Is Cindy Sheehan lying about the insurance money and her "no taxes" pledge?
Cindy Sheehan is out of money, and so is compelled to start making paid appearances. Or so she claims.
Problem is, according to what I've found out, she's got at least another tax-free $150,000 payment coming to her this month.
In fact, all the money she claims to have received and spent in 2004 was tax-free, courtesy of the US Department of Defense, making her "I'm not paying taxes!" pledge a bit of theatrical nonsense.
[Is Cindy Sheehan lying again? Read the latest and decide for yourself.]
From CNSNews:
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan recently signed on with a speakers' bureau, and her appearance on the lecture circuit drew mixed reaction Tuesday night, especially from her younger supporters at the University of Maryland.Sheehan previously told Cybercast News Service that she was not taking money from organizations like MoveOn.org or private financiers like George Soros but that her recent 51-city bus tour was funded by "grassroots fundraising."
She said her contract with Speaking Matters, which has not yet disclosed how much a Sheehan appearance will cost, will help her "finally make some money ...'cause Casey's insurance money's going to run out pretty soon.' "
This mention of the insurance intrigued me, and I've spent some time researching how US service personnel are insured, how that insurance is paid out, and details about the specific situation with the Sheehans using a contact close to the Sheehan family who prefers to remain anonymous.
First, the policy. The default payout used to be $250,000:
Servicemembers on active duty, active duty for training or inactive duty for training and members of the Reserves are automatically covered for $250,000, the maximum amount of coverage, unless they opt out in writing.
This is what Cindy Sheehan, who my contact tells me was the sole beneficiary, would have received.
The payout can be in one of two ways: a lump sum or 36 equal monthly installments. If she is running out of money 18 months after Casey's death, then she must have received the lump sum.
The payout is made to the beneficiary through a special bank account:
As of June 1 [1999], payments are disbursed through a Prudential Alliance Account for most SGLI claims. The account is a personalized interest-bearing account for beneficiaries of group life insurance proceeds of $5,000 or more.When OSGLI approves a payment, life insurance benefits will automatically be placed in the Alliance Account in the name of the beneficiary. The beneficiary can withdraw all or part of the proceeds immediately or leave the funds in the account to earn interest from the date the Alliance Account is opened.
That means that from the start of the payout, Cindy Sheehan had sole control of the money. The only way Casey's money would have benefited the Sheehan family as a whole is if Cindy Sheehan had written a cheque and deposited it into a family account.
So Cindy Sheehan received $250,000 into an account solely in her name upon the death of her son, and that money has almost run out.
Or has it?
From this past summer, an retroactive increase in benefits:
The $82 billion supplemental legislation signed into law by President Bush May 11 increases maximum SGLI coverage to $400,000 and provides payouts of up to $100,000 for service members with traumatic injuries, explained Stephen Wurtz, the VA’s deputy assistant director for insurance.The increased SGLI coverage will take effect Sept. 1, and the so-called “traumatic SGLI” benefit, Dec. 1. Wurtz said the legislation directs that both benefits will be retroactive to Oct. 7, 2001.
Retroactive payments to cover the increased benefits for members and their families already receiving benefits will be absorbed by the Department of Defense. So Cindy Sheehan doesn't have to pay a cent to get the extra money. The American taxpayer is absorbing that cost as part of the DoD budget.
This means that sometime after September 1, the Department of Defense, in accordance to a bill signed into law by George W Bush, willl be issuing an additional $150,000 in benefits to Cindy Sheehan.
In fact, my source tells me that there is yet another supplement of $88,000 coming as well, though I haven't identified what that additional benefit is, specifically. It may be that Casey had purchased extended benefits.
In any case, Cindy Sheehan's statement that "Casey's insurance money's going to run out pretty soon" seems to be untrue, on the face of it. Unless she already received the supplement sometime between September 1 and September 28, and spent it before the September 28 interview.
One more thing. Remember Cindy Sheehan's "no taxes" rant?
Sheehan, who is asking for a second meeting with President Bush, says defiantly: "My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial."
If she's been living off of Casey's death benefit, she doesn't need to pay taxes:
In general, all VA benefits are exempt from taxation. SGLI proceeds that are payable at the death of the insured are excluded from gross income for tax purposes. (The value of the proceeds, however, may be included in determining the value of an estate and that estate may ultimately be subject to tax.) If SGLI proceeds are paid to your beneficiary in 36 equal installments, the interest portion included in these installments is also exempt from taxation. In addition, delayed settlement interest (interest accrued from the date of the insured’s death to the date of settlement) is also exempt from taxation. You are not required to report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) any installment interest or delayed settlement interest that you received in addition to the proceeds.
Just another piece of cynical political theatre to get her supporters all worked up?
"Oh, poor Cindy Sheehan is so brave! Taking on George W Bush and his evil IRS, refusing to pay for the war, and willing to go to jail over it."
Well, maybe not so brave, or so poor, after all.
[Open trackback to the Political Teen and the Mudville Gazette]
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Well, if she's in charge of the family finances, she might have been referring to tax on her now ex-husband's salary. But who knows? If this woman put on a crown of thorns and called herself the second coming I would be unsurprised. I wonder if she knows just how much of a sideshow she has become.
