Spouses of war casualties fight federal system to get benefits
On Mother's Day 2010, Marine Corps Sgt. Thomas Bagosy told his wife that he loved her and that he had completed his two purposes in life: He had served his country and helped bring their children into the world.
The next day, after a battle with post-traumatic stress disorder that spanned nearly half a decade, he put a .22-caliber pistol to his head and shot himself.
His wife, Katie Bagosy, found out several hours later when a casualty notification officer from Camp Lejeune, N.C., pulled up to her door.
After more than 13 years of war that have killed 6,808 service members, thousands of spouses of the fallen have found themselves in the same position — forced to navigate a complex and often perplexing system of benefits. And although the nation has largely moved on from Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal benefits system has made it hard for some survivors to do the same.
The system rewards most generously those who don't remarry or find work and weans those who do from compensation and benefits. Starkly put, survivors say, it has put a price tag on the daunting process of moving on.
Bagosy, who has a part-time marketing job, recalls learning that if she were to earn an income over a certain amount, her deceased husband's Social Security payments would be reduced. The same rule applies to the widows and widowers of civilians, but it has hit survivors of the fallen — many of them young and lacking financial stability — particularly hard.
“The rules associated with these benefits can discourage us from getting a job, or doing different things and making different decisions because we're afraid we're going to lose what benefits we do have,” said Bagosy, 31, a mother of two.
With time, she said, Bagosy has come to terms with what remarriage would mean. But she and other survivors remain dogged by another rule, what they have come to call the “Widow's Tax.”
The Widow's Tax is the offset established by two benefits that cancel each other out when they are paid simultaneously to a surviving spouse. One is a survivor benefit that works much like a pension and is overseen by the Department of Defense. The other is a payment provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs to survivors of troops who died during their time in service.
The law stipulates that for each dollar paid out for one benefit, the other benefit be reduced by a dollar — to avoid “double-dipping.” But in the case of many survivors whose spouses joined the military after Sept. 11, 2001, the result is that payments are sharply reduced.
One widow, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she is still in the military, said she receives $14 a month after the benefits cancel each other out.
“What was I supposed to do? Go to McDonald's once a month?” she asked. “It was tough to wrap my head around that was what my husband's life was worth.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Christie rails against high N.J. estate tax
- American crash victims: U.S. government contractor, daughter
- Attorneys: Sterilizations were part of plea deal talks
- A bipartisan push on toxic chemicals makes some Democrats fume
- 7 shot at Florida spring-break house party
- Carnegie Mellon expert to school Congress on security
- White House office mum on costs of Obama’s executive orders
- Starbucks drops ‘Race Together’ coffee cups
- Texas Sen. Cruz kicks off presidential campaign at Christian college
- Johnstown pair among 5 killed in S.C. crash
- Veterans Affairs construction chief retires amid criticism over project delays, ballooning costs