Military Housing, rentals, home buying, real estate, VA home loans - Air Force Times

House approves better moving, leave benefits

A House committee has approved a 3.4 percent increase in military pay on Jan. 1, an increase in household goods weight limits for career enlisted members and more leave days for service members busy with deployments.

After eight years of war that have left service members and families stressed, the House Armed Services Committee has resolved to work in a bipartisan way to build a stronger support system, improve pay and benefits, and especially to help wounded troops and their families — a sentiment reflected in the committee’s version of the 2010 defense authorization bill approved June 16.

The increase in household goods weight limits is aimed at bringing allowances for career enlisted members closer to those for officers. The leave provision would extend a temporary policy allowing troops to accumulate and carry over up to 75 days of leave from one year to the next.

Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., who chairs the committee’s military personnel panel, said the leave provision is needed because “the constant demand on the force means that many members are unable to use their accumulated leave in the short time they have available.”

But the bipartisan vibe faded when Democrats and Republicans faced off over promises made to some military retirees and survivors, exchanging accusations about who was sincere about improving retiree and survivor benefits and who was grandstanding.

The situation came to a head when Democrats blocked Republican amendments to create a more generous retirement benefit for reserve-component members and eliminate the so-called “widow’s tax” for survivors and the “disability tax” for veterans retired on disability with less than 20 years of service.

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the committee chairman, said he had to block the amendments because Republicans did not have a way to pay for the new benefits. The widow’s tax and disability tax initiatives could cost $36 billion over the next decade, he said. No specific estimate was provided for the reserve retired pay proposal.

“In our committee, we do not play games,” Skelton said. “We do not accept legislation that we cannot pay for ourselves, and we don’t try and gain political points by raising the hopes of the men and women who sacrificed so much for our country.”

He said a partial solution covering some expanded benefits is possible by the time the full House takes up the 2010 defense authorization bill in a few weeks — but “it is not for sure.”

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., who proposed the amendments, tried to tap into a reserve fund created by the 2010 federal budget plan specifically to cover the two benefits. But Skelton and Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., the House Budget Committee chairman, said the reserve fund, designed to be fueled by cuts in federal entitlements, has no money in it.

Republicans said they were not playing games, but trying to deliver on old promises that are rejected year after year because strict budgeting rules make them impossible to fund.

“We have to find the money to do this. We find billions for other things. We have to find it,” said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md.

Skelton’s staff said that because of budgeting rules, the only way the committee could cover the cost of Wilson’s amendment would be to ravage other military entitlements, such as retired pay, health care benefits for older retirees and education benefits for reservists.

Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon of California, ranking Republican on the committee, said he was disappointed. “We had an opportunity today to fulfill some of the promises we made to them and their families in exchange for their sacrifices,” he said. “Considering that Congress has spent billions on economic stimulus measures, we had hoped that we could find the money necessary to finally realize these promises.”

DISCUSS: The benefits