Daniel Bledsoe

1.7K posts

Daniel Bledsoe

Daniel Bledsoe

@DanielBledsoe76

Edisto Island, S.C. Katılım Mart 2022
376 Takip Edilen114 Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Daniel Bledsoe
Daniel Bledsoe@DanielBledsoe76·
@CNN @FoxNews @NBCNews @wis10 @60Minutes @WCBD @CBSNews @ABC @ChrisCuomo @seanhannity @Johnny_Joey @RCPolitics @washingtonpost @NewsNation @NewsHour All Concerned: There is a discharge petition in the House of Representatives concerning The Major Richard Star Act. It has had more co-sponsors than almost any piece of legislation. Currently, there are ONLY 157 signatures on the petition-ALL Democrats! This is Memorial Day weekend. How is your organization not covering this? The way the math will be done concerning longevity, it probably won’t help me, but witnessing how the MSM could care less is what is astounding to me. At least show some coverage!
English
2
1
6
202
Daniel Bledsoe retweetledi
mike bski
mike bski@BskiMike22802·
This bill is NOT helping more than the original intent. It is helping LES. And for most of those, it is helping; it is giving them less! I have looked at both bills, the original and the amendment. It does not help Reserve or Guard over 20 years of service. That is about 5-10k of the 54K. This bill is a lot worse than the original! Please do the research and let me know where I am wrong! I have a post of all three laws side by side. x.com/BskiMike22802/…
mike bski@BskiMike22802

How is that an opinion? Read it yourself His brother gave us his military record: "Due the unique circumstances of my brother's service. At age 52 he would have been able to file for a traditional reserve retirement with 30 good years of service and 19 and 1/2 years of active duty... He died when he was 51. About 125 veterans a month die before they're able to draw their earned retirement. Someone said that the bill wrote my brother out, my brother's service is specific to his own case. Had he lived longer than what he did he would have still have been leading this charge." — @DavidSt59726197 x.com/DavidSt5972619…. The rest is in the law: (1) Career retirees.-The retired pay of a member retired under chapter 61 of this title with 20 years or more of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of this title, or at least 20 years of service computed under section 12732 of this title, at the time of the member's retirement is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of the member's retired pay under chapter 61 of this title exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the member would have been entitled under any other provision of law based upon the member's service in the uniformed services if the member had not been retired under chapter 61 of this title. uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req…) Don't trust me. Do your own research, and you will see that Paragraph 1 makes it so he does not get retirement until he is just about 60 (less due to deployments). This is how reserves work. He got his 20-year letter at 20 years, but never made 20 active equivalent years. This is EXACTLY my point. That is why the clean MRSA replaces BOTH paragraphs 1 AND 2. Whoever wrote this does not understand how reserves work, as I assume you are in the same boat. I was the only reserve in the Division when I deployed, I am used to this.

English
1
3
5
279
Daniel Bledsoe retweetledi
mike bski
mike bski@BskiMike22802·
What if the "Star Act fix" still wouldn't cover MAJ Star — even though CBO already scored the cost of including him? That's H.R. 9237 right now! Let's fix it! #MajorRichardStarAct #StarAct #HR9237
mike bski@BskiMike22802

H.R. 9237 needs a fix — and it's personal. The "Wounded Veterans Tax" forces tens of thousands of combat-disabled Chapter 61 retirees to forfeit part of their military retirement pay simply because they also receive VA disability compensation — a dollar-for-dollar offset no other retiree faces. H.R. 9237 was supposed to end that. But Section 101 only replaces paragraph (2) — not paragraph (1). Paragraph (1) is the exact provision that disqualified Major Richard Star, the man this bill is named for. As written, his own namesake bill still wouldn't cover him. 📞 Call your Representative today: "H.R. 9237 must amend BOTH paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Section 101. As written, it doesn't even fix what disqualified Major Richard Star." #StarAct #HR9237 #WoundedVeteransTax

