Tbird

On May 30, 1868, Maj. Gen. John A. Logan proclaimed Decoration Day to be a nationwide commemoration of the Civil War's fallen soldiers. Memorial Day History Three years after the conclusion of the Civil War, on May 5, 1868, Maj. Gen. John A. Logan declared that Decoration Day should be observed annually on May 30th as a way for all Americans to honor fallen soldiers by decorating their graves with flowers. It is speculated that this date was chosen because flowers would be flourishing throughout the nation at this time of year – providing a beautiful tribute to those who have heroically served our country. Decoration Day will go on to be called Memorial Day. On May 30, 1868, Maj. Gen. John A. Logan proclaimed that Decoration Day (Memorial Day) should be observed as a nationwide commemoration of fallen soldiers of the Civil War. The first major event was held at Arlington National Cemetery, just outside Washington, D.C., where family and friends adorned grave sites with flowers to honor the memory of their lost loved ones on this special day. To ensure that blooms were abundant throughout the country on that same day each year, Logan chose Decoration Day (Memorial Day) to take place annually on May 30th — a date which has since been maintained in recognition of those who gave their lives during our nation’s greatest struggle. The solemn proceedings held at the formerly-owned residence of General Robert E. Lee, Arlington mansion, were presided over by esteemed Washington officials, including Generals Ulysses S. Grant and his wife. After several speeches, some of the children from Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Orphan Home, accompanied by members of The Grand Army Of The Republic, marched through the cemetery to pay their respects with flower offerings and prayerful hymns dedicated to both Union and Confederate graves. In recognition of the heroic sacrifices made by our fallen heroes, in December 2000, the United States Congress and President passed ‘The National Moment of Remembrance Act’ (P.L. 106-579). The White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance was established to promote honoring this day as well as Memorial Day across the nation–as an opportunity for Americans to show their gratitude for the freedom and opportunity that these sacrifices provided us. Local Observances Claim To Be First Local springtime tributes to the Civil War dead already had been held in various places. One of the first occurred in Columbus, Miss., on April 25, 1866, when a group of women visited a cemetery to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers who had fallen in battle at Shiloh. Nearby were the graves of Union soldiers, neglected because they were the enemy. Disturbed at the sight of the bare graves, the women also placed some of their flowers on those graves. Approximately 25 places have been named in connection with the origin of Memorial Day, many of them in the South, where most of the war dead were buried. Today, cities in the North and the South claim to be the birthplace of Memorial Day in 1866. Both Macon and Columbus, Ga., claim the title, as well as Richmond, Va. The village of Boalsburg, Pa., claims it began there two years earlier. A stone in a Carbondale, Ill., cemetery says that the first Decoration Day ceremony took place there on April 29, 1866. Carbondale was the wartime home of Gen. Logan. Official Birthplace Declared In 1966, Congress and President Lyndon Johnson declared Waterloo, N.Y., the “birthplace” of Memorial Day. A ceremony on May 5, 1866, honored local veterans who had fought in the Civil War. Businesses closed, and residents flew flags at half-staff. Supporters of Waterloo’s claim say earlier observances in other places were informal, not community-wide or one-time events. By the end of the 19th century, Memorial Day ceremonies were held on May 30 throughout the nation. State legislatures passed proclamations designating the day, and the Army and Navy adopted regulations for proper observance at their facilities. However, it was not until after World War I that the day was expanded to honor those who have died in all American wars. In 1971, Memorial Day was declared a national holiday by an act of Congress, though it is still often called Decoration Day. It was then placed on the last Monday in May, as were some other federal holidays. Some States Have Confederate Observances Many Southern states also have their own days for honoring the Confederate dead. Mississippi celebrates Confederate Memorial Day on the last Monday of April, Alabama on the fourth Monday of April, and Georgia on April 26. North and South Carolina observed it on May 10, Louisiana on June 3, and Tennessee called that date Confederate Decoration Day. Texas celebrates Confederate Heroes Day on January 19, and Virginia calls the last Monday in May Confederate Memorial Day. Gen. Logan’s order for his posts to decorate graves in 1868 “with the choicest flowers of springtime” urged: “We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. … Let pleasant paths invite reverent visitors and fond mourners to come and go. Let no neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.” The crowd attending the first Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery was approximately the same size as those attending today’s observance, about 5,000 people. Then, small American flags were placed on each grave — a tradition followed at many national cemeteries today. In recent years, the custom has grown in many families to decorate the graves of all. Memorial Day Resources History of Memorial Day Memorial Day Order National Cemetery Administration National and State Veterans Cemeteries Arlington National Cemetery Displaying the Flag at Half-staff General Flag Display Guidelines Folding the Flag Poppy Flower Taps Related: Get it straight: The difference between Memorial Day and Veterans Day View full record

The battle of the Ia Drang Valley was a series of engagements between the 1st Cavalry Division and the B-3 Front, NVA. Many considered it to be the US Army's 1st battle in Vietnam. Battle of Ia Drang Valley by LTC Kenneth R Pierce from Military Review, Vol LXIX, 1-89 Military Review is published monthly by the US Army Command and General Staff College. For subscription info, contact MR, USACGSC, Ft Leavenworth, KS 60627 The battle of the Ia Drang Valley [IDV] was actually of series of engagements between the US 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) and the B-3 Front, North Vietnamese Army (NVA) from 10-18 to 11-24-65, Many considered it to be the US Army’s 1st battle in Vietnam. It was certainly the 1st battle between a US division operating under a field force headquarters and 3 NVA regiments operating under a front headquarters. It may also have been the last battle between NVA and US forces of equivalent size. The objective of this article is not to rehash all the details of the battle of the IDV but to conduct battle analysis using the historic methodology. The battle analysis methodology is a systemic approach to research that uses of format which includes: defining the subject; reviewing the setting; examining the tactical situation; and assessing the significance of the action. It is ultimately in the assessment phase that the analysis takes place, and the analysis is expected to answer specific questions. In this particular analysis the questions center on the tenets of Air land Battle doctrine as defined in the 1986 edition of US Army Field Manual (FM) 100-5, “Operations”. Based on the tenets of Air Land Battle, I will teach some conclusions about the battle of the IDV and provide some lessons learned. Having defined the subject, the Battle of the IDV, the analysis must next examine the battlefield itself and also develop some description or comparison of opposing forces. Starting with the battlefield, the IDV is the valley through which the river (Ia) Drang flows and is drained by the Ia Drang, Ia Puck, and an extensive network of small streams flowing west and southwest across the Cambodian border into the Mekong River. The battlefield area covered 1,500 square miles of what appeared to be flat rolling terrain dominated by the Chu Pong Massif, a rugged mountain 730 meters above sea level, in the southwestern corner of the area of ops (TO), straddling the Cambodian-Vietnamese border. The only passable roads traversed the eastern and northern fringes of the TO. Much of the valley was covered with thick jungle vegetation and trees as high as 100 feet. Even the “open” areas had shrubs and trees over 6 feet high. The sudden mists offered of sinister aura, where daily heat and nighttime cold kept you perpetually and increasingly on edge. The area was eerie – imagine the “Valley of Death,” and you picture the Ia Drang. In this area, particularly at the base of the Chu Pong Massif, the NVA had built a base camp sanctuary that was unknown to US forces and untouched by Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN ) forces. The primary NVA forces operating in this area were the B-3 Front commanded by General Chu Huy Man, with 3 regular regiments (the 32d, 33d, and 66th) supported by local VC battalions as well as front-level mortar and anti-aircraft units. Each maneuver regiment numbered about 2,200 frontline infantrymen and sappers. Their primary weapon was the Soviet AK47 assault rifle. The 32d and 33d regiments were vet fighters against the ARVN and Man was of vet of the 1st Indochinese War against the French. These units had been in the valley since early September, rehearsing, developing ambush sites, and pre-positioning and stockpiling ammunition, medical supplies and food. Their tactics were quite simple, Their 1st ploy was to “lute and ambush.” They would attack of small outpost or ARVN force and maintain pressure on it with one unit, while another unit waited in well-prepared positions to ambush the relieving force. Their other tactic was called “hugging”; that was to get as close to the opposing force as possible and rely on close-in, almost hand-to-hand fighting to negate their opposing force’s firepower advantage. They generally liked to fight at night and rehearsed at night before conducting ops. They always planned and rehearsed an organized withdrawal and would counterattack or leave stay-behind forces to permit an orderly withdrawal. The troops were highly disciplined, with excellent morale and esprit de corps, well fed, well supplied, and in excellent physical condition. Although Man expected to fight tanks with his light infantry, his forces had not fought Americans. The Americans they would soon meet were in the US 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), commanded by Major General Harry Kinnard. The 1st Cavalry Division had been training for 2 years as the 11th Air Assault Division at Fort Benning under Kinnard’s direction. This new Army division was well trained and equipped upon activation as the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) on 7-1-65. it arrived in Vietnam in increments during August and September 1965. The division had 3 brigade headquarters, 8 infantry battalions, an air cavalry squadron, an aerial rocket artillery battery, 3 direct support artillery battalions, an aviation company, and the normal combat support and combat service support associated with the Reorganization Objective Army division. The division authorized 10,000 troops, 435 helicopters, basic infantry weapons (M-16 rifle, M60 machine gun, and M79 grenade launcher), and state-of-the-art communications equipment. This was