Last week, the Associated Press released an article with an inflammatory title - Report says 60,000 veterans get triple benefits and then proceeded to lead with the triple dipping frame of reference.
You might get the idea that the Associated Press wants us to think that at least 4% of veterans are moochers.
The average payment was about $59,000, but about 2,300 veterans, or 4 percent of the total, received concurrent payments of $100,000 or more, the Government Accountability Office said.
The highest payment was to a veteran who received $208,757 in combined payments in 2013.
Legal moochers, but moochers nonetheless, at least to folks like Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) who requested the study in the first place.
Statistics thrown out in this way are dangerous because they give you just enough information to form an opinion but not enough for an informed opinion. This is journalism at its worst because it allows for the manipulation of the reading public.
So what does it mean to be a triple dipper? It means a veteran is receiving retirement pay (earned), disability pay (earned), and Social Security, which he or she paid into. The latter for me is a no brainer. You pay into social security, you should receive social security. Maybe that's oversimplified for some but you can school me in the comments below.
Veterans haven't always received concurrent payments for retirement and disability but Congress took a look at the issue in 2002 and decided to do something about it. The prevailing sentiment of the time was summed up by Sen. John Warner (R-VA) who asked the following question of his fellow Senators:
How can we ask the men and women who have so faithfully served to sacrifice a portion of their retirement because they are also receiving compensation for an injury suffered while serving their country?"
He was joined by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), who said:
"Rather than honoring their commitment and bravery by fulfilling our obligations, the federal government has chosen to perpetuate this longstanding injustice," Reid said. "Quite simply, this is disgraceful and we must correct it."
Obviously, Senator Coburn disagrees. He thinks these men and women take home far too much money. As a man facing his own retirement in the near future, he could take home as much as $140,000 a year, or approximately 80% of the average of his top three earning years in Congress. And he's crying that 4% of disabled veterans will get $100,000 a year. Of course, Coburn's lifestyle may demand a little more money in the bank than that of your average disabled vet.
Maybe Senator Coburn is a little jealous of the single case where a veteran is bringing home $208,757.
Can any of us imagine why a veteran might receive that amount of money?
A good reporter would go to the original report to find out more details. And a good reporter might actually share that information in the article they are writing. Except that the answer isn't really as shocking as some would like it to be.
The person earning $208,757 by triple dipping is an O-8, either a retired Rear Admiral or a Major General. Not your average veteran, to be sure. O-8's are allowed to collect more in retirement alone than in their original annual salary as an active duty officer. That might be the issue Senator Tom Coburn should be addressing. After all, according to USA Today:
That means a four-star officer retiring with 40 years of experience would receive a pension of $237,144, according to the Pentagon.
No wonder Senator Coburn might feel a little jealous. After all, is it right that a military officer serving for 40 years earn more retirement than a US Senator?
Senator Coburn is more likely to go after the measly 4% of veterans who are making an average of $100,000 or more. After all, they aren't deserving either:
In most cases, veterans who receive a combination of benefits are severely disabled. About 4 in 5 veterans who got triple payments had a disability rating of at least 50 percent, the GAO said. Nearly half of those receiving triple payments were at least 60 years old.
Let's remove benefits from veterans who are severely disabled, who use those benefits to pay for nursing homes, assisted living, or full-time care.
Tom Coburn is barking up the wrong tree. Rather than try to paint veterans as triple-dipping moochers, he would be much better off actually thanking them for their service, for giving up their physical health and often mental well-being for the defense of this nation.
How hard would it be to say thank you in a way that is meaningful to these families?
Obviously, a little too hard for Senator Coburn.
If you would like to help the military community (Veterans, Reserves, Guard, and Active Duty) in the fight to retain earned benefits and salaries, consider following #KeepYourPromise on Twitter or on Facebook.