
The LA Times,
reaching for a reason to object to Senator John S. McCain, has made an egregious attempt to call into question the pension Senator McCain receives as a result of his military service.
Sen. John McCain has long said he is in robust health and is strong enough to hike the Grand Canyon, but he also is receiving what his staff Monday termed a "disability pension" from the Navy.
When McCain released his tax return for 2007 on Friday, he separately disclosed that he received a pension of $58,358 that was not listed as income on his return.
On Monday, McCain's staff identified the retirement benefit as a "disability pension" and said that McCain "was retired as disabled because of his limited body movements due to injuries as a POW."
"The disclosure of the Navy benefit for injuries incurred as a Vietnam POW may raise fitness questions." Really? Since WHEN? You mean after TWENTY SIX YEARS in the House and Senate? What physical fitness attributes does McCain possess as a Senator that he would not possess as a President? Who forgot to tell FDR? You can't lead us in that wheelchair!
First, let's put up a few facts that the LA Times did not bother to mention. Members of the military that serve twenty or more years are eligible to retire with a pension that they begin to receive as soon as they retire. Very roughly, they amount they receive is calculated based on their years of service and highest rank achieved. Those with twenty years of service receive 50% of the base pay equal to what a member of the armed forces of the their retirement rank receives. As service milestones are reached (30 years service get 75% base pay) the pension rises in value. There are other factors, but you get the point.
Those member that retire because of service related disability that grade out at a certain percentage (I
think it is 50%, I could be wrong) are also eligible for a disability pension. Regular retirement and disability retirement are often combined depending on a variety of factors I (and also many who are deeply involved in the issue) don't understand.
I had a front row seat on this issue as
my father retired in 1975 from the US Air Force and then began receiving disability from service related issues in 1991. In 1992 or so the Veterans Administration judged that he was 100% disabled because of those issues.
Here is where we get back to the issue of how much Senator McCain is receiving. My father was getting, because of his service related health issues, 100% of his base pay for his retirement rank and grade tax free. The military has judged Senator McCain to be 100% disabled because of his service related health issues. My father retired as an E-6 Tech Sgt with 21 years of service and was getting approximately $35,000 a year in pension. Senator McCain retired with 23 years of service and retired as a O-6 Captain from the Navy and was receiving $58,383 in pension. That sounds about right for a retired vet nine ranks up.
What's the beef, then? According to the
bigots reporters over at the LA Times:
The fact that he is legally designated with a disability pension may raise further questions.
"It is a legitimate question to ask about the commander in chief: Is he fit to serve," said Robert Schriebman, a senior Pentagon tax advisor and tax attorney who recently retired as a judge advocate for a unit of the California National Guard.
If McCain can hike across the Grand Canyon, then why should he be getting disability payments from the government that are tax-exempt, Schriebman asked.
McCain shattered his knee and broke both arms when he was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967.
Wait a minute. If the reporters and their sources have a problem with how the military compensates those who are injured during military service -- well, write an item about that. This has nothing to do with Senator McCain's candidacy for president. What physical fitness attributes does McCain possess as a Senator that he would not possess as a President?
Who forgot to tell FDR? You can't lead us in that wheelchair!In his autobiographies, McCain said that his knee still bothered him in cold weather and that he was unable to raise his hands above his shoulders.
So, not being able to raise one's arms above shoulder level means one is disqualified from being president?
Paul Galanti, another former POW in the group, said that while McCain's injuries were serious enough to qualify him for disability, it would not affect his performance as president.
"I don't know of any physical requirements to be commander in chief," Galanti said. "He would have a nice car to drive around in and a nice airplane to fly in."
Nice to see they quoted someone with some sense. The reporter's email address is
ralph.vartabedian@latimes.com -- you retired and disabled vets out there should give him some insight about how over paid he thinks you are.
[UPDATE] From
Mark Hemingway at The Corner comes notice of a
sick little rant from the left on the LA Times item.
If you thought we hit bottom when Kos went after McCain's teeth, another popular liberal blog has picked up the shovel and is going after McCain's war injuries: First off, I find it fascinating that John McCain, who is refusing to vote for the GI Bill for our troops because "it's too generous," is himself getting $58,000 a year, tax-free, from the US government for his military service. Had McCain been getting that amount every year since Vietnam, that would total $2,000,000 for the man who isn't into overgenerous government. I just find that interesting.
His staff responded with the classic "he was tortured for his country." Yeah, we get it. The torture card. It's to McCain what 9/11 was to Giuliani's candidacy - the never-ending name-drop. Though what McCain's staff actually said was downright, um, we're being nice to Clinton now, so I won't say Clintonian. Here's the quote:
McCain campaign strategist Mark Salter said Monday night that McCain was technically disabled. "Tortured for his country — that is how he acquired his disability," Salter said.
Technically? What does that mean? Usually, it means that under the strict reading of the law, you're covered, but in fact it's kind of a nudge-nudge-wink-wink situation - that's what "technically" means. It's called parsing, which is something you do to "technically" claim something is true, when on its face it really isn't. So is McCain "technically" disabled, and taking $58,000 a year tax free from the government, or is he actually disabled? I would imagine there are other solders who are actually disabled who could use the money. And if he is actually disabled, just how disabled is he?
So let me help clarify things here: McCain's decision not to support an expensive proposed Democratic "G.I. Bill" is a total red herring and using it as a pretext to ask, "Just how badly was he tortured, anyway?" is pretty vile. Technically, John McCain can't lift his arms above his shoulders as a result of being tortured as a P.O.W. While that shouldn't impair his ability to be President, it does make him clearly disabled. McCain isn't doing anything remotely improper by accepting a disability pension he earned the hard way. For liberal blogs (and regrettably, the L.A. Times) to make an issue of this is as ridiculous as it is disrespectful. But hey, support the troops, right? You know, provided that one of those "troops" didn't serve their country in the most difficult situation imaginable and then have the temerity to run for president as a Republican. In which case, screw 'em.
Yeah, well, the joke is on the lefties at that blog... When checking out thier little screed I couldn't help but notice the banner ad at the top...

Yep, thats a John McCain ad right at the top. I think Karma ran over their Dogma.