English
0
3
9
408
Daniel Bledsoe retweetledi
mike bski
mike bski@BskiMike22802·
The bill named after Major Richard Star... still wouldn't cover Major Richard Star. CBO already scored the cost of fixing paragraph (1) — the exact provision that disqualified him. They're leaving it out of H.R. 9237 anyway. #MajorRichardStarAct #StarAct #HR9237
mike bski@BskiMike22802

H.R. 9237 needs a fix — and it's personal. The "Wounded Veterans Tax" forces tens of thousands of combat-disabled Chapter 61 retirees to forfeit part of their military retirement pay simply because they also receive VA disability compensation — a dollar-for-dollar offset no other retiree faces. H.R. 9237 was supposed to end that. But Section 101 only replaces paragraph (2) — not paragraph (1). Paragraph (1) is the exact provision that disqualified Major Richard Star, the man this bill is named for. As written, his own namesake bill still wouldn't cover him. 📞 Call your Representative today: "H.R. 9237 must amend BOTH paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Section 101. As written, it doesn't even fix what disqualified Major Richard Star." #StarAct #HR9237 #WoundedVeteransTax

English
1
2
12
493
Daniel Bledsoe retweetledi
mike bski
mike bski@BskiMike22802·
The bill named after Major Richard Star... still wouldn't cover Major Richard Star. H.R. 9237's fix to the Wounded Veterans Tax only patches half the problem.
mike bski@BskiMike22802

H.R. 9237 needs a fix — and it's personal. The "Wounded Veterans Tax" forces tens of thousands of combat-disabled Chapter 61 retirees to forfeit part of their military retirement pay simply because they also receive VA disability compensation — a dollar-for-dollar offset no other retiree faces. H.R. 9237 was supposed to end that. But Section 101 only replaces paragraph (2) — not paragraph (1). Paragraph (1) is the exact provision that disqualified Major Richard Star, the man this bill is named for. As written, his own namesake bill still wouldn't cover him. 📞 Call your Representative today: "H.R. 9237 must amend BOTH paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Section 101. As written, it doesn't even fix what disqualified Major Richard Star." #StarAct #HR9237 #WoundedVeteransTax

English
0
9
10
732
Daniel Bledsoe retweetledi
Jeremy Profitt
Jeremy Profitt@Jeremy_Profitt·
@HouseGOP I can say that about what you all are doing to the Major Richard Star Act. Do better, for those who have sacrificed so much.
GIF
English
0
3
7
264
Daniel Bledsoe retweetledi
mike bski
mike bski@BskiMike22802·
The bill named after Major Richard Star... still wouldn't cover Major Richard Star. CBO already scored the cost of fixing paragraph (1) — the exact provision that disqualified him. They're leaving it out of H.R. 9237 anyway. #MajorRichardStarAct #StarAct #HR9237
mike bski@BskiMike22802

H.R. 9237 needs a fix — and it's personal. The "Wounded Veterans Tax" forces tens of thousands of combat-disabled Chapter 61 retirees to forfeit part of their military retirement pay simply because they also receive VA disability compensation — a dollar-for-dollar offset no other retiree faces. H.R. 9237 was supposed to end that. But Section 101 only replaces paragraph (2) — not paragraph (1). Paragraph (1) is the exact provision that disqualified Major Richard Star, the man this bill is named for. As written, his own namesake bill still wouldn't cover him. 📞 Call your Representative today: "H.R. 9237 must amend BOTH paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Section 101. As written, it doesn't even fix what disqualified Major Richard Star." #StarAct #HR9237 #WoundedVeteransTax

