Peacenik

The increase, although technically as of Dec 1 is payable the following month. So the Jan check will only reflect one month's increase, not two. Don't be expecting two months of additional money on Jan 1.

How proud you must be. Just kidding. :D

JJ Please believe me, I'm on your side. I think these colas suck too. I'm just trying to provide a service to you and all veterans on this site by giving accurate info based on fact! I know congress always gets a bigger increase than us, yes, I'm a disabled vet too! I resent the fact that congress' raise is based on a more favorable rate table. But I'm just the reporter, don't shoot the messenger. Fact is the president has not reduced the cola determined by BLS and cannot without enacting new law. I'm with ya brother. We should get higher raises than those who supposedly serve us! Stay strong!

C'mon guys! Stop with the misinformation. The Cola is determined ONLY by the Bureau of labor Statistics. It cannot be reduced under law. Read the Law! Legislation enacted in 1983 may limit the COLA if the combined assets of the Social Security trust funds are below 20 percent of annual expenditures. (This limitation only applies to Social Security; SSI would be unaffected.) Such limitation has not occurred in the past, nor does it affect the current COLA determination. The combined trust fund assets at the beginning of 2005 are estimated to be 319.1 percent of 2005 expenditures. It IS what it IS!! He has not reduced the Cola in the last six years!! He cannot without changing federal law! Enough already!

Nowhere did I say that ssa calculates the cola. My link is to the tables used by BLS Just do the math and you will see I'm correct. I'm not gonna keep going around with you on this. I'm trying to provide Accurate info for Vets. The Cola so far for 2006 is 4.098% The number we have to beat by 8 points to remain at 4% is 195 for Sept. 2006. that's why I believe the final tally will be around 3.2% Just look at the website I quoted and compare it to the Table on BLS website. THEY ARE THE SAME!!!!!!!! Here's the table!!!!!! http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost Click on Get detailed statistics, then go down to CPI for urban wage earners and clerical workers (current series) Then click on the BLUE box next to it. Then select the first box and scroll down and click retrieve data. THAT IS THE TABLE THEY USE. IT IS IDENTICAL TO THE ONE I PROVIDED A LINK TO IN MY EARLIER POST!!!! Now you can continue to give false info or you can see it for yourself!!

I think your quoted website should check their math. Here's the formula for calculating CPI/W (192.7 - 185.1) / 185.1 x 100 = 4.1 This represents last year's COLA This year's so far is: July and Aug 2005 avg=191.55 July and Aug 2006 avg=199.4 Now plug these into the formula. (199.4 - 191.55) /191.55 x 100 = 4.098% I really don't know where they got their figures. Here's the link to the actual bureau of labor statistics where the cola is calculated. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/cpiw.html

I don't think 3.8% is gonna happen. I hope that other site is correct but my best guess if I had to make one is 3.2%. The other poster is right that cost of gas /oil is not considered in CPI/W but those costs are part of the other goods and services that are part of cpi/w. In other words oil prices raise or lower other stuff because of transport costs etc.

Not true, the cola is based solely on the CPI/W. By the way, I agree that the rate of inflation is higher than that. You just have to live and breathe to know that. My best to you.

The COLA number so far is 4.1%, not 2%. Unfortunately though, The sept number has to come in high because we had a high number last sept. The final tally will be available on Oct 18th. I suspect that because oil prices are dropping that 4.1% will end up in the area of 2.9-3.4% That's just an educated guess. I don't see it dropping below 2.7% though. That's just not gonna happen. I'll post the real number on the morning of the 18th.

Hello, Well the august cpi/w numbers were just issued by Bureau of Labor Stats. It is 199.6 Which translates to a COLA number so far of 4.12% That could change quite a bit because the Sept number from last year was 195 So, we need a big number in Sept figures due out on Oct 18 in order to stay at that level. I suspect it will not stay above 4%. For instance if it was the same number as Aug., 199.6 that would translate to a final number of 3.2% In any case, I don't believe this year's cola will be lower than 3%. I guess that's good news. I suppose it depends on your perspective.

Just a little aside. The VCAA was called the most important veteran's legislation in a long while yet, today after clicking around enough I found that the appropriations for the bill was an ASTOUNDING 1 Billion over 10 YEARS! Wow, aren't we lucky to occupy such a high place on the nations agenda! It blows my mind. Sorry, just a little ranting. Allow me a little latitude. Thanks and Peace.

