FACEBOOK
TWITTER
Law Costs Military Widows Benefits
70′s Law Costs 61,000 Military Widows Thousands of Dollars in Survivor Benefits
by Lizette Alvarez
As many as 61,000 military widows whose husbands died of causes relating to their military service lose out on thousands of dollars a year in survivor benefits because of a law that dates from the 1970′s.
Widows and retirees have spent decades trying to persuade Congress to change the law, which hits hardest at the widows of lower-ranking service members and is referred to by many critics as the ”widow’s tax.”
The Senate passed such a change last year and again this year as part of the military authorization bill. But House Republican leaders oppose the change because of its steep price tag, nearly $9 billion over 10 years, Senate legislative aides from both parties say. A change was not in the military bill that passed the House, but lawmakers who support the change are hoping to make it part of the bill’s final version, which is now being worked on by a bipartisan Congressional committee…
”My husband thought he was securing my future,” said Edie Smith, a member of the Gold Star Wives, a group of military widows who are lobbying to change the law. ”He didn’t realize his own disability would void the benefit he purchased for me.”
A 1972 law created the Survivor Benefits Plan, a Department of Defense retirement income fund similar to a life insurance policy. The plan, in turn, pays benefits calculated according to a dead service member’s rank and length of service.
In addition, widows of veterans who died of service-related causes receive monthly cash stipends from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Known as the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation stipend, it is currently $1,033 plus $257 for each child.
But under the law, which placed restrictions on the plan that it created, the payment to widows enrolled in the Survivor Benefits Plan is reduced, dollar for dollar, by the amount of the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation stipend.
For example, a widow who would be entitled to $1,000 from the Survivor Benefits Plan and the $1,033 Dependency and Indemnity stipend receives $1,033, not $2,033.
Widows whose husband paid into the plan are reimbursed their premiums, without interest, but the amount is taxed and does not make up the losses from the plan.
The Department of Defense opposes changing the law to allow both payments, arguing that survivors should not receive two separate benefits for a single death.
But widows and their supporters say that the Pentagon’s opposition to a change in the law really stems from its cost, especially at a time of rising expenses for the war in Iraq.
They also argue that because service members paid into the Survivors Benefits Plan, its benefits should not be reduced.
”If you take one benefit from another, you don’t leave the survivor with very much,” said Col. Lee Lange, the deputy director of government relations for the influential Military Officers Association of America, which has made this issue a priority. ”These are widows. Let them collect both.”
Juan del Castillo, a retired Coast Guard commander who has been paying into the plan since 1972, accused the Pentagon of ”stealing money from widows.”
”They are financing their operation from money stolen from military widows,” Mr. Castillo said. ”They have been doing that since 1972.”
Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, who has pushed for five years to change the law, said he had allies in the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and the committee’s ranking Democrat, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan. The $9 billion price tag needed to insure a full payout under both plans sounds expensive, Mr. Nelson said, but is less than the price of a single aircraft carrier.
”Widows and orphans are made as a result of war,” he said. ”They are victims of war. They are giving the ultimate sacrifice, and the nation has an obligation to care for them.”
In the last two years, Congress has passed several bills to ease restrictions in the Survivor Benefits Plan. It ended a reduction in benefits to widows who reached the age of 62. And in 2003, as more and more women were widowed because of the war in Iraq, Congress decided to allow those whose husbands died after Nov. 23, 2003, to receive money from both funds by designating surviving children instead of wives as beneficiaries. But that does not affect the vast number of the 61,000 widows whose husbands died before that date.
Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, does not support including the change in this year’s military authorization bill. But he has said Congress is doing right by the widows, pointing out that last year it approved significant increases in life insurance payouts and death benefits.
That ”should have been done a long time ago,” Mr. Hunter said.
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on Veterans Today may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Veterans Today has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Veterans Today endorsed or sponsored by the originator. Any opinions expressed by the author(s) are not necessarily those of Veterans Today or representative of any staff member at Veterans Today.)
Related Posts:
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=2788
Posted by Veterans Today on Jan 26 2008, With 0 Reads, Filed under Benefits. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
Please don’t get me wrong. I have sympathy and respect for the sacrifice endured by military families.
I may be in the minority in this view, however, I fail to understand why there isn’t a cap on the amount of time widows receive government benefits.
This is the era of a majority of women who work outside the home. So it’s not like the 40′s when widow’s were left with no income and no means of supporting themselves due to lack of education or skills.
I’ve observed cases of widows who moved on to another relationship, but WILL NOT re-marry because they do not want to lose that monthly check. Yet they have the benefit of financial support from their current relationship.
It then becomes a matter no different that welfare recipients who have a live in mate AND receive government assistance.