English
1
6
14
610
BerserkerMedic
BerserkerMedic@davidmedic81·
This debate has lost sight of who this bill is supposed to help. Hr9237 S4744 #majorRichardStaract Some E7s, senior NCOs, and officers with 15 or more years of service are demanding 75% as if they completed a full 30-year career. I understand why they want it. Everyone wants the highest benefit possible. But the reality is that 75% was always the outlier. The original concept was based on years of service, and getting to a 50% retirement floor is already a major improvement for thousands of disabled retirees. What about the E4 who lost an arm in Iraq after only three, four, or five years of service? What about the young Marine, Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Guardian whose career ended because of combat wounds or service-connected disabilities? A 50% retirement benefit would be life-changing for them. Yet some people seem willing to torpedo the entire bill because they want more. Nobody is losing money. You cannot lose money you are not receiving today. What some people are really saying is that they want a larger benefit than what is currently being offered. That’s a fair position to advocate for, but it is not the same thing as losing money. What frustrates me is that many of the loudest voices seem focused on protecting the interests of the highest ranks while claiming to speak for everyone. The rank-and-file disabled veterans—the E4s, E5s, and E6s whose careers were cut short—matter too. They deserve consideration just as much as someone who was a few years away from a regular retirement. Take the win that is on the table. Help the veterans who need it now. Then keep fighting for improvements later. Rejecting a meaningful benefit today in pursuit of a perfect benefit tomorrow could leave thousands of disabled veterans waiting another decade for relief. If you’re fighting only for the highest ranks, then just say so. But don’t pretend you’re speaking for every disabled veteran when many of us would gladly take a fair deal today and continue the fight tomorrow.
English
3
0
0
57
mike bski
mike bski@BskiMike22802·
#MajorRichardStarAct #MajorStarAct #MajStarAct #54KVeterans #EndTheWoundedVeteranTax @54KVeterans @Chrisujwo3 @davidmedic81 @TeeeRoy1 @DavidWarrenVet @Jeremy_Profitt @rg81416 @SeabeeBonner @smith8024 @kniftarqr9y @restore_GI_Bill @passmajstaract @SgtJoebishop @restore_GI_Bill @DavidSt59726197
mike bski@BskiMike22802

FOLLOW-UP — clarifying yesterday's post on the Bost Amendment, because precision matters and I owe you the exact receipts, not just my word for it. Here is the mechanism, page and line, so nobody has to take this on faith. Page 1, lines 2–5: the amendment strikes and replaces ONLY paragraph (2) of Section 1414(b). Paragraph (1) — the existing "career retiree" rule already sitting in the U.S. Code — is never touched. Never struck. Never reprinted. It just... stays. Exactly as written. Forever, apparently. Current, UNTOUCHED (b)(1): a Chapter 61 retiree with 20+ years under Section 1405, OR at least 20 years under Section 12732, gets routed to the old partial-offset formula. NEW (2)(C), pages 2–3: a combat-related Chapter 61 retiree with LESS than 20 years under Section 1405, OR less than 20 years under Sections 12732/12733, gets the new and far better "lesser of" formula — full Chapter 61 pay or a 20-year-equivalent calculation, plus full VA comp. Read those two side by side. Same two yardsticks. Opposite tests. Both written with "OR." A reservist who holds a 20-year letter (20+ good years under 12732) but has under 20 active-equivalent years under 1405 — meaning nearly every Reserve and Guard Chapter 61 combat retiree alive — satisfies BOTH conditions at the exact same moment. He is a "career retiree" through one door and an "under-20 retiree" through the other. Page 4, lines 3–6, the only place "paragraph (1)" gets mentioned again, tells you what happens if you qualify for NEITHER. It says nothing — not one word — about what happens when you qualify for BOTH. Here is the part I actually want to say plainly: this is not a hostile bill. The (2)(C) language is precisely, exactly, word-for-word what combat-wounded Reserve and Guard retirees needed. Someone in that room understood the problem well enough to write the correct fix. They just stopped revising one paragraph too early. They opened the wound, found the bleeder, started the repair — and walked out before tying off the last vessel. What is next, a bill that finally ends the wounded veteran tax for tens of thousands of combat retirees... wait, I was just told it might still leave some of them bleeding out on a technicality nobody bothered to close. The fix remains one sentence: "Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a member who meets the criteria of paragraph (2) shall be paid under paragraph (2)." That is it. That is the whole ask. Drop it in before this clears conference and the defect disappears entirely.

