Page images
PDF
EPUB

Altogether, 1 out of 12 war veteran families and unrelated individuals (1.8 million) were among the Nation's poor.

Speaking of income limitations, there is increasing sentiment to remove all income restrictions to beneficiaries of several types of social legislation, retirement plans, but social security in particular. On March 17, 1966, the Committee on Labor and Social Security of the New York City Bar Association advises as follows:

Several bills are before the congress to permit receipt of full social security benefits by otherwise qualified employees over 65 who are able to continue to make a contribution to their own welfare and to society by part-time or full-time work. In speaking of income limitations, it is well known that these restrictions were initially enacted in 1935 during the period of the great depression when the notion was widespread that as many persons as possible should be removed from the labor force in order to spread the available work. In our opinion, the limitations serve no useful purpose today, and should be removed. The earnedincome limitation is also contrary to the basic philosophy of the Social Security Act which has always been that benefits were available as a matter of right on the basis of the contribution paid through social security taxes without resorting to a "means test" of any kind. We, therefore, endorse all bills calling for repeal of income limitations.

A report of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on the Aging, under date of March 15, 1966, recommends the following:

"Total elimination or substantial liberalization of the present restriction on how much an old-age (social security) beneficiary may have in the way of earnings."

The veterans of World War I feel our request for expansion of the present statutory income limitations are indeed very conservative and their fulfillment should be well within the powers of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the Congress of the United States.

It

There is another aspect of the tenuous situation confronting veterans receiving benefits from the Veterans' Administration wherein. they are placed in a very unfavorable situation by reason of the 1965 amendments to the Social Security Act, which greatly expanded allowable earnings on the part of old-age insurance beneficiaries. is now possible for an old-age insurance beneficiary under that particular act and an annuitant under the terms of the Railroad Retirement Act with average payments of $83.50 monthly (social security average) to earn as much as $3,102 before losing all social security benefits. In the case of a married individual, the husband and wife may earn as much as $3,615.60 without losing all social security payments, and in rare instances (maximum social security benefit) an unmarried individual could earn as much as $3,730.80 and the married couple receiving $203.90 per month (maximum social security benefit) may earn as much as $4,546.80 before sacrificing all benefits. Consider the position that this places a veteran who has an income in excess of $1,800. And, in the case of a veteran and dependent who has income in excess of $3,000. All parties are immediately cut off the pension rolls in the event that they exceed the statutory amounts. Many individual bills have been recently introduced seeking increased social security benefits which, of course, if enacted into law, will again react adversely to the welfare of the veteran and his dependent. President Johnson himself assured passage of these bills, when on March 15, 1966, when signing a $5.9 billion Vietnam tax bill, he used the occasion to announce that he would ask Congress for new legislation next year for making social security benefits more adequate.

67-235-66 -14

We firmly believe that we have made a case for H.R. 13215 and H.R. 13217.

The final bill in which we are primarily interested is H.R. 13499. Section 203 (f) of the Social Security Act of 1935, as amended, and related amendments through December 31, 1964, reads as follows:

Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this paragraph, no part of the excess earnings of the individual shall be charged to any month (A) for which such individual was not entitled to a benefit under this title (B) in which such individual was age 72 or over,

[ocr errors]

Now, consider the unfortunate position of a veteran pensioner, age 72, with an income of $1,801, compared to a retiree who may conceivable be a nonveteran, also age 72, under the provisions of the Social Security Act and an annuitant under the provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act? What happens to the veteran? He is at once taken from the benefit rolls. What happens to a beneficiary under the Social Security Act and the Railroad Retirement Act? He is permitted to disregard all earnings including wages, plus net earnings from selfemployment of any kind after reaching that particular age and retain all social security or railroad retirement benefits even though he may be a millionaire. Here again, the veteran is discriminated against because he is prevented from seeking permanent or part-time gainful employment, knowing full well what would happen to his pension payment if his employment would result in gross income amounting to more than $1,800.

As a result of this feature, a veteran may be deprived of obtaining a job possibly filled by a nonveteran, who may have come on the social security rolls (self-employed) in 1952, paying as little as $121 (on six quarters of coverage) into the social security trust fund, and have drawn the maximum social security payments ever since.

