. In addition to his disability payments, pension and airline pilot salary the property taxes on his $2 million house are waived due to his disability. I have 50 similar stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are so many inaccuracies and the language used is offensive and inflammatory. It is clear none of these authors have served a day in the military.

My husband is a 100% disabled veteran and I am APPALLED by the Post article. It is biased and profoundly anti-veteran.

DH is a brain tumor survivor and has memory and serious physical issues; symptoms (including severe headaches) first appeared after he returned from deployment, which included almost 24/7 exposure to burn pits. He has been too sick to work since 2008. We first applied for VA disability in the 2010s, after the VA started the burn pit registry, but he was denied because--even though multiple doctors wrote letters stating that his type of brain tumor was consistent with chemical exposure, and burn pit veterans get brain tumors at a far, far higher rate than the general population--we could not definitively prove it was service connected. We appealed and he was denied. It wasn't until the PACT Act, which includes a presumption of service connection for certain conditions, that he received benefits.

And now the Post publishes this hit job painting all disabled veterans as fraudsters getting paid for acne and ED, without noting the repeated visits with VA-retained doctors and extensive medical review claims are subject to? And without noting the many, many combat veterans with Stage 4 cancers and other serious health issues who languished with no coverage at all for almost two decades--the literal reason the PACT Act was passed? Where was the coverage of that, and what the hell agenda does the Post have here?

Just because your husband’s VA claim is legit doesn’t change the fact that many VA disability claims are fraudulent. That article is not profoundly anti-veteran because it is profoundly true.

So many “disabled” veterans. It’s the easiest path to a lifetime pension after working for three years from 18-21.

What they need is a windfall elimination clause where if the disabled veteran is able to work and earn a livable wage their disability payments are reduced or rescinded.

There’s a 100% disabled veteran in my neighborhood who works as a commercial airline pilot. In addition to his disability payments, pension and airline pilot salary the property taxes on his $2 million house are waived due to his disability. I have 50 similar stories.

That can't be legal under the current laws, is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The government is not required to pay you. This is exactly how Trump is going to privatize the military and start using it against citizens and also eliminate the federal government. No one will keep working without pay...they will eventually quit and find jobs elsewhere. If you have a mortgage on your house, it will be assumed by the Treasury and the US will own your house as well...being able to kick you out of it or move in whoever they want in it.

There are a lot of bad things actually happening, no need to imagine bad things that don't even make sense. Why would Trump privatize the military when he runs it right now? How does that mesh with not paying them? Your red string is all tangled up.

[Anonymous]

I'm a fed, and even though I'd be put in economic hardship, I'd love for everyone in the government to be fired. Have Russ Vought do all the work himself. He knows you can't privatize 90% of what the government does. Would love to see it happen just so people can finally realize why you need a federal government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they don't back pay us, what happens with our back health insurance premiums that would normally be deducted once pay starts again? What if they RIF as threatened and there is no next paycheck? Are they going to give us debt letters? I can go without a couple paychecks, but going into debt while they make me stay home and possibly fire me is going to keep me up at night.

Relax, the sky isn’t falling.

This is really unhelpful. I work in an agency that was in the news for planning RIFs before the shutdown, in a central office rumored to be targeted. Financial planning for job loss is important.

[Anonymous]

Yes that Post article is biased and inflammatory click bait. They talk about a few fraud claims and here yall are blaming all veterans. Probably same people that would never serve - crabs in a bucket over disability pay. Gross.

The process is difficult and convoluted. My husband ejected from a jet and has permanent injuries documented by military doctors and he was still denied. Just like calling all Fed employees lazy etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:work = pay

That's not what the law says. The law says "each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of
a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations"

Actually, I believe it says "each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of
a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations regardless of scheduled pay dates, and subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse.". The phrase "subject to the enactment...ending the lapse" would leave room for a bill that said no pay for feds.

There has always been room to change the law, including through the CR or appropriations. But barring such a change, it the government is obligated to provide back pay.

Not according to the text the PP provided. Any requirement to provide back pay is subject to back pay being provided for in the relevant appropriations bill. If there isn't a provision re back pay in the bill, there is no requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not paying the military is a great idea, let's do that.

Curious why you would say this?

-- DoD employee

Military members are people just like us civilian employees and do not require special treatment.

Are you five?

Are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not paying the military is a great idea, let's do that.

Curious why you would say this?

-- DoD employee

Why do you think it was said?

Put your critical thinking cap on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:work = pay

That's not what the law says. The law says "each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of
a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations"

Actually, I believe it says "each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of
a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations regardless of scheduled pay dates, and subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse.". The phrase "subject to the enactment...ending the lapse" would leave room for a bill that said no pay for feds.

There has always been room to change the law, including through the CR or appropriations. But barring such a change, it the government is obligated to provide back pay.

Not according to the text the PP provided. Any requirement to provide back pay is subject to back pay being provided for in the relevant appropriations bill. If there isn't a provision re back pay in the bill, there is no requirement.