clearly the US Army’s “high tech” division of the 60s. The 1st Cavalry had some problems when ordered to deploy; it had 2,700 men not eligible for deployment, The division lost hundreds of pilots, crew chiefs, and mechanics who could not easily be replaced in 1965. Additionally, the troops were issued the M-16 rifle only 10 days prior to departure and had a hurried familiarization with this new weapon. After arriving in the country, the division was struck with of peculiar strain of malaria for which there was no known treatment at the time, costing 1,000 additional losses. And although well-trained in airmobile tactics, the division had not trained for jungle-type warfare. However, by 9-28-65, the division was in its base camp at An Khe, less than 90 days after activation. The initial mission of B-3 Front at the operational level was to cut South Vietnam in half. Operationally, it would defeat South Vietnamese and US forces that were in the way. The 1st please of the plan was to put pressure on of Special Forces camp with 1 regiment; then to defeat the anticipated relief forces in detail, expecting them to be employed piecemeal. This 1st phase failed miserably when an ARVN relief column was employed in force with tanks and armored personnel carriers, fully supported by US air and artillery, the “luring” force (33d Regiment) was seriously reduced by tenacious fighting on the part of the dependents coupled with American close air support. The “ambushing” force (32d Regiment) was also defeated by the strong relief column. Man was forced to withdraw and to determine how to reap some success (at least psychologically) from this initial failure. Since there were insufficient ARVN forces to exploit their success, General William Westmoreland made the extremely risky decision to employ the 1st Cavalry Division on of classic exploitation and pursuit mission against what appeared to be 2 battered NVA regiments withdrawing to Cambodia. The 1st Cavalry’s mission was to search and destroy – find the 32d and 33d regiments and kill or capture as many as possible before they reached any sanctuary. The stage was set for the US Army’s first battle of the Vietnam War. It is also here that we can begin the analysis. Man withdrew to his well-developed sanctuary in the Chu Pong Massif. Here he regrouped, reorganized, re-equipped, and rested his troops, while he waited for the arrival of the fresh 66th Regiment and additional artillery and anti-aircraft units, Later assessment indicated that his new mission was relatively simple. 1st he was to destroy the much more lucrative Plei Me camp – now reinforced with more than 1,000 ARVN troops and many US advisers. Then he could return to North Vietnam a victor, with a better feel for how the Americans would support his war. In this planning phase, Man’s thought process can be examined in relation to the tenets of Air land Battle. initiate. “Setting or changing the terms of battle by action.” Certainly, Man still had an offensive spirit – he would attack. He was setting the terms of the battle and was not going to allow the defenders of Plei Me the opportunity to recover. He knew he was taking great risks to learn more about how Americans would fight in future ops. He was also considering the political and psychological implications requiring some type of victory – no matter how limited. He knew that he was capable of exploiting any breakthrough at the camp and was confident that his subordinate regimental commanders clearly understood his intent. Agility. “The ability to act faster than the enemy.” It took the ARVN 4 days to relieve Plei Me in the earlier engagement. Man felt he could strike and withdraw much faster than any sizable relief force could be mounted. He was now concentrating 3 regiments against a very vulnerable and isolated camp. By training and disposition, his forces were extremely agile, and he felt he could “read” the battlefield and exploit success quickly. Depth. “Extension of ops in space, time, and resources.” Clearly, Man had prepared his battleground. He knew how to maneuver to Plei Me and his withdrawal routes were well established. He had effectively cached his resources and he had more arriving with the 66th Regiment. His forces and resources were concentrated to sustain the momentum he needed to wipe out Plei Me. He would provide for air protection with additional anti-aircraft units and by his “hugging” tactical. He viewed his rear area in the Chu Pong Massif as well concealed and well protected. Additionally, well-established sanctuaries were available in Cambodia and his lines of communication were generally safe. Synchronization. “The arrangement of battlefield activities in time, space, and purpose to produce maximum relative combat power at the decisive point.” NVA tactical doctrine in the attack of fortified position lent itself ideally to synchronization. [Man’s] felt that he could determine the time of the attack. He would begin with probing tactics, then increase the pressure until he found of a weak link in the defense. He would then pour through that weak point, overrun the camp, and kill or capture everyone in it. He was prepared to combat air power with the arrival of additional front-level assets under his operational control. His intent was absolutely clear to his subordinate commanders, and his units had carefully rehearsed such operations. Clearly, there was unambiguous unity of purpose throughout his force. Unfortunately, Man made 1 critical error – he did not know the capabilities or intention of his enemy. In fact, he did not know that his opponent would be Kinnard, who had an entirely different mission than defense. After searching due west of the Plei Me camp and not finding the elusive NVA forces, Kinnard decided to shift his ops to the southwest – right into the Chu Pong Massif. He had replaced his 3d Brigade with the 1st Brigade and was hoping to find the battered remnants of the 2 NVA regiments, licking their wounds and withdrawing into Cambodia. In this initial phase, we can examine Kinnard’s thought process in relation to the tenets of Air Land Battle. Initiate. Clearly, Kinnard intended to set the terms of the battle, He was on the offensive and felt he could destroy the enemy with his superb division. If he could find the enemy forces, he had the mobility and firepower to fix and destroy them, He was taking great risk and knew that the unit which made initial contact would be seriously outnumbered, but felt he could reinforce with fire almost immediately and then pile on troops before the enemy could react. Agility. The helicopter gave Kinnard the ability to act faster than the enemy. He could shift forces and combat power at almost mind-boggling speed. He could put both field artillery and aerial rocket artillery with great accuracy anywhere on almost of moment’s notice. He could reinforce troops faster than anyone ever experienced in the history of modern warfare. He had the communication capability and the troops trained in calls for fire. He could quickly concentrate on this weak and battered enemy and exploit his vulnerabilities. Cavalry tactics were such that they considered “friction’! the accumulation of chance errors, unexpected difficulties, and the confusion of battle. Kinnard, by nature, disposition, and training, knew that he had to continuously “read the battlefield,” decide quickly and act without hesitation. Depth. Here again, the helicopter and the cavalry’s training in its use naturally extended ops in space, time, and resources. The helicopter gave him an extended range of vision for reconnaissance, allowed him to provide accurate aerial rocket artillery, adjust fire from the air, reposition his field artillery, re-supply his troops, and reinforce with maneuver forces almost anywhere on the battlefield. His plan called for fixing the enemy and forcing commitment, as well as interdicting uncommitted forces, en route to Cambodia. His rear areas were relatively safe, but he still provided an infantry battalion to secure his artillery and his forward command post. He had airstrips built so that he could be re-supplied from Saigon by the Air Force to his base at An Khe, and he also maintained sufficient helicopter lift assigned to move those supplies to the frontline troops. He was mentally prepared for bold and decisive action, and he had personally trained his handpicked brigade and battalion commanders with these same qualities. Synchronization. 2 years of training together with all the modern technology had taught the cavalry how to arrange activities in time, space and purpose. Kinnard had the forces and combat power to produce maximum results at the decisive point. Synchronization for the cavalry did not depend on explicit coordination. Their training and communications capability were such that synchronization could take place during heavy conflict. Additionally, the commander’s intent was clear – find the NVA regiments and destroy them. Clearly, the concept itself of searching with a battalion – piling on of brigade and supporting at the decisive time and place with the entire division, field force, and Army fire support was an economy-of-force type operation. It can be argued that in planning, each opposing commander was well within the umbrella of the tenets of Air land Battle. There was no apparent violation or misuse of initiative, agility, depth, and synchronization. However, as the battle develops, some things become very evident. Man did not expect to fight the battle in his own sanctuary – nor did he expect to fight an American division. Additionally, he knew nothing of how the of Americans would fight. On Kinnard’s part, he expected to be facing two beaten-up NVA regiments conducting a withdrawal. He did not expect to face more than 4,200 frontline troops, supported by mortars and anti-aircraft batteries, well supplied and not withdrawing but moving to attack. It is at this stage that the “fog of war” reigns supreme. Here the commander with the best agility gains the initiative. It is the commander who can fight his fight – that is, setting the terms of battle and not allowing the enemy to recover – who will be the winner. Both Man and Kinnard exercised great mental agility as they attempted to gain the initiative. As the battle unfolded, the unexpected took over. 1st, 1 battalion-size unit of the division, 1st Squadron, 7th Cavalry (17) airlifted in landing zone (LZ) X-Ray and made almost immediate contact with advance elements of the NVA force moving on Plei Me. Lt Col Harold G. Moore (the squadron commander) at 1st thought this was of stay-behind force of about 1 battalion, covering the enemy withdrawal. Man immediately saw an opportunity to gain an immense victory by quickly annihilating an American unit that he significantly outnumbered, with the additional possibility of defeating in detail any relieving forces that would have to arrive piecemeal. In this he exercised great agility and took the initiative by accepting risk, the risk due to the fact that his entire force, especially his front-level mortar and anti-aircraft units, were not in of position to support the attack on X-Ray. The brigade commander, Col Thomas Brown, and Kinnard quickly sensed that this was much more than a battered stay-behind force and recognized that the enemy’s intent was not to delay but to annihilate the 1-7th Cavalry. All available firepower was quickly reoriented to X-Ray and available forces began moving air and ground assets to support that fight. The ability of this small force to hold, and the tremendous and immediate