Mr. Chairman, I am most reluctant to even bring this subject to the attention of the subcommittee, for our organization may acquire the reputation of aiding and assisting in the total sublimation of the veterans' pension movement as we now know it. But, if earnings limitations are not substantially increased, the veterans themselves may force the issue in approaching the pension problem in quite a different manner. For instance, in the event that a single veteran would have annual earnings of $1,801 from his employment, he is, as we previously mentioned, immediately cut off the pension rolls, and never reinstated until his annual earnings are less than that amount. What happens to a social security beneficiary with similar annual earnings, with an average social security benefit of $83.50 per month. That agency recovers but 1 monthly payment, and pays the individual the other 11 monthly benefits. Recovering an additional monthly payment for every additional $83.50 or more that the individual may earn until the social security beneficiary earns $3,102 before he is taken from benefit status.

There is another valid reason why we seek an improvement in the pension program for the veterans of World War I and their dependents. The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare reports on the general welfare program administered by the agency, show in detail all payments made by the Federal Government, State governments, and local governmental units, together with the number of beneficiaries and amounts expended. In their report of December 1965, we were surprised and disappointed, from a veteran's standpoint,

to learn that six States give more than $100 monthly in the way of general welfare payments which includes expenditures for general assistance, medical assistance for the aged, aid to the blind, aid to permanently and totally disabled, aid to families with dependent children, and expenditures for assistance and administrative services. Surprisingly enough, however, one State (Wisconsin) gives a sum total of $123.73 monthly toward the general welfare of Wisconsin beneficiaries. The other States are New Hampshire, California, Hawaii, North Dakota, and Illinois.

From examining the possible maximum income payments to veterans, widows, and their dependents, the plight of the veteran and dependent is accentuated, because it is a proven fact that even nonveterans on general relief can draw more in welfare payments than does the veteran and/or his dependents under our present pension program. Question may well be raised as to why the veteran does not go on relief and enjoy a higher standard of living. The answer is simply this: the veteran is proud of his status as a veteran, of his service to his country, of his ability to make it on his own, and feels that he is entitled to the Government pension paid to him, regarding his veteran's status with his Government as something uniquely personal and his military service as one of his proudest achievements. He does not want to be included in the category of a general relief recipient.

The veterans of World War I of the U.S.A., Inc., fail to see the complete justification in classifying the veterans' pension program under "need". Why penalize a veteran who was wise enough to put into a retirement fund, such money as he could afford to supply his old age? Why penalize the veteran who was prudent enough to bank enough to give him a slight income on his retirement? Why give special emphasis to the veteran who did not or could not prepare himself for his retirement years? They are all veterans of wars in which the United States participated, and as such, should be recognized by a grateful Government.

For the benefit of the subcommittee, we understand that in only two instances (Indian and Mexican Wars) were there a "needs provision" in the qualifying provisions for pension payments. In both instances this was applied only where the veteran was seeking higher pension payment than was granted to him under the basic rates. (Information taken from a letter from the Veterans' Administration dated July 20, 1966.) The veterans of World War I met a needs test inserted in the 1930 pension legislation, and have been saddled with it ever since.

With due regard for the benefits now received by the veterans of World War I and their dependents, we cannot understand why the veteran is being restricted in receiving an adequate pension payment from the Government he helped preserve by his military service in World War I, World War II, and the Korean police action. What is the norm that is being used? An income of $1,200 annually to a veteran or of $1,260 to a veteran and dependent, residing in the United States, certainly is no great financial aid in amount of sustenance in meeting the ever-increasing cost of living which has to be met by the veteran and nonveteran alike. Income of the above stated amounts, while regarded by foreign aid recipients and beneficiaries as a "windfall," certainly does not meet the minimum needs

of the older average American citizen and his dependent. It appears to us that the time has arrived to reevaluate our whole approach to the pension program as formulated in 1960 (the test being need, unemployability, and disability) with emphasis on the inadequacy of our present program. And, we believe, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will see the reasonableness of our position and give favorable consideration to all three bills; namely, H.R. 13215, H.R. 13217, and H.R. 13499.

There is another aspect of the present veterans program that proves the inadequacy and failure to keep abreast of modern pension plans. I now specifically refer to the "automatic increase" granted to individuals retiring under the U.S. civil service and military service plans. Consideration should be given to providing for veterans drawing either pension or compensation payments of an automatic increase where the cost of living reaches a certain percentage over a stated base year.