QME
1
3
10
1.1K
Pass The Major Star Act
Pass The Major Star Act@majorStarActNow·
This debate has lost sight of who this bill is supposed to help. Some E7s, senior NCOs, and officers with 15 or more years of service are demanding 75% as if they completed a full 30-year career. I understand why they want it. Everyone wants the highest benefit possible. But the reality is that 75% was always the outlier. The original concept was based on years of service, and getting to a 50% retirement floor is already a major improvement for thousands of disabled retirees. What about the E4 who lost an arm in Iraq after only three, four, or five years of service? What about the young Marine, Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Guardian whose career ended because of combat wounds or service-connected disabilities? A 50% retirement benefit would be life-changing for them. Yet some people seem willing to torpedo the entire bill because they want more. Nobody is losing money. You cannot lose money you are not receiving today. What some people are really saying is that they want a larger benefit than what is currently being offered. That’s a fair position to advocate for, but it is not the same thing as losing money. What frustrates me is that many of the loudest voices seem focused on protecting the interests of the highest ranks while claiming to speak for everyone. The rank-and-file disabled veterans—the E4s, E5s, and E6s whose careers were cut short—matter too. They deserve consideration just as much as someone who was a few years away from a regular retirement. Take the win that is on the table. Help the veterans who need it now. Then keep fighting for improvements later. Rejecting a meaningful benefit today in pursuit of a perfect benefit tomorrow could leave thousands of disabled veterans waiting another decade for relief. If you’re fighting only for the highest ranks, then just say so. But don’t pretend you’re speaking for every disabled veteran when many of us would gladly take a fair deal today and continue the fight tomorrow.
English
1
0
0
13
Daniel Bledsoe
Daniel Bledsoe@DanielBledsoe76·
We need to continue our opposition, not to helping Brother and Sister veterans, but to legislation that is drafted in this manner. I have not seen legislation like this, minus one, that has caused as much anxiety and fear as this one proposed bill. Thank you Jerry @JerryMoran and Mike @RepBost . You two are creating so much chaos with this!
mike bski@BskiMike22802

@restore_GI_Bill @endwarriortax @DanielBledsoe76 @davidmedic81 @TeeeRoy1 @kniftarqr9y @majorStarActNow @54KVeterans @Chrisujwo3 @DavidWarrenVet @Jeremy_Profitt @rg81416 @SeabeeBonner @smith8024 @passmajstaract @SgtJoebishop Yep. Largest issue is paragraph 1 is still there.