firepower brought to beat was of a shock to Man. The agility of Kinnard’s thought process and the agility of the cavalry organization itself quickly gave him the initiative. He reinforced 1-7 Cavalry with 2-7 Cavalry and elements of 1-5 Cavalry. The enemy had seen enough and began relocating. Kinnard ordered 2-7 Cavalry to pursue. The pursuing unit fought another battle that took place at LZ Albany as Man was attempting to cover his withdrawal. The fight at LZ Albany was bloody, as the United States suffered 151 dead and 121 wounded, while the enemy lost about 450 killed. Kinnard then ordered the 2d Brigade to relieve the 3d Brigade and to continue to pursue. Over the next few days, the 3d Brigade mopped up of few battered remnants of the 32d, 33d, and 66th regiments as they were withdrawing into Cambodia Although Kinnard wished to continue the pursuit, he was ordered to hold. By 11-24 -65, the battles of the Ia Drang were over. The 1st Cavalry killed as many as 3,000 NVA regulars, with an unknown number of wounded, and, in fact, decimated the NVA force. Clearly, Kinnard used the agility of the cavalry and his own ability to synchronize both combat power and logistic support (550 tons of supply of day and 50,000 gallons of aviation fuel) to seize and maintain the initiative on the battlefield. Additionally, he never had to commit more than 1 brigade at a time, thus exercising wisely the economy of his force. The agility of his forces and his ability to synchronize combat power allowed his units to fight outnumbered at least 7-to-1 overall and much greater at both X-Ray and Albany and win. Green, untested American soldiers fought outnumbered against what Bernard Fall called “the best light infantry in the world,” and won. The mental agility of Kinnard, the ability to synchronize combat power, and the agility in the organization of the cavalry gave him the initiative and allowed him to fight his battle on his terms and win. He searched and he destroyed – and that was his mission. The training, discipline, and leadership of both the 1st Cavalry Division under Kinnard and the NVA forces under Man had been outstanding. But in the final analysis, organization and air mobility gave Kinnard the agility necessary to wrest the initiative from Man. And it was the initiative that ultimately made the difference. What then do we learn from this 1st battle in Vietnam 1st and foremost, of commander must be capable of gaining and maintaining the initiative, for without it he cannot win. To gain the initiative, the commander must have both the mental and organizational agility to gain an advantage in relative combat power in depth, (time, space and resources), at the decisive point. In the battle of the Ia Drang, it was the great agility provided by the 1st Cavalry’s organization that gave them the edge Kinnard needed. It is also evident from of study of this battle that the tenets of Air land Battle doctrine are clearly interdependent, with gaining and maintaining the initiative clearly the most important tenet. An edge or advantage in 1 or all of the other tenets may give you that initiative as did the 1st Cavalry’s agility and ability to synchronize its actions. Man had the ability to synchronize his combat power and he had great depth in time, space and resources. He was willing to take risks and had great mental agility. The physical agility advantage, however, went to the cavalry and that was enough to gain the initiative. We also learned that technology can provide just the edge in agility that is needed. However, technology is not enough. Commanders at every level must be confident and trained to know how and when to apply that technology. If Kinnard had not been absolutely confident in his ability to rapidly reinforce with both firepower and troops, his actions would have been closer to stupidity than acceptable risk. Such was the case with Man, who was ignorant of the capabilities of the American forces. His willingness to take risks without knowing those capabilities was, in fact, foolish and cost him 3 1st-rate regiments. Thus, 1 suggests that while initiative, agility, depth, and synchronization characterize successful ops, there are other key operations requirements. FM 100-5 calls them “Air Land Battle Imperatives.” The imperative that seriously affected Man is stated as “Concentrate combat power against enemy vulnerabilities.” FM 100-5 further explains, “To know what his vulnerabilities are, the commanders must study the enemy, know and take into account his strengths, find his inherent vulnerabilities, and know how to create vulnerabilities which can be exploited to decisive effect.” This was Man’s great failure and can be considered the cause of his defeat. This article illustrates the analysis of a battle within the framework of the tenets of Air land Battle. Of series of facts such as the composition of the opposing force, geography, and environment, missions of each force, dates, and times, were examined using the FM 101-5 definitions of the tenets of Air Land Battle. This method then allowed for some conclusions to be drawn. Ultimately, the question of why the US forces won and NVA forces lost was answered to of certain degree. Such analyses, done in even greater depth, offer the potential to answer many more questions. The point here is that the professional soldier can conduct a continuous study of current doctrine by reading and analyzing battles of the past, thus continuously reinforcing the understanding of current doctrine. My conclusions from the study of this battle find that initiative is the critical tenet of Air Land Battle, and that agility, depth and synchronization are the means of gaining the initiative. It is my opinion that the study of other battles, using the analysis method, will also point to initiative as the most vital tenet of Air land Battle. View full record

After 26 years, I gave HadIt.com to a non-profit. HadIt.com is not going anywhere. As of February 2023, I gifted the site to a non-profit that will take over its continued operation. The new owner is Tommy R. Smith, and his member's name is Rattler. Brothers and Sisters – The time has come for me to transition from HadIt.com. Creating and running the site for over 26 years has been my life’s work and passion. I treasure my interactions with each of you and take great joy in knowing how many veterans HadIt.com has helped. HadIt.com is not going anywhere. As of February 2023, I have gifted HadIt.com to a non-profit that will take over the continued running of the site in the future. The nonprofit was created for this purpose. Our member Rattler will lead as I withdraw from the day-to-day operations. Any decisions, membership issues, additions, refinements, etc., should be directed to him. I will post on the forum items I come across that would be informative to the membership and continue to post to Diary of A Mad Sailor, where I am writing my memoirs. Here is a bit of history on how we got here: What Happened In 2022, someone started attacking HadIt.com’s ranking in the search engines and me personally. Why Did This Happen Who can read the minds of miscreants and psychologically damaged people? Not me. I have come across a fair number of psychologically damaged people in my life. It appears that the attack on the site was caused by one of those types. Remember that these psychologically impaired individuals tend to project their shortcomings on the object of their ire. That being said, I have proven my forthrightness and stability by creating and maintaining hadit.com for over 25 years, not to brag about my good deeds, never sitting behind a paywall, etc., just been there for you doing it day in and day out. Building a website with nothing but an idea, a PTSD diagnosis, and a dream was not an easy task. In 1997, no sites were doing what I saw as a need in the veterans’ community. It was never a smooth ride, but it was always interesting. I learned a lot about VA Claims and shared that information with you. I created a community where you could share information and support one another. HadIt.com has done that for over 27 years. The site has always differed from many others in assisting veterans in the VA claims process. There are many competitors now, and they all do their own thing. Everyone does things differently, and wherever you can get help is excellent. Some sites are author-centric. At HadIt.com, you were the hero. It was never about me. The average veteran was making a difference in another veteran’s life. That is the story of HadIt.com Veteran to Veteran. This last year saw an unprecedented attack on the site. This attack is designed to drive a site out of business. Generally speaking, it is challenging to discover who initiated the attack, though we may have had some luck through a fluke. Personal note. The person who did this knows I am a disabled veteran with severe PTSD and Major Depression. The site was my life’s work, and for whatever reason, they did this without concern for my well-being or the thousands of veterans the site helps. So let that sink in. To the person who did this – That which doesn’t kill me only makes me stronger. HadIt.com continues… View full record

Always visit www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ or www.VA.gov for updated information. View full record

I read an interesting article from the Orlando Sentinel: “Caregivers want answers to mystery link between ALS, military service.” Caregivers want answers to mystery link between ALS, military service ｜ Orlando Sentinel Well, they don’t know. What they do know is: Per the ALS Association: Existing evidence supports the conclusion that people who’ve served in the military are at a greater risk of being diagnosed with ALS and dying from the disease than those with no history of military service. As outlined in this paper, study after study continues to demonstrate this to be true: If you serve in the military, regardless of the branch of service, regardless of whether you served in the Persian Gulf War, Vietnam, Korea or World War II, and regardless of whether you served during a time of peace or a time of war, you’re at a greater risk of dying from ALS than if you hadn’t served in the military. We’re asking these questions today: Why is there a greater risk of ALS with military service? What are we, as a nation, going to do about it? ALS in the Military | The ALS Association ALS in the Military Full Report ALS in the Military Summary Research conducted in the US and Denmark reveals that vets are 1.3 to 2 times more likely than non-vets to succumb to this condition, regardless of whether or not they saw active duty during wartime. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs began covering 100% of ALS treatments for veterans who served a minimum of 90 days in recognition of the illness as a service-connected injury. ALS in the Military Summary Source: ALS Association View full record