We ask for additional consideration for the veteran, widow, and dependent, in the light of the present rights and privileges granted beneficiaries under the medicare program. Section 19 of that act provides that all health bills of needy groups, such as children in lowincome families, blind, disabled, indigent, and those families where parent is absent or disabled, shall be defrayed by the States and Federal Government on a matching fund basis. The State, however, sets the standards for qualification. New York, California, Pennsylvania, and many other States will take care of these particular groups and many other segments of the population in a rather grandiose manner. In New York State, according to the Associated Press, they define "indigent" as a family of four with income of $6,000 and $3,000 in savings. It is said that over one-third to one-half, at least 7 million people of the residents of New York, will qualify for free and unlimited medical, hospital, dental, and nursing care. Estimated cost to the Federal Government is conservatively estimated to be about $1 billion per year. And veterans organizations are strenuously attempting to get a modest expansion of income limitations and a few slight increases in pension payments for the veteran and dependent. In addition to payment of all medical, dental, and associated bills for the groups mentioned above, medicare provides 90 days hospitalization for each spell or illness, and all collateral hospital services, and for $3 a month more, in addition, you get all doctor's services, home health benefits, and other medical attention for $40 and $50 (deductible) respectively, with the Federal Government paying 80 percent of the balance; and a veteran has to sign a "pauper's oath" to get simple Veterans' Administration hospital services, and then only if a bed is available. And, we understand that if the medicare patient does not have the $40 or $50, he can apply to the welfare organizations to pay these sums.

In addition to the extensive benefits under the medicare program, there is another field in which other individuals, conceivably nonveterans, are treated in a better manner than the veteran. Recently enacted legislation provides for rent supplement payments to the socalled low-income groups, The facts are, and according to information received from the staff of Housing and Urban Development, a World War I veteran and wife living in New York City, could qualify for and receive help in paying the rent, if they had income up to but

not including the sum of $5,256 (Chicago, Ill., $4,200) and $5,000 in collateral assets, such as savings, stocks, bonds, automobiles, and other assets. If this couple lived in a one-bedroom apartment renting for $105 per month and had income of $2,628, they could apply for and receive more than $50 monthly as a rent supplement. Would that all veterans be as generously treated under our pension program.

Attached here to is a list of bills introduced in the House and Senate at the specific request of the Veterans of World War I. However, many other Members of the Congress have introduced companion bills to these measures, and to all these friends of the Veterans of World War I, we are deeply indebted. The list, Mr. Chairman, we would like to have included in the record.

Mr. DORN. Without objection, the extraneous matter will be included in the record at this point.

(The matter referred to follows:)

SUMMARY

1. Increase income limitations and pension rates for veterans, widows and their dependents who went on the rolls prior to July 1, 1960 (old part III), and those whose pension payments were effective subsequent to June 30, 1960 (Public Law 86-211).

2. Eliminate all income received by a veteran who has attained age 72 in determining the veteran's entitlement to pension.

3. Studies and sympathetic consideration on the part of the subcommittee, Committee on Veterans' Affairs on behalf of all veterans, but particularly for the veterans of World War I.

BILLS INTRODUCED

1. H.R. 6075 introduced by Congressman Dyal, to raise payments under part III, or the old law or protected pension, by 8%; also stating the VA will supply drugs and medicines to those on aid and attendance; and containing an automatic cost of living increase.

2. H.R. 7365 introduced by Congressman Karth, to raise the ceiling from 125,000 to 135,000 hospital beds, and to make available the full quota of nursing care beds allocated by law. This bill also prohibits the closing of any VA hospital, domiciliary or outpatient dispensary.

3. H.R. 6343 introduced by Congressman Secrest, to increase the rates under the new law, or 86–211 amended, by 10%.

4. H.R. 7294 introduced by Congressman Blatnik, to eliminate the counting as income payments received under railroad retirement for pension purposes for those under 86-211 amended, to coincide with the recipients of part III, who do not have to count their railroad retirement payments as income.

5. H.R. 6132 introduced by Congressman Fino, to require that the VA give 6 months prior notice to the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the event they propose any changes in their facilities, such as closings, etc.

6. H.R. 7325 introduced by Congressman Quie, to give the right of election or reelection to pensioners, so they may choose the pension which pays them the higher dividend.

7. H.R. 5677 introduced by Congressman Roudebush, to eliminate social security, etc. being counted as income for pension purposes.

8. H.R. 5683 introduced by Congressman Saylor, to allow recoupment of all amounts paid into any retirement program before such payments count as income for pension purposes.

9. H.R. 6625 introduced by Congressman Fraser, to grant an additional 10% exclusion of pension payments, social security, etc., in computing annual income for pension purposes.

10. H.R. 3948 introduced by Congressman Olsen, creating a national cemetery in each State.

11. H.R. 3853 introduced by Congressman Olsen, giving the veteran the right of appeal to the district court in cases against the VA.

12. Senate Resolution No. 20 Introduced by Senator Dirksen, to create a Veterans' Affairs Committee in the Senate.

« PreviousContinue »