Posted by: J-P at October 4, 2005 11:35 AM
As a member of the US military I tire of people like cindy sheehan, thay have very little to say but can't stop talking. I for one am tired of the anit-bush he is not in charge, not running the ar or the country correctly. Listen the Commander in Chief gives the military a task and we formulate a strategy to execute it. This isn't 1960s Vietnam, we were attacked by Islamic terrorists and if it takes a strategic move such as invading Iraq to move the middle east out of the 14th century so be it!
Posted by: Sherwood Baker at October 4, 2005 12:05 PM
Barring buying a (very nice) new home, I'd have a tough time going through $400K or even $250K in only 18 months. And I doubt she's paying her own travel, lodging or food expenses.
Posted by: Jay at October 4, 2005 12:58 PM
It's not that hard here in California, where Cindy is from. A good house in a decent neighborhood can cost at least $400K right now.
I'm certain she could easily go through the money Casey left her. Using it to take a dump on her son's name, however, is shady, and reflects poorly upon her.
Posted by: J-P at October 4, 2005 01:28 PM
I think someone should really look into this. She's clearly out there brashly wasting taxpayer money on her unpatriotic and un-American activities. And everyone knows that if a private citizen wishes to influence public policy that their finances are then fair game, and must be disclosed to the world. I mean, it's common sense. Otherwise everyone in the country is going to start to think they have some say in how the country's run! Maybe the government could sue her to get the money back. At the very least the government should audit all recipients of survivor's benefits to make sure they're spending the money on things the establishment would approve of.
I mean, all that happened to this woman was that she lost her son! The nerve of some people.
Posted by: Lord Kitchener's Own at October 4, 2005 07:04 PM
Angry you need to aim lower when firing your point out there in your threads. Your current aim seems to send your point flying right over the lefties heads.
Posted by: dave at October 4, 2005 07:30 PM
J-P,
Purchasing a home is indeed an enormous investment, however you're making quite a few assumptions. First,you're assuming that she bought a home. I haven't heard one way or the other. Second, you're assuming that she didn't already have a home. If she did then a large portion of the cost of the new home would be offset by the equity she has in the old one.
The point is that $250,000.00 over 18 months works out to just shy of $14,000.00 per month, or $3,500.00 per week.
How in the hell could a person living in a tent in texas spend $3,500.00 per week? That's a good question, but none of my business. I wouldn't care (or be surprised) if she rolled it and smoked it. However, that doesn't mean that I am going to afford her any sympathy just because she can't grasp the concept of a savings account.
Posted by: tacitblue at October 4, 2005 08:51 PM
"The point is that $250,000.00 over 18 months works out to just shy of $14,000.00 per month, or $3,500.00 per week. "
You actually make my point, which I think many californians will get: unless she bought a home here, which is just darn expensive, it's almost inconceivable to think that she is actually close to running out.
"And everyone knows that if a private citizen wishes to influence public policy that their finances are then fair game, and must be disclosed to the world."
She disclosed her own financial situation. If she puts it in the news, and makes her private life her primary selling point, then I think we have the right to comment.
Posted by: J-P at October 4, 2005 09:04 PM
Just for the purposes of doing your calculations, Cindy didn't start her full-time anti-war activism until 3 months after Casey died. That means the beginning of July of 2004. That means she went through the money in 16 months on activism. So one question which I have not been able to answer is how much of the money was spent in the first 3 months, or even when exactly the money arrived.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at October 4, 2005 09:48 PM
So can we take this to mean that her 15 minutes will expire about the same time as her payments do? Spend it Cindy spend it!
Posted by: Nedreck Millhunkey at October 5, 2005 12:09 AM
Anonymous sources, rampant speculation, attacking the messenger instead of the message: hmmm.
Perhaps Sheehan spent all of her money gambling in Las Vegas. Or maybe she blew it all on liquor and cocaine, GW Bush-style, as she grieved for her son. My anonymous source tells me that she is actually Casey's father and spent the money on a sex change operation.
It's all besides the point, really. Sheehan lost her son and had the courage to fight back. Her message - that the war in Iraq was a mistake predicated on the deceit of the Bush administration and that the troops should be brought home - is not a radical position, whether you agree with it or not. I would go so far as to say that the majority of the earth's citizens agree with her.
To some people the fact that Iraqis and Americans are dying each day as the country descends further and further into chaos is more important than how much insurance money Cindy Sheehan collected and what she did with it.
But never mind that - keep doing your homework. Maybe you can fill out her tax return for her at the end of the year.
Posted by: Ade at October 5, 2005 08:37 AM
"Anonymous sources, rampant speculation, attacking the messenger instead of the message: hmmm."
Not an anonymous source. I know who it is. The source prefers not to be named.
"Attacking the messenger instead of the message"
Pointing out that the messenger has serious problems with telling the truth. The brings up questions of credibility, which colours the rest of her message, including anything she says about her son, her actions at Camp Casey, and so on and so forth.
Her position is not that the war in Iraq was a mistake. Her position is that GWB and the neo-cons staged 9/11. Her position is that the US is a corrupt system and there must be a revolution. Her position is that the elected government of the US must be imprisoned. Her position is that it is not fair that Syria is not allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Given her "positions", the question of where the money went takes on a whole new complexion.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at October 5, 2005 09:06 AM
 
|
|