We want to ensure that Veterans, especially those who have served in wartime, are aware that certain individuals and businesses may try to take advantage of them. These entities are not typically recognized or approved by the VA, and some may misuse their VA certification. Remember to stay vigilant! Avoid Scams - Get help from a VA accredited representative Get competent representation. If you’re in need of guidance when filing a claim or appeal, it’s best to enlist the help of an accredited representative. Certified and trained in VA claims and appeals processes, these professionals have the expertise required to assist with your needs. Veterans Service Officers (VSOs) are available to represent veterans, service members, dependents and survivors. Gain insight into how an accredited representative can provide assistance by learning more about their services Requirements to be an accredited representative or a VSO? Accredited representatives and VSOs need to meet these requirements: Pass an exam Pass a background check Take continuing education courses to make sure they’re providing the most up-to-date information Recognized organizations and individuals can legally represent a Veteran, service member, dependent, or survivor before VA. Non-recognized organizations and individuals can provide information, but can’t be representatives. Note: Veterans Service Officers work for Veterans Service Organizations (both are called VSOs), as well as for local government offices. VSO - What they do Accredited representatives and VSOs need to meet these requirements: Pass an exam Pass a background check Take continuing education courses to make sure they’re providing the most up-to-date information Recognized organizations and individuals can legally represent a Veteran, service member, dependent, or survivor before VA. Non-recognized organizations and individuals can provide information, but can’t be representatives. Note: Veterans Service Officers work for Veterans Service Organizations (both are called VSOs), as well as for local government offices. What does an accredited representative or a VSO do? Accredited representatives and VSOs can help you understand and apply for VA benefits, like these: Financial support (monthly payments) Education Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) Home loans Life insurance Pension Health care Burial benefits These trained professionals can also help in these ways: Help you gather supporting documents (like a doctor’s report or medical test results) File a claim or appeal on your behalf Provide added support, like helping with transportation to medical appointments or emergency funds Note: If your claim has a clear factual or legal error, your accredited representative or VSO can request a faster Higher-Level Review decision through a new pilot program called Claim Accuracy Request (CAR). Learn more about a Claim Accuracy Request (PDF) What does it cost to use an accredited representative or a VSO? In general, no individual or organization may charge you a fee to help you file your initial application for benefits. But they may charge you for unusual expenses. It’s only after we’ve made a decision about your original claim that VA-accredited claims agents and attorneys may charge for their services. Make sure you ask up front what, if any, fees you’ll be charged. If you believe a claims agent or attorney charged a fee that’s too high, you can challenge it. Find out more in the “How to Challenge a Fee” guide (PDF) How do I find an accredited representative or a VSO? You can find an accredited representative or a VSO in 1 of 2 ways: Go to eBenefits to find a local representative (including a recognized VSO, an attorney, or a claims agent) by state/territory, zip code, or the organization’s name. Go to eBenefits Or search the VA Office of the General Counsel’s list to find VA-recognized organizations and VA-accredited individuals by name, city, state, or zip code. Search the VA Office of the General Counsel’s list How do I set up an accredited representative or a VSO to work on my behalf? You’ll need to either use eBenefits or fill out a form and mail it in. Choose 1 of these ways to get set up: Use eBenefits to let us know you’ll be working with a representative or to change your current representation. Go to eBenefits To have a VSO help you, fill out an Appointment of Veterans Service Organization as Claimant’s Representative (VA Form 21-22). Get VA Form 21-22 to download To have a claims agent or attorney help you, fill out an Appointment of Individual as Claimant’s Representative (VA Form 21-22a). Get VA Form 21-22a to download If you’re filling out one of the forms, you’ll need to mail it to your nearest VA regional office. Please speak to the service organization or representative before you send your request. Source VA.gov View full record

Government Websites Department of Veteran Affairs Board of Veterans’ Appeals VA Office of Inspector General U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs State VA Offices Board of Veterans’ Appeals Decision Search VA Fact Sheets VA Forms Veterans Service Organizations The American Legion Vietnam Veterans of America Veterans of Foreign Wars National Organization of Veterans Advocates VA Directory of Veterans Service Organizations (VSO) AMVETS To Check on The Status of Your VA Claim: eBenefits 1-800-827-1000 Health Information VA Health Benefits VA Agent Orange Health VA National Center for PTSDVeterans Health AdministrationVA Gulf War IllnessVA Burn Pit / ToxinsVA Women Veterans Healthcare VA Center for Minority Veterans VA Veterans Crisis Line (Suicide Prevention) Toll-Free 1-800-273-8255, then press 1 VA Community Provider Toolkit (Suicide Prevention) Veterans Resources PEB Forum List Of Blue Water Navy Ships Exposed To Agent Orange (Interactive Vietnam Map) Military Base Toxic Exposure Accessing Military Records or VA Decisions: Military Personnel Records VA Records Management Center VA Homeless Veterans Assistance: www.VA.gov/homeless 1-800-424-3838 View full record

VA's COLA is always the same as SSA's COLA. The maximum amount of earnings subject to Social Security tax (taxable maximum) will increase to $168,600. The earnings limit for workers who are younger than the “full” retirement age will increase to $22,320. (We deduct $1 from benefits for each $2 earned over $22,320.) The earnings limit for people reaching their “full” retirement age in 2024 will increase to $59,520. (We deduct $1 from benefits for each $3 earned over $59,520 until the month the worker turns “full” retirement age.) There is no limit on earnings for workers who are “full” retirement age or older for the entire year. Medicare Information Information about Medicare changes will be available at www.medicare.gov. For Social Security beneficiaries receiving Medicare, their New Year benefit amount will be available in December through the mailed COLA notice and my Social Security’s Message Center. Your COLA Notice In December, Social Security COLA notices will be available online to most beneficiaries in the Message Center of their My Social Security account. This is a secure, convenient way to receive COLA notices online and save the message for later. You can also opt out of receiving notices by mail that are available online. Be sure to choose your preferred way to receive courtesy notifications so you won’t miss your secure, convenient online COLA notice. Remember, SSA services are free of charge. No government agency or reputable company will solicit your personal information or request advanced fees for services through wire transfers or gift cards. Avoid falling victim to fraudulent calls and internet “phishing” schemes by not revealing personal information, selecting malicious links, or opening malicious attachments. You can learn more about how SSA protects your personal information and my Social Security account. What Is The Cost of Living Allowance (COLA)? Social Security benefits, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and VA Disability Compensation payments are adjusted to reflect any increase in the Cost of Living as measured by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) prepares this index. The cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) aims to ensure that inflation does not erode the purchasing power of Social Security benefits, SSI payments, and VA Disability Compensation. The COLA is determined on a yearly basis. The average CPI-W for the third calendar quarter of the most recent year a COLA was determined and compared to the average CPI-W for the third calendar quarter of the current year. Any resulting percentage increase matches the percentage by which Social Security and VA benefits beginning in December of the current year will be increased. SSI payments increased by the same percentage the following month (January). If the increase in the CPI-W is at least 0.1 percent, there will be a COLA. However, if the CPI-W increases by less than 0.05 percent or decreases, there won’t be a COLA. Cost of Living (COLA) Allowance History Congress enacted the COLA provision as part of the 1972 Social Security Amendments. Before that, increases in your benefits had to be enacted by Congress. At that time, inflation was relatively high. As such, the provision enacted in 1972 provided an automatic COLA only if the increase in the CPI-W was at least 3%. This is called the “three-percent trigger.” By the mid-1980s, as inflation began to decline, the possibility arose that no annual COLA would be authorized. The CPI-W didn’t rise enough to meet the three-percent trigger. In 1986, Congress enacted legislation to eliminate the “three-percent trigger.” Other Automatic Increases SSA's program has other automatic increases based on increases in the national average wage index and is triggered only if there is a COLA for Social Security benefits. These increases are: The contribution and benefit base — the cap on wages and self-employment income subject to Social Security payroll tax. Retirement earnings test exempt amounts are caps on the amount of earnings that a beneficiary can earn before a reduction in benefits applies. Effect on Medicare Part B Premium Unlike the Social Security COLA, the CPI-W plays no part in the computation of the Medicare Part B premium. The Medicare Part B premium changes each year, if necessary, so that the Part B premium is sufficient to fund approximately 25% of the projected cost of the Part B program. Any such premium change is effective in January. Information about Medicare changes is available at Medicare.gov. Historical Cost of Living Allowances 2024 COLA 2023 COLA 2022 COLA 2021 COLA 2020 COLA 2019 COLA The 1975-82 COLAs were effective with Social Security benefits payable for June (received by beneficiaries in July) each year. After 1982, COLAs have been effective, with benefits payable for December (received by beneficiaries in January). Automatic Cost-Of-Living Adjustments received since 1975 July 1975 — 8.0% July 1976 — 6.4% July 1977 — 5.9% July 1978 — 6.5% July 1979 — 9.9% July 1980 — 14.3% July 1981 — 11.2% July 1982 — 7.4% January 1984 — 3.5% January 1985 — 3.5% January 1986 — 3.1% January 1987 — 1.3% January 1988 — 4.2% January 1989 — 4.0% January 1990 — 4.7% January 1991 — 5.4% January 1992 — 3.7% January 1993 — 3.0% January 1994 — 2.6% January 1995 — 2.8% January 1996 — 2.6% January 1997 — 2.9% January 1998 — 2.1% January 1999 — 1.3% January 2000 — 2.5% [1] January 2001 — 3.5% January 2002 — 2.6% January 2003 — 1.4% January 2004 — 2.1% January 2005 — 2.7% January 2006 — 4.1% January 2007 — 3.3% January 2008 — 2.3% January 2009 — 5.8% January 2010 — 0.0% January 2011 — 0.0% January 2012 — 3.6% January 2013 — 1.7% January 2014 — 1.5% January 2015 — 1.7% January 2016 — 0.0% January 2017 — 0.3% January 2018 — 2.0% January 2019 — 2.8% January 2020 — 1.6% January 2021 — 1.3% January 2022 — 5.9% January 2023 — 8.7% January 2024 — 3.2% (1) The COLA for December 1999 was initially determined as 2.4 percent based on CPIs published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Public Law 106-554 states that this COLA is now 2.5 percent. View full record

