Comment

Comment by Lizzie on August 5, 2012 at 4:50pm

Research.. research! 

But remember, NOT everything on the internet is accurate.  Drill back on the authors, validate, authenticate...

 

Comment by Lizzie on August 5, 2012 at 12:01pm

I am not a military person, so I may I ask questions based on Larry's comment below in regards to Crenshaw:

How often is, or what ratio of a "retired service member" who is "place on a permanent reserve list" is called back into active duty?

Am I interpreting the comment that a retired military person gets a pension and gets "retainer pay" for being put on the reserve list?  

And this has been the procedure since WWII ?

Thanks, I'd appreciate more information so I can better understand Crenshaw.

Comment by Larry on August 5, 2012 at 11:41am

Ander Crenshaw is no friend of the men and women of the US Armed Forces that chose to make the military a career. Ander Crenshaw refused to co-sponsor legislation that would have returned a small amount of fairness to the unconstitutional Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act, USFSPA 10 USC 1408. HR 72 would have terminated payments to remarried former spouses similar to alimony and State of Florida Legislative retired members. Ander Crenshaw disagreed stating Military Retired Pay (MRP) was "similar enough" to any other "pension" plans. That couldn't be farther from the truth. When was the last time a retired member of the FL legislature was recalled back into service due to national crisis? The USSC ruled in McCarty v. McCarty, 1981 that MRP could NOT be treated as community property because it has none of the same characteristics as other "pension" plans. Retired service members are put placed on a permanent reserve list and they continue to be held accountable, recallable, and prosecutable under the UCMJ for life. MRP or retainer PAY is unique; the USSC ruled that MRP is a continued wage for continued military service. Not a pension, not a community property asset, and certainly NOT an deferred payment. MRP is a monthly wage earned on a monthly availability to recall to active duty, Congress set it up that way after WWII because too many highly trained service members came home to much higher paying factory jobs. Congress wanted something in return for the MRP, the ability to retain those personnel. They paid service members much less than their civilian counter-parts because they told veterans they would be compensated for their lower pay with a retainer pay for life. Under HR 72 VA Disability Compensation would be protected from division with a former spouse as ruled by the USSC in Title 38 USC. However, many states including Florida misinterpret the USFSPA to allow treatment of disability compensation as community property as well. In a 1998 DOD report in Congress, even the lawyers stated they had a difficulty time interpreting USFSPA since it was the only federal domestic realtions law that interferred with powers the constitution reserved for the states, a violation of the 10th amendment. HR 72 would have based the award upon the service members rank at divorce date instead of their retirement date. A service member that divorced as a 3rd class Petty Officer that busted his/her butt for 20 plus years and retired as an Admiral would see a former spouse come running with lawyer in tow seeking a portion of the service member's rank as an Admiral. In what way did a former spouse contribute to any other those advancements? Finally, HR 72 would have placed a 2-yr statute of limitation of the amount of time that passed before a former spouse could seek a portion of the service member's monthly wages earned after the divorce was finalized. Ander Crenshaw didn't see any fairness at all, he only saw the potential for losing a few USFSPA recipients votes. He has never served in the US Armed Forces, he is just another lawyer that uses his office as a vessel of power and votes not what is right or in accordance with the Constitution and his oath of office but to lean with the direction of the political winds on any paticular day. With 10s of thousands of active duty veterans n Ander Crenshaw's district (Mayport Naval Station) you would think they would have voted him out years ago. There's just one BIG problem. The troops are never briefed on USFSPA and it's impact on their careers. DOD secretly supports the antiquated USFSPA and betrayed those they promised, "We take care of our own". DOD is shooting themselves in the foot because USFSPA takes away the force-management tool that military leaders use to keep our military the best and strongest military in the world. Congress back-dated USFSPA was back-dated to circumvent the USSC by one day, then applied it retroactively to service members already retired and divorced without any mention of MRP in their decrees. USFSPA payments are for LIFE without any reference to fault, wealth, or "need". If I had never served in the US Armed Forces, I may have been ordered to pay alimony for 5 years on average. Since I gave 22 years active duty (and 20 years so far on the permanent reserve list) of my life to the military, I have now lost over $267,000 to a remarried former spouse with no end in sight. If you want to get rid of Ander Crenshaw, share the betrayal of USFSPA with our troops, they deserve to know the truth. http://www.ulsg.org

Comment by lynn coneglio on August 5, 2012 at 7:33am

It would be helpfull if you would recommend candidates, we all know the unions and democratic/ communist party post a list of who they want us to vote for.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page