I understand your feeling on this women working and the should be able to take care of themselves in these days. But none of us wakes up in the morning and sais I hope my husband dies today serving his country so we can collect money we made the ultimate sacrafice along with our husbands and if you ask me the amount of money they give us even if we do work is not enough. We are not widows because we chose to be. And if our husbands were paying into something then we should get what they paid for this is not free money we are asking for they paid into it meening it was taking out of there checks when they we alive so we should get what they paid for. You civilians are under the impression that us military folk don’t pay taxes or for the money that we get I also serve by the way and every month on my LES federal takes there money and so does the state so we are only asking for what we paid for. Thank you.
Good evening. An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered. Help me! I can not find sites on the: Stock market price. I found only this – quarterly stock market prices. Stock market prices, not, a swiss, right century trades rather thereby make a banking for the worse. While this is no dividend such, you can be large to help logical bombs as a transaction to take trading during these different judgments, stock market prices. Thanks
. Davida from Faso.
Now wait a minute. Survivors benefit plan (SBP) wasn’t offered assuming the widow would become eligible for Disability payments (DIC).
Numerous military dependent widows are already receiving DIC, Social Security, Civil Service anuity and partial SBP. I know a widow who has over $200,000.00 in the bank and has a $100,000.00 house lease in Korea, that she will get refunded to her. plus, she receives 4 government checks.
This screaming about wanting more money for military widows is not only wrong, it’s disgusting. We should be looking at veterans who were forced from miltiary service due to medical disability with less than 20 years service, who aren’t drawing military retired pay. How about a disabled veteran with 18 or 19, years active duty, who was forced to retire for medical reasons and doesn’t receive any military retirement pay?
Military Widows are already over compensated.
Robert J:
“Military widows are already over compensated”
Oh really? You provide one example of a “rich” widow being over compensated. For every one of those, there are hundreds who are being forced out of benefits they deserve for their family’s sacrifice. There are hundreds of young widows who have lost their husband either at war or from war-deployed illnesses, especially with the length of the Iraq & Afghanistan wars. These widows do receive *some* benefit with DIC/SBP, but they lose them if they remarry before the age of 57! Why should a soldier’s young widow, who only receives around $1k for SBP, be penalized if she remarries? The current law financially discourages young widows from remarrying, yet that doesn’t remove the fact that her husband was paying into SBP and then sacrificed his life for his country.
The argument of needing to pay down the federal debt by cheating widows of our fallen soldiers is ridiculous. I do agree that it’s not necessary to receive both DIC & SBP, but at no point should a widow lose either of these payments upon remarrying. The sacrifice her husband made never goes away, and the benefits provided from that sacrifice shouldn’t either.
While we’re talking about federal debt, national defense (including the benefits provided by those who risk their lives defending the country) and upholding laws are the primary roles the federal government should be providing. There are billions of dollars put toward useless programs that do nothing for legislation & defense that should be targeted for removal long before we penalize military widows.
Want to save money? Stop wasting it on earmarks and useless programs for special interests. Also, stop giving it away in entitlement programs *just for being an American citizen*. Widows who have sacrificed a husband in military service to our country are far more deserving of the country helping take care of them than someone simply born as an American.
As it is right now, the government is telling military widows it will cost them at least $1k per month for the rest of their life if they remarry before the age of 57. How is that a fair law with regard to a military benefit? You’re punishing those who have been hurt the most by military service.
Widow 2009: I have the answer to your complaint. Your husband paid for the Survivor Benefit plan (SBP) and you should draw that monthly payment. In fact, you should be allowed to draw SBP and Social Security, but no more than 2 government checks. For those eligibe for DIC, but not eligible for SBP, you should draw DIC and Social Security. My question is, why do you want both SBP and DIC, plus, Social Secuirty when you become eligible, or if you’re already drawing SC.
Look!! We have a facial debt to pay down, plus we owe our disabled veterans with less than 20 years service who were medically retired, some retired compensation. How do you think soldiers feel who had intentions of completing 20, or more years service, being medically retied short of 20 years service and receiivng no retirement pay?
Congress needs to look at the money widows are drawing and make a sensible decision on restricting military widows to (TWO) government checks. In fact, if I had my say, all widows would undergo means teating to see if they need all this money. When I find out widows have over $200,000.00 stashed at army credit unions, or at some bank off-base, I say, “stop the gift money now.” Use some common sense and compensate these widows equally. In my terminology “equally” would be 2 government checks. No widow should draw BOTH SBP and DIC. All widows should have a choice as to what TWO checks they prefer to draw. Now let’s balance the budget and pay off some debt.
When SBP waw offered, it wasn’t offered under the assumption that same widow would be eligible for DIC. Wake up people, we can’t afford to pay all these government checks to rich people. Please, stop the greed.