Medical Malpractice Claims by Members of the Uniformed Services View PDF Here 2023-23013.pdf 72412 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 45 [Docket ID: DOD–2023–OS–0065] RIN 0790–AL70 AGENCY: Department of Defense Office of General Counsel, DoD. ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of Defense (DoD) proposes to amend the regulations governing medical malpractice claims by members of the uniformed services to adjust and update certain portions of the regulation related to calculation of damages. Currently, total potential damages are reduced by offsetting most of the compensation otherwise provided or expected to be provided by DoD or the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the same harm that is the subject of the medical malpractice claim. The amendments would apply offsets to economic damages only. The amendments would also clarify when future lost wages may be awarded. DATES: Comments will be accepted on or before December 19, 2023. The changes in the proposed rule would apply to claims received by DoD on or after the date the final rule is published in the Federal Register and to claims pending before DoD on that date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or regulatory identifier number (RIN) and title, by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency, Regulatory Directorate, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Attn: Mailbox 24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350– 1700. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http:// www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa D. Walters, (703) 681–6027. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 2733a of title 10, United States Code, allows members of the uniformed services or their authorized representatives to file claims, and the Secretary of Defense to pay such claims, for personal injury or death caused by a DoD health care provider in a covered military medical treatment facility, as defined in that section. DoD published an interim final rule to establish uniform standards and procedures for adjudicating these claims on June 17, 2021 (86 FR 32194) and a final rule on August 26, 2022 (87 FR 52446). Explanation of Changes With This Rule The proposed amendments to 32 CFR 45.11 would apply offsets for payments made by the U.S. Government to economic damages only. Under the current version of 32 CFR 45.11, total potential damages are reduced by offsetting most of the compensation otherwise provided or expected to be provided by DoD or VA for the same harm that is the subject of the medical malpractice claim. The amendments would also clarify that future lost wages may be awarded: (1) until the time DoD determines that the claimant is, or is expected to be, medically rehabilitated and able to resume employment; (2) in cases of permanent incapacitation, until expiration of the claimant’s work-life expectancy; or (3) in cases of death, until the expiration of the claimant’s work-life expectancy, after deducting for the claimant’s personal consumption. Section-by-Section Discussion The following is a section-by-section overview of the amendments in this rulemaking. Section 45.1—Purpose of this part. Proposed § 45.1(b) eliminates a reference to the total value of compensation the claimant is expected to receive under a comprehensive system of compensation for death or disability being subject to offset. Instead, it generally refers to § 45.11, which relates to offsets. Section 45.9—Calculation of damages: economic damages. Proposed § 45.9(b)(4) changes ‘‘loss of earning capacity’’ to ‘‘future lost earnings’’ to parallel ‘‘past lost earnings’’ in § 45.9(b)(3). Proposed § 45.9(b)(4) includes a change to account for future lost earnings until the time DoD determines that the claimant is, or is expected to be, medically rehabilitated and able to resume employment or, in cases of permanent incapacitation, until expiration of the claimant’s work-life expectancy. Future lost earnings must be substantiated by appropriate documentation and claimants have an obligation to mitigate damages. Proposed § 45.9(d) is added to indicate that an injury or condition does not result in lost earnings for purposes of this regulation if the lost earnings are the result of disability discrimination. Lost earnings stemming from disability discrimination may be settled and paid under other provisions of law and therefore are not compensable under this regulation. For example, if a claimant suffers severe facial disfigurement as a result of medical malpractice but because a potential employer discriminates against that claimant for fear of negative reactions to the disfigurement, the claimant’s redress for the inability to obtain employment would be under provisions of law relating to employment discrimination and not under 10 U.S.C. 2733a. Section 45.10—Calculation of damages: non-economic damages. Proposed § 45.10(a) includes language currently in § 45.10(b) regarding proof of a claimant’s non-economic damages that DoD may require. This amendment keeps information relating to the proof of non-economic damages together for clarity. Proposed § 45.10(b) consolidates the description of the elements of non- economic damages into one paragraph. This eliminates confusion that might arise from separating conscious pain and suffering from disfigurement, as a single amount is awarded for all non- economic damages. Section 45.10(c) removes the amount of the cap on non-economic damages from the regulatory text. This change eliminates the need for publication of conforming administrative amendments to the regulation each time updates to the cap amount are published via Federal Register notice. Section 45.11—Calculation of damages: offsets for DoD and VA Government compensation. In the current version of the regulation, total potential damages calculated under this part, both economic and non-economic, are reduced by offsetting most of the compensation otherwise provided, or expected to be provided, by DoD or VA for the same harm that is the subject of the medical malpractice claim. Under the proposed amendments, offsets are applied to economic damages only. Proposed § 45.11(a) states that total potential economic damages calculated under this part are reduced by offsetting most of the compensation otherwise provided, or expected to be provided, by DoD or VA for the same harm that is the subject of the medical malpractice claim. This is a change from the current rule, which makes all offsets from the total potential economic and non- economic damages. Compensation received from DoD or VA that does not relate to the malpractice is still excluded from the offset. Under § 45.4(c), claimants have the burden of substantiating their claim by a preponderance of the evidence and, under §§ 45.9(a) and 45.10(a), the burden of proving the amount of damages by a preponderance of the evidence. This change makes it clear that DoD has the burden of establishing the applicability and amount of any offsets from the amount of damages otherwise payable to the claimant. Proposed § 45.11(c), formerly § 45.11(d) in the current regulation, states that present value is used to calculate offsets against economic damages. This change is necessary with the proposed change to offset economic damages only. An award of future lost earnings and retirement benefits is reduced to present value, so the offsetting compensation for future lost earnings and retirement benefits must also be reduced to present value. Proposed § 45.11(d) contains the same language as § 45.11(c) in the current regulation, with the addition of language from § 45.11(a) in the current regulation stating that claimants must provide information not available to DoD, but requested by DoD, for the purpose of determining offsets. Proposed § 45.11(e) combines what is currently in §§ 45.11(e) through (g) in the current regulation. Proposed § 45.11(e) removes the reference to pay and allowances while a member remains on active duty, or in an active status, as an offset because the member receiving these pay and allowances has not lost earnings. Regulatory Analysis Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ and Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review’’ Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects; distribution of impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has been determined to be a significant regulatory action, although not economically significant. Accordingly, it has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget as required by these Executive orders. Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) The General Counsel of the Department of Defense certified that this proposed rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis. Section 202, Public Law 104–4, ‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require non-Federal spending in any one year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This proposed rule does not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor affect private sector costs. Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) It has been determined that this proposed rule does not impose new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has federalism implications. This proposed rule does not have a substantial effect on State and local governments. Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments’’ Executive Order 13175 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on one or more Indian tribes, preempts tribal law, or affects the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. This rulemaking will not have a substantial effect on Indian tribal governments. Impact of This Regulation Summary The proposed amendments adjust and update certain portions of the regulation related to calculation of damages. The amendments would apply offsets to economic damages only. The amendments would also clarify when future lost wages may be awarded. Affected Population At the end of Fiscal Year 2022, there were approximately 1,410,000 Active Duty Service members, and 440,000 Reserve and National Guard members eligible for DoD healthcare benefits. These uniformed Service members will be able to file claims with DoD alleging malpractice from care at DoD military medical treatment facilities as defined in section 2733a. Costs DoD does not estimate that any additional claims will be filed as a result of the proposed amendments to the regulation. Since the enactment of section 2733a, individuals who believe they have been subjected to malpractice have filed claims involving injuries ranging from minor injuries to death, regardless of the potential application of offsets. Transfers Regardless of the number of claims in which malpractice occurred, the only claims in which damages will be awarded are those which exceed the offsets for any payment to be made. The proposed changes solely impact non- economic damages. No changes are proposed that would impact offsets from economic damages. Based on claims adjudicated under this part in 2021 and 2022, four claims were adjudicated in which offsets were applied. The outcome would have been different in only one of these claims had the proposed amendments been in effect. In that one claim, $200,000 of the potential non-economic damages was subject to offset. This $200,000 would not have been offset from non-economic damages under the proposed changes. Claims in 2021 and 2022 may not necessarily be representative of claims in future years. Claims were accepted beginning January 1, 2020, but could only begin to be adjudicated beginning