Clay County Commissioner James Renninger has faced sharp criticism online in the days since he defended his vote to cut the county’s disabled veteran solid waste exemption from 100% to 50% by invoking a veteran he knew who, he said, was “a hundred percent totally and permanently disabled” while flying for FedEx and earning $400,000 a year.
I thought Renninger’s comments were completely inappropriate. I don’t know what is going on with the people on the Board these last couple rounds but we are scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that military service exposes you to a multitude of hazards that even police aren't commonly subjected to. Many people think of combat injuries, but that's just a fraction of the sort of disabling injuries veterans can have. For example, during my time in the military, I was tasked with burning large amounts of plastic in an incinerator, which produced clouds of toxic smoke that I had no choice but to breathe. We weren't provided any protection, and this wasn't in a combat environment, just a routine procedure as part of our job.
This kind of exposure isn't new, and it isn't rare. Agent Orange and burn pits followed the same pattern: veterans got sick, the VA denied claims for years, and only much later was the connection to service officially recognized. Toxic exposure, traumatic brain injury, hearing loss and tinnitus, sleep disorders... none of these show up on the outside, and many don't even show symptoms until years after service. That delay is part of why so many people are quick to doubt these claims in the first place.
But it's not just physical exposure. After a terrorist attack hit our barracks, and after witnessing its aftermath, I developed severe anxiety and panic attacks that can make it hard to even leave the house. People often say things like "just don't be anxious" or "it's all in your head," but the trauma is real. Most people who saw me wouldn't guess anything was wrong. What looks like a routine situation to someone else, like a job interview or a doctor's appointment, can put me into full fight-or-flight: my mind goes blank, my heart races, and all I want to do is get out of the room.
So before assuming that a veteran who "looks fine" doesn't deserve their benefits, consider that some of the most serious wounds of service are the ones you can't see. Judging who "deserves" support based on appearance alone gets it backwards almost every time.
Hey Joshua, just wanted to clarify, my post wasn't aimed at you or your article. I actually thought your piece was fair and did a great job breaking down the schedular vs. TDIU distinction. What I was really responding to was Renninger's original FedEx pilot comment, the idea that a vet who looks fine and earns well can't really be "100% disabled." That's the assumption I wanted to push back on. Thank you!
I thought Renninger’s comments were completely inappropriate. I don’t know what is going on with the people on the Board these last couple rounds but we are scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that military service exposes you to a multitude of hazards that even police aren't commonly subjected to. Many people think of combat injuries, but that's just a fraction of the sort of disabling injuries veterans can have. For example, during my time in the military, I was tasked with burning large amounts of plastic in an incinerator, which produced clouds of toxic smoke that I had no choice but to breathe. We weren't provided any protection, and this wasn't in a combat environment, just a routine procedure as part of our job.
This kind of exposure isn't new, and it isn't rare. Agent Orange and burn pits followed the same pattern: veterans got sick, the VA denied claims for years, and only much later was the connection to service officially recognized. Toxic exposure, traumatic brain injury, hearing loss and tinnitus, sleep disorders... none of these show up on the outside, and many don't even show symptoms until years after service. That delay is part of why so many people are quick to doubt these claims in the first place.
But it's not just physical exposure. After a terrorist attack hit our barracks, and after witnessing its aftermath, I developed severe anxiety and panic attacks that can make it hard to even leave the house. People often say things like "just don't be anxious" or "it's all in your head," but the trauma is real. Most people who saw me wouldn't guess anything was wrong. What looks like a routine situation to someone else, like a job interview or a doctor's appointment, can put me into full fight-or-flight: my mind goes blank, my heart races, and all I want to do is get out of the room.
So before assuming that a veteran who "looks fine" doesn't deserve their benefits, consider that some of the most serious wounds of service are the ones you can't see. Judging who "deserves" support based on appearance alone gets it backwards almost every time.
Hi George, please know that neither I nor anyone at Clay News & Views is passing any sort of judgement on people receiving VA disability benefits.
Thank you for reading the story and thank you for serving.
Hey Joshua, just wanted to clarify, my post wasn't aimed at you or your article. I actually thought your piece was fair and did a great job breaking down the schedular vs. TDIU distinction. What I was really responding to was Renninger's original FedEx pilot comment, the idea that a vet who looks fine and earns well can't really be "100% disabled." That's the assumption I wanted to push back on. Thank you!