Both the U.S, Senate and House have passed legislation to eliminate the military “Widows Tax,” the reduction from 55 percent to 35 percent of retired pay which takes place when the widow reaches age 62. There is a catch, however. The House version of the bill phases out the reduction over a three and a half years so that by April 2008 it is eliminated. The Senate version phases it out over a 10 years.
Both of these phase-outs ostensibly save money (at the expense of the widows, it might be noted).
The next step in the legislative process will be to convene a House/Senate conference to resolve the differences between the two versions. Beyond question, the conferees ought to agree to the shorter phase-out period provided in the House bill.
Why? Because analysis shows that the Senate version singles out World War II widows for treatment that is best described as shabby. Consider a man who joined the service in 1942 and then stayed on after WWII to serve his country in spite of one of the greatest demobilizations in history. If he stayed until retirement with 30 years of service, he would most likely have served also in the Korean and Vietnam wars. If his wife were 20 years old in 1942, and he is now deceased, she would be an 82-year-old widow today.
According to government statistics, an 82-year-old American female has an average life expectancy of about eight years. So, if she fit the averages, she would die in 2012 at age 90 without ever seeing the full 55 percent of her husband’s retired pay which he and she were promised, because the Senate bill doesn’t fully phase in this reform until two years after she’s gone.
The widows of Korean veterans without WWII service fare only a little better, and most widows of later wars should receive the full benefit of this reform, even under the Senate version (that’s assuming the president signs the final bill and doesn’t veto it).
But why should the widows of our Greatest Generation be the ones to be left out of the reform? WWII veterans, including those who stayed on to serve in extra wars, are dying at the rate of more than a thousand a day.
We praise their sacrifices, we give speeches in wonder and awe at their bravery on D-Day and on world-wide battlefields, we dedicated a memorial to them (although we almost waited too late) and we acknowledge we owe a debt to them that never can be adequately repaid.
It’s unconscionable that the Senate should now render a slap in the face to this group of warriors by putting off this reform until most of their widows are dead or too old and infirm to even realize that the reform has occurred.
We must call or write, letting our Senators and Representatives know that we want him/her to support acceptance of the House version of the military survivors benefit reform and not penalize (even if unintended) WWII veterans and their widows.
James M. Eubanks is a Mobile resident.