on July 17, 2021, when the Interim Final Rule became effective. The first claims adjudicated under this new process were claims that did not require a decision on the merits of whether malpractice occurred, such as claims that were denied because the alleged malpractice fell outside the statute of limitations in 10 U.S.C. 2733a(b)(4). Just as with claim resolution processes involving non-Service member claims, more complex claims, which tend to involve higher amounts of damages, require time for review. Since Service members’ claims have only been able to be adjudicated since July 17, 2021, more complex claims may still be under adjudication, and the one claim that would have had a different outcome in 2021 and 2022 may not be representative of the number of claims that would be impacted going forward. Taking the limited information into account, DoD estimates that the changes to the regulation would affect 2 claims per year, instead of basing its estimate on the one historical claim that would have been impacted. The average of the non-economic damages at issue in the four claims in which offsets were applied was $337,500. Assuming $337,500 additional would be paid in 2 claims, the estimated total cost to the government therefore would be $675,000. Of this, the first $100,000 of each of the two claims would be paid by DoD, with the remainder to be paid by the Treasury. Benefits The proposed changes to the regulation will allow some Service members to receive compensation for non-economic damages that they would not have been able to receive under the current regulation. The changes afford some Service members additional compensation in light of the non- economic harms they have experienced as a result of malpractice. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 45 Medical, Malpractice, Claims, Uniformed Services. Accordingly, the Department of Defense proposes to amend 32 CFR part 45 to read as follows: PART 45—MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS BY MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES 1. The Authority for part 45 continues to read as follows: Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2733a. 2. Amend § 45.1 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 45.1 Purpose of this part. * * * * * (b) Relationship to military and veterans’ compensation programs. Federal law provides a comprehensive system of compensation for military members and their families in cases of death or disability incurred in military service. This system applies to all causes of death or disability incurred in service, whether due to combat injuries, training mishaps, motor vehicle accidents, naturally occurring illnesses, or household events, with limited exceptions (e.g., when the member is absent without leave or the injury is due to the member’s intentional misconduct or willful negligence). This comprehensive compensation system applies to cases of personal injury or death caused by medical malpractice incurred in service as it does to all other causes. This part provides for the possibility of separate compensation in certain cases of medical malpractice but in no other type of case. A medical malpractice claim under this part will have no effect on any other compensation the member or the member’s family is entitled to under the comprehensive compensation system applicable to all members. However, if the U.S. government makes a payment for harm caused by malpractice, this payment reduces the potential damages under this part as provided in § 45.11. * * * * * 3. Amend § 45.9 by revising paragraph (b)(4) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 45.9 Calculation of damages: economic damages. * * * * * (b) * * * (4) Future lost earnings: Until DoD determines that the claimant is, or is expected to be, medically rehabilitated and able to resume employment; In cases of permanent incapacitation, until expiration of the claimant’s work-life expectancy; or In cases of death, until the expiration of the claimant’s work-life expectancy, after deducting for the claimant’s personal consumption. Future lost earnings must be substantiated by appropriate documentation and claimants have an obligation to mitigate damages. In addition, loss of retirement benefits is compensable and similarly discounted after appropriate deductions. Estimates for future lost earnings and retirement benefits must be discounted to present value. * * * * * (d) Disability discrimination. An injury or condition does not result in lost earnings for purposes of, and is not compensable under, this regulation if the lost earnings stem from disability discrimination, which may be settled and paid under other provisions of law. * * * * * 4. Amend § 45.10 by revising paragraphs (a) through (c) to read as follows: § 45.10 Calculation of damages: non- economic damages. In general. Non-economic damages are one component of a potential damages award. The claimant has the burden of proof on the amount of non- economic damages by a preponderance of evidence. DoD may request an interview of or statement from the claimant or other person with primary knowledge of the claimant. DoD may also require medical statements documenting the claimant’s condition and, in cases of disfigurement, photographs documenting the claimant’s condition. Elements of non-economic damages. Non-economic damages include pain and suffering; physical discomfort; mental and emotional trauma or distress; loss of enjoyment of life; physical disfigurement resulting from an injury to a member that causes diminishment of beauty or symmetry of appearance rendering the member unsightly, misshapen, imperfect, or deformed; and the inability to perform daily activities that one performed prior to injury, such as recreational activities. Such damages are compensable as part of non-economic damages. Cap on non-economic damages. In any claim under this part, total non- economic damages may not exceed a cap amount published by DoD via a Federal Register notice. DoD will periodically publish updates to this cap amount via Federal Register notices, consistent with changes in prevailing amounts in the majority of the States with non-economic damages caps. * * * * * 5. Amend § 45.11 by: a. Revising paragraph (a); b. Redesignating paragraph (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (c), respectively; c. Revising the first sentence in the newly redesignated paragraph (c); d. Adding a sentence to the end of the newly redesignated paragraph (d); e. Revising paragraph (e); and f. Removing paragraphs (f) and (g). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 45.11 Calculation of damages: offsets for DoD and VA Government compensation. In general. Total potential economic damages calculated under this part are reduced by offsetting most of the compensation otherwise provided or expected to be provided by DoD or VA for the same harm that is the subject of the medical malpractice claim. DoD has the burden to establish the applicability and amount of any offsets. * * * * * Present value of future payments and benefits. In determining offsets under this section from economic damages, DoD will use the present value of future payments and benefits. * * * Information considered. * * * Claimants must provide information not available to DoD, but requested by DoD, for the purpose of determining offsets. Benefits and payments that may be considered as potential offsets. The general rule is that potential damages calculated under this part may be offset only by DoD or VA payments and benefits that are primarily funded by Government appropriations. Potential damages calculated under this part are not offset by U.S. Government payments and benefits that are substantially funded by the military member. The following examples are provided for illustrative purposes only, are not all- inclusive, and are subject to adjustment (2) The following U.S. Government payments and benefits are substantially funded by the military members or are otherwise generally not eligible for consideration as potential offsets: Servicemembers Group Life Insurance. Traumatic Servicemembers Group Life Insurance. Social Security disability benefits. Social Security survivor benefits. Prior Government contributions to a Thrift Savings Plan. Commissary, exchange, and morale, welfare, and recreation facility access. Value of legal assistance and other services provided by DoD. Medical care provided while in active service or in an active status prior to death, retirement, or separation. Dated: October 12, 2023. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 2023–23013 Filed 10–19–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6001–FR–P View full record

The following is current as of 03/202 Always check the VA's Page for the latest information. PDF CSP_Eligibility_Criteria_Factsheet.pdf Eligibility Criteria Fact Sheet Veteran Eligibility Requirements: A Veteran or Service member may be eligible for a Family Caregiverif all of the following requirements are met: 1. The individual is either: A Veteran; or An Armed Forces member undergoing a medical discharge from the Armed Forces. 2. The individual has a serious injury (including serious illness) incurred or aggravated in the active military, naval, or air service line of duty. For purposes of PCAFC, serious injury means any service-connected disability that (1) Is rated at 70 percent or more by the VA or (2) Is combined with any other service-connected disability or disabilities, and a combined rating of 70 percent or more is assigned by VA. 3. The individual is in need of in-person personal care services for a maximum of six (6) continuous months based on any one of the following: An inability to perform an activity of daily living; A need for supervision or protection based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury or There is a need for regular or extensive instruction or supervision, without which the ability of the veteran to function in daily life would be seriously impaired. 4. Participating in the program is in the individual's best interest. 5. Personal care services provided by the family Caregiver will not be simultaneously and regularly provided by or through another individual or entity. 6. The individual receives care at home or will do so if the VA designates a Family Caregiver. 7. The individual receives ongoing care from a Primary Care Team or will do so if the VA designates a family caregiver. Family Caregiver Eligibility Requirements A Family Caregiver must: 1. Be at least 18 years of age. 2. Be either: The eligible Veteran’s spouse, son, daughter, parent, stepfamily member, or extended family member; or Someone who lives with the eligible Veteran full-time or will do so if designated as a Family Caregiver. 3. Be initially assessed by the VA as being able to complete caregiver education and training. 4. Complete caregiver training and demonstrate the ability to carry out specific personal care services, core competencies, and additional care requirements. In addition, there must be no determination by the VA of abuse or neglect of the eligible Veteran by the caregiver. Stipend Levels: The amount of the monthly stipend the Primary Family Caregiver is eligible to receive is determined based on information gathered during the VA’s Evaluation of the Veteran’s personal care needs. Level One: The Primary Family Caregiver’s monthly stipend is calculated by multiplying the monthly stipend rate [Office of Personnel Management (OPM) General Schedule (GS) Annual Rate for grade 4, step 1, based on the locality pay area in which the eligible Veteran resides] divided by 12 multiplied by 0.625. For example, the GS rate at grade 4, step 1, in Dallas, Texas, 2022 was $34,916 annually. Thus, the monthly stipend for a Primary Family Caregiver of an eligible Veteran in Dallas, Texas, at this rate ($34,916, divided by 12 multiplied by 0.625) was approximately $1,818.54 in 2022. Level Two: If the VA determines the eligible Veteran meets the definition of“unable to self-sustain in the community” for the purposes of PCAFC, the designated Primary Family Caregiver’s monthly stipend is calculated by multiplying the monthly stipend rate (OPM GS Annual Rate for grade 4, step1, based on the locality pay area in which the eligible Veteran resides)divided by 12 multiplied by 1.00. For example, the GS rate at grade 4, step 1, in Dallas, Texas, in 2022 was $34,916 annually. The 2022 monthly stipend amount for a Primary Family Caregiver of an eligible Veteran in Dallas, Texas, at this rate($34,916, divided by 12 multiplied by 1.00) was approximately$2,909.67 Definitions Unable to Self-sustain in the Community For purposes of PCAFC, "unable to self-sustain in the community" means that an eligible Veteran either: Requires personal care services each time he or she completes three or more of the seven activities of daily living (ADL) listed in the definition of an inability to perform an activity of daily living in this section and is fully dependent on a caregiver to complete such ADLs; or Has a need for supervision or protection based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury on a continuous basis; or
