HB99

It sounds to me that this bill is merging disabled and certain disabled together, and I cannot agree with that. “Certain Disable” are veterans with extreme disability (missing limbs, paralysis, and require care assistance, etc.) that are not able to work and rely on the benefits to pay for things that the VA does not cover such as a wheelchair van with lift ($105,000), a simple accessible Home and has a garage to keep the van in ($750,000+), more than 10 hours of home Caregiver support ($$$), etc. Lumping disabled with Certain Disabled waters down the meaning of the exemption for veterans with extreme disabilities that cannot work, and paid the price for their extensive injuries.

A constituent in my town emailed this comment to me last evening with a request to share with the committee… While I understand and generally appreciate all the veteran considerations, part of me thinks our society (and legislators) sometimes goes a bit too far. After Desert Storm the country made a course correction to make up for the anti-military sentiment associated with Viet Nam, but it turned into an over-correction. Re: the disabled veteran stuff, there are certainly many veterans who are disabled as a consequence of their service and they deserve all this consideration, particularly the ones whose disability is combat related (and not due to buffoonery). However, there are too many ’disabled’ veterans whose disability either has nothing to do with their service or whose issues are self-induced. Two examples: Andrea has a good friend who retired from the AF as a major, and he receives a monthly check for being disabled (50% or 60%, I don’t recall exactly). My problem with it is his primary disability is diabetes, which he caused based on his lifestyle - overweight, no exercise beyond the bare minimum to meet the AF’s (dismally low) standards, etc. It’s considered service-connected because it was diagnosed while he was on active duty, but clearly it had nothing to do with being in the military…it was his choices that caused his issues. I don’t believe he should be ‘rewarded’ for having diabetes, because it was a consequence of his poor decisions. The second example is Andrea’s VA disability advisor/advocate in Manchester. He served in the military and told us he is 100% disabled. He has things like tinnitus, but his limbs work perfectly and he holds down a full-time job with no apparent issues. What makes him 100% disabled is his claim of PTSD causing him anxiety, etc. Now, I have to be careful, both because I am not aware of his entire situation and because I am not a medical professional; he very well may have some kind of lingering effects from his military service causing him issues. However, my personal opinion is if he can live his life without any kind of restrictions (he can hold a job, he can drive, he can dress himself, he is a supervisor in his organization), he probably shouldn’t be getting an extra $30K per year funded by taxpayers simply because he had some bad experiences. He may have issues, but if there are no significant consequences, then get on with it. I think about all the WWII soldiers who shipped out, spent 4 years away from home in much more hellish conditions than anything our military faces nowadays, came home, picked up their lives and moved forward. Might not’ve been awesome in all cases, but they did what they had to do and then got on with life. My last ‘problem’ with the disability thing is there is an industry that goes beyond simply advocating for veteran benefits for clearly deserving folks, and instead actively works to exploit loopholes and other chinks in the rules and processes to increase disability compensation beyond the intent of the program. “If you believe you are entiitled to 100% disability compensation but aren’t receiving it, contact our office and we’ll ensure you get what you deserve.” What one thinks he deserves and what he actually does are often two totally different things, but because veteran stuff is a political third rail, we too often defer to the former for fear of being accused of not supporting our military. So, while there definitely are some veterans who deserve a degree of tax relief and other considerations by way of gratitude for sacrifices made in service to their country, many, if not most, do not. It’s my opinion that most of the military folks I served with are/have either been fairly or more than fairly compensated for the quality and effectiveness of their service. Thus, I think most of these ‘veteran benefits’ legislative initiatives, rather than being broad entitlements, should be narrowly targeted and/or deliberately managed, because many of the recipients simply do not deserve them. If I’ve not made it clear, all of the above is my opinion. I make no claim to understand everyone’s circumstances or to know how the world works.

As someone who spent almost 30 years in the regular Army with three of them spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is 100% Totally and Permanently disabled from said time playing army I do not support this bill. 'ACU welfare' should be a cynical joke and not the reality. A single 100% veteran already receives $3974.15 every month completely tax free with all medical to include dental completely covered. He/She can likely afford to accept the already generous exemptions and avoid passing the tax bill off to the neighbors. As a disclaimer, I have not yet filed for any of these exemptions. As I live in Dalton and the new Governor's chilling statement on the landfill and the anticipated tax increase there I likely will soon. Especially after my bill literally quadrupled this year-value tripled and bill quadrupled. That will be almost $2000 passed off to my neighbors. I would be embarrassed if it was the entire bill. Additionally, I would be less opposed to this if the sponsors were not veterans. Some of whom may qualify for this. The money grab here is shameful.