English
2
1
7
289
Daniel Bledsoe
Daniel Bledsoe@DanielBledsoe76·
Unbelievable that you have the nerve to post this! What happened to all of the supposed money saved in the fraud, waste and abuse discovered by DOGE? The speech that Senator Blumenthal @SenBlumenthal gave identified the offsets that could be found in the One Big Beautiful Bill. What happened to those? Quit making excuses and toeing the line for Project 2025 and the Koch brothers! We know!
English
0
3
7
77
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs@HouseVetAffairs·
Members of Congress need to understand that they need to be responsible stewards to American taxpayers. If Members believe another offset is preferable for H.R. 9237 – they can offer one – we cannot pretend the cost does not exist.
English
20
0
6
1.4K
Daniel Bledsoe retweetledi
Caleb Hart
Caleb Hart@CalebHart87·
@HouseVetAffairs Oh… so you’re the House Committee on American Taxpayer Affairs now? Either change your name or do your job, everybody in congress is there at the behest of the taxpayer, your job on that committee is to look after the subset of taxpayers called veterans. Do that or f*€< off
English
0
1
5
24
Daniel Bledsoe retweetledi
KVL
KVL@KVL497·
@HouseVetAffairs Uh the billions you give to foreign countries to wage war. Duh. The billions found by DOGE, the billions taken from the taxpayers in fraud and grift. Let us know if you need more.
English
0
1
6
67
Daniel Bledsoe retweetledi
Joe bishop 🌪️🌩️
Joe bishop 🌪️🌩️@SgtJoebishop·
@HouseVetAffairs Served OEF 6/7 Afghanistan for 16 months. Lost over 90 soldiers of Task Force 76. Nearly died, retired early due to combat injuries and you guys are now treating us we're the problem.
English
0
8
26
615
Daniel Bledsoe retweetledi
Jeremy Richard ⚔️
Jeremy Richard ⚔️@JeremyRichard82·
You are the most tone/deaf jackasses in America right now. Pass the CLEAN #MajorRichardStarAct and do what you said you would do with your 336 companies. Don’t pretend that this is suddenly about money. Tell you what. I have offset idea. Why don’t we put all of you and every one in government in the VA system and use those savings to pay disabled veterans.
English
2
7
21
290
Daniel Bledsoe retweetledi
Phillip Rousu
Phillip Rousu@RousuPhillip·
Here is my cost: the picture shows what a PKM round can do from 10 yards away. Anyway, please remove the "lesser of" language found in section 101 of the "Take Care of Americas Vets Act".. you are reducing my benefits by 50% with that little phrase. While we are at it, add in our backpay to the bill as well, give it all back please. H.R. 9237 § 101 (amending 10 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(2)) “Disability Retirees with Less Than 20 Years of Service” ‘‘(C) DISABILITY RETIREES WITH LESS THAN 20 YEARS OF SERVICE. —In the case of a member retired under chapter 61 of this title with a combat-related disability and who, at the time of the member’s retirement, had less than 20 years of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of this title or less than 20 years of service computed under section 12732 of this title, the member may receive, without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38, the lesser of— ‘‘(i) both— ‘‘(I) the retired pay for which the member is eligible under chapter 61 of this title; and ‘‘(II) veterans’ disability compensation under title 38; or‘‘(ii) both— ‘‘(I) an amount equal to the product of the retired pay base computed under section 1406(b) or 1407 of this title and the retired pay multiplier determined under section 1409 of this title, as such base pay and multiplier would be computed if the member had 20 years of service creditable under section 1405 of this title; and ‘‘(II) veterans’ disability compensation under title 38. congress.gov/bill/119th-con…. #majorrichardstaract #tcoava #tcava
Phillip Rousu tweet media
English
0
5
13
143
William Huff
William Huff@whuffii·
We're calling on @RepRutherfordFL , @RepAaronBean , and @RepKatCammack to support the Take Care of America's Veterans Act — legislation that cuts VA red tape, expands health care access, and demands real accountability for those who served our country
Concerned Veterans for America@ConcernedVets

A bill that… ✂️ Cuts VA red tape ⚕️ Expands veterans’ health care options 🔍 Holds government agencies accountable The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act isn’t a quick fix, but a permanent solution. Voting for it should be a no-brainer.

English
6
3
7
586
Daniel Bledsoe retweetledi
ZCrush
ZCrush@kniftarqr9y·
Combat-injured veterans who were medically retired want what they have earned: full concurrent receipt of their military retirement pay and VA disability compensation without offset. Republicans control the House and have the power to deliver it immediately. Instead, they have blocked a clean vote on the Major Richard Star Act and inserted a watered-down version with a “lesser of” cap in H.R. 9237. The bill has overwhelming bipartisan cosponsorship and strong support across veteran organizations. Its discharge petition is only 5 signatures short of forcing a House floor vote. Yet nearly all the missing signatures are Republican, with only 2 Republican members having signed so far. This is not how you honor combat-wounded veterans who gave years of service and their health in defense of the nation. Veterans are watching who is willing to put their signatures and votes behind the rhetoric.
English
0
2
4
57

Keşfet

@BskiMike22802 @SenatorLankford @SenArmstrong @RepBice @TomColeOK04 @davidmedic81 @54KVeterans @Chrisujwo3