 There is a need for regular or extensive instruction or supervision, without which the veteran's ability to function in daily life would be seriously impaired on a continuous basis. Inability to Perform Activity of Daily Living (ADL) For purposes of PCAFC, the "inability to perform an ADL" means the Veteran or Service member requires personal care services each time he or she completes one or more of the ADLs listed below. Dressing or undressing oneself Bathing Grooming oneself in order to keep oneself clean and presentable Adjusting any special prosthetic or orthopedic appliance that, by reason of the particular disability, cannot be done without assistance (this does not include the adjustment of appliances that nondisabled persons would be unable to adjust without aid, such as supports, belts, lacing at the back, etc.) Toileting or attending to toileting Feeding oneself due to loss of coordination of upper extremities, extreme weakness, inability to swallow, or the need for a non-oral means of nutrition
(walking, going upstairs, transferring from bed to chair, etc.) Requiring assistance with an ADL only some of the time does not meet the definition of an "inability to perform an ADL"

Always check on VA.gov for the latest. If you think your life or health is in danger, call 911 or go to the nearest emergency department. You don’t need to check with us first. But if you go to a non-VA facility—even one that’s in the VA's community care network—you must follow certain rules so that the VA can cover the cost of your care. Keep reading on this page to learn what you need to know if you go to a non-VA facility for emergency care. Find VA and in-network emergency care. What to know if you go to a non-VA facility for emergency care The facility must be an EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT VA will only cover the cost of emergency care at an emergency department. An emergency department is a facility that has the staff and equipment to provide emergency care (like a hospital or free-standing emergency department). Urgent care facilities don’t qualify as emergency departments. If you’re not sure what type of facility you should go to, we can help. Learn more about choosing between emergency and urgent care The VA must be notified of your care within 72 hours Ask the provider to notify us right away in either of these ways: Through our VA emergency care reporting portal, or By calling us at 844-724-7842 (TTY: 711) We must get the notification within 72 hours of when your emergency care starts. We prefer that the provider notify us. But if they don’t, you or someone acting on your behalf can notify us instead. We can only cover emergency care when you meet certain requirements Keep reading to learn more about eligibility requirements for emergency mental health care and other types of emergency care. Emergency care eligibility requirements Eligibility for emergency mental health care In most cases, we will provide or cover the cost of your emergency mental health care and up to 90 days of related services—even if you’re not enrolled in VA health care. If a health care provider or a trained crisis responder determines you’re at risk of immediate self-harm, we can provide or cover the cost of your care if you meet at least one of these requirements: You were sexually assaulted, battered, or harassed while serving in the Armed Forces, or You served on active duty for more than 24 months and didn’t get a dishonorable discharge, or You served more than 100 days under a combat exclusion or in support of a contingency operation (including as a member of the Reserve) and didn’t get a dishonorable discharge. You meet this requirement if you served directly or if you operated an unmanned aerial vehicle from another location. If you go to a non-VA emergency department for help, tell the staff you’re a Veteran. Ask them to contact us right away. Eligibility for all other emergency care General eligibility requirements By law, we can only cover the cost of your care at a non-VA emergency department if you meet all of these requirements: You’re enrolled in VA health care or you have a qualifying exemption from enrollment, and A VA health care facility or other federal facility that could provide the needed care wasn’t “feasibly available” (meaning it was too far away for you to get there fast enough to get the emergency care you needed), and A person with an average knowledge of health and medicine (called a “prudent layperson”) would reasonably believe that a delay in seeking care would have put your life or health in danger and You meet the VA's other requirements based on your specific situation—including the time limit for us to receive your claim. Keep reading to learn more about requirements for different situations. Note: We only cover non-VA emergency care until we can safely transfer you to a VA or other federal facility. The only time this rule doesn’t apply is if the community provider contacts us and we can’t accept your transfer. More emergency care coverage requirements In addition to the general eligibility requirements, you must also meet these other requirements based on your specific situation. What to do if you’re charged for emergency care If you get a bill for emergency care at a non-VA facility and you think we should cover the cost, we can help. Call us at 877-881-7618 (TTY: 711). We’re here Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. ET. We’ll go over the charges with you and help figure out who should cover the cost of your care. We can also help resolve billing issues with community providers. Find out how to file a claim for reimbursement of non-VA medical expenses. View full record

These are recommendations. They propose some of these each year. They do not mean the changes will be made, but they give you a good idea of their thinking. Read Further: Military.com explains it in CBO Suggests Raising Tricare Fees, Cutting Veteran Benefits to Slash Deficit. Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2019 to 2028Reducing the Deficit: 2019 to 2028 CBO periodically issues a large number of options—this year’s installment presents 121—to decrease federal spending or increase federal revenues. The CBO’s website allows users to filter options by topic, date, and category. Published Dec 13, 2018 PDF CBO Options for Reducing the Deficit- 2019 to 2028.pdf Summary Since 2007, federal debt held by the public has more than doubled in relation to the size of the economy, and it will keep growing significantly if the large annual budget deficits projected under current law come to pass. Congress faces various policy choices as it confronts the challenges posed by such a large and growing debt. To help inform lawmakers, the Congressional Budget Office periodically issues a compendium of policy options that would help reduce the deficit, reporting the estimated budgetary effects of those options and highlighting some arguments for and against them. This latest series report presents 121 options to decrease federal spending or increase federal revenues over the next ten years (see Summary Table below). Of those options, 112 are presented in the main body of the report, and most of those 112 would save $10 billion or more over that period. The remaining nine options are presented in an appendix and would generally have smaller budgetary effects. The options in this report come from various sources. Some are based on proposed legislation or the budget proposals of various Administrations; others come from Congressional offices or entities in the federal government or private sector. The options cover many areas—defense, health, Social Security, provisions of the tax code, and more. The budgetary effects identified for most options span the ten years from 2019 to 2028 (the period covered by CBO’s baseline budget projections), although many options would also have longer-term effects. Chapters 2 through 4 present options in the following categories: Chapter 2: Mandatory spending, Chapter 3: Discretionary spending, and Chapter 4: Revenues. Each chapter begins with a description of budgetary trends for the topic area, a general discussion of the method underlying the estimates of budgetary effects, and an overview of the options in the chapter. Then, the chapter offers individual entries for each option that provide background information, describe the option, discuss the estimated budgetary effects, the basis of those estimates, and the largest sources of uncertainty, and summarize arguments for and against the change. As a collection, the options are intended to reflect a range of possibilities, not a ranking of priorities or an exhaustive list. Including or excluding any particular option does not imply that CBO endorses or opposes it, and the report makes no recommendations. The report also does not contain comprehensive budget plans; it would be possible to devise such plans by combining certain options in various ways (although some would overlap and would interact with others). CBO’s website includes a search tool that allows users to filter options by major budget category, budget function, topic, and date. That tool is regularly updated to include only the most recent version of budget options from various CBO reports. Therefore, the tool currently includes all the options in this report. It also includes options that were analyzed in the past and were not updated for this report but remain informative. Those options were either in previous editions of this report or in different CBO reports analyzing specific federal programs or aspects of the tax code. Of interest to Veterans: Narrow Eligibility for Veterans’ Disability Compensation by Excluding Certain Disabilities Unrelated to Military Duties 4 to 33 End VA’s Individual Unemployability Payments to Disabled Veterans at the Full Retirement Age for Social Security 7 to 48 Reduce VA’s Disability Benefits to Veterans Who Are Older Than the Full Retirement