No, I never asked for it to be advanced. That's why I was surprised to get the letter saying it had been. In response to your observation, yeah, I think they've probably been screwin' with me long enough. Boy, it can get frustrating trying to interpret their thinking or lack thereof. Thanks for your interest. Peace

Hi Thanks for the links. I think I'm gonna like you! Peace

Hi Holli, Please don't get too discouraged. That is what their stock in trade is; delay, deny and maybe you will fold under the pressure. Don't buy into it. Keep your cool and plow ahead. Make sure you hit all of your deadlines and get good representation. Don't get mad, get even. Keep in touch if you need any moral support. Been there and got many T-shirts. Best of luck Peacenik.

Hi In my latest and I suppose final appeal, my case has at last reached Washington where it has been advanced on the docket for "good and sufficient cause" There was no elaboration however on what the good cause is. Any ideas? What might constitute good and sufficient cause and should I be hopeful because of this development? Any input would be greatly appreciated. Peace and thanks!

I didn't say my situation was handled in short order. In fact it took five and a half years. But I still feel like I haven't been put through the wringer like some of you folks. At least I finally found my way through the maze. Trouble is, It was like swimming, or should I say drowning alone. This place seems like a good life raft and I have a strong feeling that these new disabled from the gulf war are gonna need this kind of help more than ever. I wish I had found it sooner. It certainly would have shortened the learning curve. Peace and thanks

Boy! I wrote in my introduction that I hope to help someone else through my 35 years of experience in dealing with VA. After surfing this site however, I realize it is I who can benefit from all of you. My horror stories don't even begin to measure up to the things I am reading. Man, I've had a cakewalk compared to many of you. The things that I have learned however are: VSO's generally are far inferior to VA in their knowledge of VA regs. This doesn't bode well for all of us. Also, Lawyers are generally speaking not familiar with VA law and I'm not sure that this new rule will actually help many vets. Any success at all with legal representation will quickly sour because, they will probably raid our settlements with fees etc. I've learned that our senate reps are often times equally clueless when you finally get one to help you. Case in point is Sen. Lieberman who I believe was on sen. Armed services Comm but when I saw him addressing VA at a joint session dealing with veterans affairs, he seemed to accept the bull@@t they were spewing without a single challenge. It really saddened and infuriated me. I am so lucky to have found all of you. One request however. Could you all specify what you are referring to by all this alphabet soup? I get lost in all the abbreviations and I'm sure a lot of other vets do too. The dealings I've had with VA are Aid and Attendance and Housebound. I feel I am qualified to advise on those issues only. I have learned the hard way about A&A and all the ways VA have craeted to wiggle out of that commitment. On all these other issues, I defer to all of you out there who have also unfortunately learned the hard way. I hope to become a good student and learn from all of you. Thank goodness for this forum. Peace

Well, in a sense, we're both right. The reg is that if you meet the criteria under 3.352a you will be rated at "L" level of compensation, at least. Other, strictly physical conditions which do not meet the test for A&A will also entitle you to the "L" level of compensation. "L" however is not the compensible level for aid and attendance. You could for instance, be designated as in need for aid and attendance and still not receive. additional compensation if those Physical disabilities already entitled you to "L". You would not get a single penny more. They don't want the average veteran or his representative for that matter to understand this STUFF! Peace to you!

Hello, Yes, I believe it is a legit concern. I don't know if all fears expressed are real but I tend to think they are based in fact. Just recently, the IOM was commissioned by the Bush gang to secretly look into ways to review and probably deny compensation for those Vets 100% disabled by PTSD. The media got wind of it and it was called off amid a firestorm of protests by Vets groups. VA made some lame ass excuse to the effect that it was simply a glitch in the stats that caused the review to be considered. I do believe that they (IOM) will continue to be a lapdog for those who would love to get their hands on more of our benefits by redefining what constitutes acceptable symptoms to substantiate the presence of compensible disease. SCARY STUFF!

Regular A&A is R1 and R2 is when the veteran requires a "higher level of care". Defined as a regular regimen of care such as is needed for paraplegia. The designation "L" has nothing to do with A&A. R1 is currently $6201.00 and R2 is $7078.00 Note: In order to even be considered for R2, the veteran's VA doctor must stipulate on the record that he/she is in need of regular care by a health care professional, without which he/she would require a nursing home. R1 simply requires that the veteran need assistance in daily living and that without that assistance, he/she would not be protected from the normal hazards of daily living. This assistance need not be all the time but must be necessary at least part of the time. Beware, however that there is a catch 22. It's referred to as the "combinations" rule. This rule says that if you are already receiving Compensation for service connected disability at the 100% level, your need for A&A must be based of injury or disease separate and apart from the original disease or injury for which you are being compensated. Sounds silly doesn't it? But that IS the rule. Very difficult to overcome. You must in effect have at least 2 "L" level 100% disabilities. The exception is if you are being compensated at 100% for physical injuries and also qualify for 100% disability for PTSD. You would then automatically qualify for R1. Best of luck to you. Don't EVER give up appealing!!