If that were true then the whole paragraph would be meaningless, but the courts presume that Congress didn't dribble words on the page with no intent or effect.
If there's no backpay, employees will sue and win. The only question is whether it's a class action or a bunch of small suits.

What this is actually about is the WH giving Dems more things to demand in the eventual legislation, so that it can look like the WH conceded something for a deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are so many inaccuracies and the language used is offensive and inflammatory. It is clear none of these authors have served a day in the military.

My husband is a 100% disabled veteran and I am APPALLED by the Post article. It is biased and profoundly anti-veteran.

DH is a brain tumor survivor and has memory and serious physical issues; symptoms (including severe headaches) first appeared after he returned from deployment, which included almost 24/7 exposure to burn pits. He has been too sick to work since 2008. We first applied for VA disability in the 2010s, after the VA started the burn pit registry, but he was denied because--even though multiple doctors wrote letters stating that his type of brain tumor was consistent with chemical exposure, and burn pit veterans get brain tumors at a far, far higher rate than the general population--we could not definitively prove it was service connected. We appealed and he was denied. It wasn't until the PACT Act, which includes a presumption of service connection for certain conditions, that he received benefits.

And now the Post publishes this hit job painting all disabled veterans as fraudsters getting paid for acne and ED, without noting the repeated visits with VA-retained doctors and extensive medical review claims are subject to? And without noting the many, many combat veterans with Stage 4 cancers and other serious health issues who languished with no coverage at all for almost two decades--the literal reason the PACT Act was passed? Where was the coverage of that, and what the hell agenda does the Post have here?

Just because your husband’s VA claim is legit doesn’t change the fact that many VA disability claims are fraudulent. That article is not profoundly anti-veteran because it is profoundly true.

So many “disabled” veterans. It’s the easiest path to a lifetime pension after working for three years from 18-21.

What they need is a windfall elimination clause where if the disabled veteran is able to work and earn a livable wage their disability payments are reduced or rescinded.

There’s a 100% disabled veteran in my neighborhood who works as a commercial airline pilot. In addition to his disability payments, pension and airline pilot salary the property taxes on his $2 million house are waived due to his disability. I have 50 similar stories.

I work in a career that’s filled with veterans and nearly 100% of them are “disabled”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are so many inaccuracies and the language used is offensive and inflammatory. It is clear none of these authors have served a day in the military.

My husband is a 100% disabled veteran and I am APPALLED by the Post article. It is biased and profoundly anti-veteran.

DH is a brain tumor survivor and has memory and serious physical issues; symptoms (including severe headaches) first appeared after he returned from deployment, which included almost 24/7 exposure to burn pits. He has been too sick to work since 2008. We first applied for VA disability in the 2010s, after the VA started the burn pit registry, but he was denied because--even though multiple doctors wrote letters stating that his type of brain tumor was consistent with chemical exposure, and burn pit veterans get brain tumors at a far, far higher rate than the general population--we could not definitively prove it was service connected. We appealed and he was denied. It wasn't until the PACT Act, which includes a presumption of service connection for certain conditions, that he received benefits.

And now the Post publishes this hit job painting all disabled veterans as fraudsters getting paid for acne and ED, without noting the repeated visits with VA-retained doctors and extensive medical review claims are subject to? And without noting the many, many combat veterans with Stage 4 cancers and other serious health issues who languished with no coverage at all for almost two decades--the literal reason the PACT Act was passed? Where was the coverage of that, and what the hell agenda does the Post have here?

Just because your husband’s VA claim is legit doesn’t change the fact that many VA disability claims are fraudulent. That article is not profoundly anti-veteran because it is profoundly true.

So many “disabled” veterans. It’s the easiest path to a lifetime pension after working for three years from 18-21.

What they need is a windfall elimination clause where if the disabled veteran is able to work and earn a livable wage their disability payments are reduced or rescinded.

There’s a 100% disabled veteran in my neighborhood who works as a commercial airline pilot. In addition to his disability payments, pension and airline pilot salary the property taxes on his $2 million house are waived due to his disability. I have 50 similar stories.

I work in a career that’s filled with veterans and nearly 100% of them are “disabled”.

Same. My issue is if they are collecting a check from the fed gov for being "disabled", why are they doubling dipping by also being employed by the federal government. This needs to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes that Post article is biased and inflammatory click bait. They talk about a few fraud claims and here yall are blaming all veterans. Probably same people that would never serve - crabs in a bucket over disability pay. Gross.

The process is difficult and convoluted. My husband ejected from a jet and has permanent injuries documented by military doctors and he was still denied. Just like calling all Fed employees lazy etc.

You're right, of course. It's sort of an ideologically reversed version of looking at welfare/unemployment/medicaid programs. There are some people committing fraud or otherwise inappropriately taking advantage of the programs. And while we should try to do something about that, we also shouldn't lose sight of the fact that these are important programs for the vast majority of people using them legitimately.