Age for Social Security 11 Narrow Eligibility for VA’s Disability Compensation by Excluding Veterans With Low Disability Ratings 6 to 38 End Enrollment in VA Medical Care for Veterans in Priority Groups 7 and 8 57a Include Disability Payments From the Department of Veterans Affairs in Taxable Income 4 to 93 Mandatory Spending Title Savings, 2019–2028 (Billions of Dollars) Limit Enrollment in the Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Programs 3 to 10 Eliminate Title I Agriculture Programs 20 Reduce Subsidies in the Crop Insurance Program 4 to 21 Limit ARC and PLC Payment Acres to 30 Percent of Base Acres 10 Raise Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s Guarantee Fees and Decrease their Eligible Loan Limits 3 to 12 Eliminate or Reduce the Add-On to Pell Grants, Which Is Funded With Mandatory Spending 31 to 62 Limit Forgiveness of Graduate Student Loans 12 to 32 Reduce or Eliminate Subsidized Loans for Undergraduate Students 7 to 22 Reduce or Eliminate Public Service Loan Forgiveness 9 to 22 Remove the Cap on Interest Rates for Student Loans 11 to 16 Adopt a Voucher Plan and Slow the Growth of Federal Contributions for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program 35 to 37a Establish Caps on Federal Spending for Medicaid 162 to 703 Limit States’ Taxes on Health Care Providers 15 to 344 Reduce Federal Medicaid Matching Rates 55 to 394 Introduce Enrollment Fees Under TRICARE for Life 12 Introduce Minimum Out-of-Pocket Requirements Under TRICARE for Life 27 Change the Cost-Sharing Rules for Medicare and Restrict Medigap Insurance 44 to 116 Increase Premiums for Parts B and D of Medicare 40 to 418 Raise the Age of Eligibility for Medicare to 67 15 to 22 Reduce Medicare’s Coverage of Bad Debt 12 to 39 Require Manufacturers to Pay a Minimum Rebate on Drugs Covered Under Part D of Medicare for Low-Income Beneficiaries 154 Modify Payments to Medicare Advantage Plans for Health Risk 47 to 67 Reduce Quality Bonus Payments to Medicare Advantage Plans 18 to 94 Consolidate and Reduce Federal Payments for Graduate Medical Education at Teaching Hospitals 34 to 40 Convert Multiple Assistance Programs for Lower-Income People Into Smaller Block Grants to States 88 to 247 Eliminate Subsidies for Certain Meals in the National School Lunch, School Breakfast, and Child and Adult Care Food Programs 11 Reduce TANF’s State Family Assistance Grant by 10 Percent 13 Eliminate Supplemental Security Income Benefits for Disabled Children 100a Link Initial Social Security Benefits to Average Prices Instead of Average Earnings 77 to 121 Make Social Security’s Benefit Structure More Progressive 7 to 36 Raise the Full Retirement Age for Social Security 28 Require Social Security Disability Insurance Applicants to Have Worked More in Recent Years 50 Eliminate Eligibility for Starting Social Security Disability Benefits at Age 62 or Later 20 Narrow Eligibility for Veterans’ Disability Compensation by Excluding Certain Disabilities Unrelated to Military Duties 4 to 33 End VA’s Individual Unemployability Payments to Disabled Veterans at the Full Retirement Age for Social Security 7 to 48 Reduce VA’s Disability Benefits to Veterans Who Are Older Than the Full Retirement Age for Social Security 11 Narrow Eligibility for VA’s Disability Compensation by Excluding Veterans With Low Disability Ratings 6 to 38 Use an Alternative Measure of Inflation to Index Social Security and Other Mandatory Programs 202 Divest Two Agencies of Their Electric Transmission Assets 2a Change the National Flood Insurance Program 1 Tighten Eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 8 Reduce Pension Benefits for New Federal Retirees 3 Eliminate the Special Retirement Supplement for New Federal Retirees 5 Discretionary Spending Title Savings, 2019–2028 (Billions of Dollars) Reduce the Department of Defense’s Budget 248 to 517 Reduce DoD’s Operation and Maintenance Appropriation (Excluding Funding for the Defense Health Program) 70 to 195 Cap Increases in Basic Pay for Military Service Members 18 Replace Some Military Personnel With Civilian Employees 14 Cancel Plans to Purchase Additional F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and Instead Purchase F-16s and F/A-18s 13 Stop Building Ford Class Aircraft Carriers 10 Reduce Funding for Naval Ship Construction to Historical Levels 50 Reduce the Size of the Nuclear Triad 8 to 9 Cancel the Long-Range Standoff Weapon 11 Defer Development of the B-21 Bomber 32 Modify TRICARE Enrollment Fees and Cost Sharing for Working-Age Military Retirees 11a Reduce the Size of the Bomber Force by Retiring the B-1B 17 Reduce the Size of the Fighter Force by Retiring the F-22 27 Cancel the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System 18 Reduce the Basic Allowance for Housing to 80 Percent of Average Housing Costs 15a Cancel Development and Production of the New Missile in the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent Program 24 Reduce Funding for International Affairs Programs 116 Reduce Appropriations for Global Health to Their Level in 2000 57 Eliminate Human Space Exploration Programs 89 Reduce Department of Energy Funding for Energy Technology Development 3 to 16 Eliminate Funding for Amtrak and the Essential Air Service Program 2 to 20a Limit Highway and Transit Funding to Expected Revenues 116 Eliminate the Federal Transit Administration 87 Increase the Passenger Fee for Aviation Security 21 Eliminate Federal Funding for National Community Service 9 Eliminate Head Start 92 Tighten Eligibility for Pell Grants 3 to 86a Increase Payments by Tenants in Federally Assisted Housing 21 Reduce Funding for the Housing Choice Voucher Program or Eliminate the Program 9 to 125 End Enrollment in VA Medical Care for Veterans in Priority Groups 7 and 8 57a Reduce the Annual Across-the-Board Adjustment for Federal Civilian Employees’ Pay 58 Reduce the Size of the Federal Workforce Through Attrition 35 Reduce Funding for Certain Grants to State and Local Governments 1 to 42 Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act 12a Eliminate Certain Forest Service Programs 6 Limit the Number of Cities Receiving Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants 1 Eliminate the International Trade Administration's Trade-Promotion Activities 3 Convert the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Program Into a Direct Loan Program 3 Revenues Title Savings, 2019–2028 (Billions of Dollars) Increase Individual Income Tax Rates 123 to 905 Raise the Tax Rates on Long-Term Capital Gains and Qualified Dividends by 2 Percentage Points and Adjust Tax Brackets 70 to 81 Eliminate or Modify Head-of-Household Filing Status 66 to 165 Curtail the Deduction for Charitable Giving 146 to 176 Eliminate Itemized Deductions 1,312 Change the Tax Treatment of Capital Gains From Sales of Inherited Assets 105 Eliminate the Tax Exemption for New Qualified Private Activity Bonds 32 Expand the Base of the Net Investment Income Tax to Include the Income of Active Participants in S Corporations and Limited Partnerships 199 Tax Carried Interest as Ordinary Income 14 Include Disability Payments From the Department of Veterans Affairs in Taxable Income 4 to 93 Include Employer-Paid Premiums for Income Replacement Insurance in Employees’ Taxable Income 342 Reduce Tax Subsidies for Employment-Based Health Insurance 256 to 638 Further Limit Annual Contributions to Retirement Plans 103 Tax Social Security and Railroad Retirement Benefits in the Same Way That Distributions From Defined Benefit Pensions Are Taxed 411 Eliminate Certain Tax Preferences for Education Expenses 188 Lower the Investment Income Limit for the Earned Income Tax Credit and Extend That Limit to the Refundable Portion of the Child Tax Credit 8 Require Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit Claimants to Have a Social Security Number That Is Valid for Employment 24 Increase the Payroll Tax Rate for Medicare Hospital Insurance 898 to 1,787 Increase the Payroll Tax Rate for Social Security 716 to 1,422 Increase the Maximum Taxable Earnings for the Social Security Payroll Tax 785 to 1,223 Expand Social Security Coverage to Include Newly Hired State and Local Government Employees 80 Tax All Pass-Through Business Owners Under SECA and Impose a Material Participation Standard 163 Increase Taxes That Finance the Federal Share of the Unemployment Insurance System 18 Increase the Corporate Income Tax Rate by 1 Percentage Point 96 Repeal Certain Tax Preferences for Energy and Natural Resource–Based Industries 2 to 8 Repeal the “LIFO” and “Lower of Cost or Market” Inventory Accounting Methods 58 Require Half of Advertising Expenses to Be Amortized Over 5 or 10 Years 63 to 132 Repeal the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit 49 Increase All Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages to $16 per Proof Gallon and Index for Inflation 68 to 83 Increase the Excise Tax on Tobacco Products by 50 Percent 42 Increase Excise Taxes on Motor Fuels and Index for Inflation 237 to 515 Impose an Excise Tax on Overland Freight Transport 358 Impose Fees to Cover the Costs of Government Regulations and Charge for Services Provided to the Private Sector 0 to 14 Impose a 5 Percent Value-Added Tax 1,920 to 2,970 Impose a Tax on Emissions of Greenhouse Gases 1,099 Impose a Fee on Large Financial Institutions 90 to 103 Impose a Tax on Financial Transactions 777 Tax Gains from Derivatives as Ordinary Income on a Mark-to-Market Basis 19 Increase Federal Civilian Employees’ Contributions to the Federal Employees Retirement System 45 Increase Appropriations for the Internal Revenue Service’s Enforcement Initiatives 35 ARC = Agriculture Risk Coverage; DoD = Department of Defense; LIFO = last in, first out; PLC = Price Loss Coverage; SECA = Self-Employment Contributions Act; TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; VA = Department of Veterans Affairs. For options affecting primarily mandatory spending or revenues, savings sometimes would derive from changes in both. When that is the case, the savings shown include effects on both mandatory spending and revenues. For options affecting primarily discretionary spending, the savings shown are the decrease in discretionary outlays. a. Savings do not encompass all budgetary effects. Data and Supplemental Information Data Underlying Figures Tables Showing Estimated Budgetary Effects Related Publications Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2021 to 2030 December 9, 2020 How Changing Social Security Could Affect Beneficiaries and the System's Finances April 24, 2019 The Deficit Reductions Necessary to Meet Various Targets for Federal Debt August 21, 2018 The Long-Term Budget Outlook Under Alternative Scenarios for Fiscal Policy August 8, 2018 The 2018 Long-Term Budget Outlook June 26, 2018 An Analysis of the President’s 2019 Budget May 24, 2018 The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2018 to 2028 April 9, 2018 Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2017 to 2026 December 8, 2016 Corrections and Updates On June 28, 2019, CBO reposted the report to correct values that it mentioned for the thresholds used to calculate the excise tax on high-cost health insurance plans. The analysis underlying the report and the resulting budgetary estimates were not affected. On October 23, 2019, CBO posted a file of tables showing the options’ estimated budgetary effects. View full record

Schedule for Rating Disabilities: The Digestive System Changes Federal Register 03/20/2024 VA amends 38 CFR part 4 Read the Federal Register Announcement Here