First Principles

Call this a belated Memorial Day post, but today I saw an opinion item that really irritated me.  In the LA Times, Edward Humes, not a veteran himself, attacked John McCain for his correct opposition to an “updated” GI Bill.  The headline was, “McCain’s Attack on Vets,” and subheaded, “His respectful rhetoric isn’t matched by his votes.”

Well, I’m a veteran.  And Humes’ outrage is nothing more than using me as a political prop to beat up a guy he doesn’t like.  Like many liberals, Mr. Hume is stuck in the draft-era mentality that all military members are victims of some nefarious plot, and that they are due endless benefits as recompense for the injustices that the wicked Pentagon has for so long enjoyed heaping upon them.  It just isn’t so.

Why I believe McCain’s stance to be correct isn’t really the point of this post, although I think it’s summed up well here in the New York Post.  The point is that at some point, reality must make contact with our political conversation when it comes to men and women in uniform.

I’ve always been uncomfortable with the demigod status that military members past and present have in our modern political dialog, and more uncomfortable still that it usually comes from the right.  Yes – I honor and respect the sacrifice of those folks.  It is a difficult and dangerous job, and the personnel of the American armed forces are among the best our country has to offer.  But I honor them more because I believe they are fulfilling a basic civic duty that more people ought to sign up for, and are shouldering more than their share of the responsibility for the free society we live in.  I’d like to see adulation for serving toned down a notch or three, and compensated for with some equal degree of derision for those who have chosen not to put on a uniform.  (And yes, that includes Republican politicians.)

One of the most harmful side effects of this attitude is that ill-considered and expensive “benefits” are passed that might go unused, and are likely to come packaged with new bureaucracy.  No matter how unnecessary or poorly thought out an expenditure might be, if it’s “for the troops,” then it becomes unassailable and therefore passes.  Money that would have been more efficiently spent is wasted, and military folks are no better off.

And even if this new bill is the right thing to do, where does it end?  When have we done enough for our troops?  At what point are they not being treated shabbily?  If it’s true that we can “never do enough,” must we bankrupt the federal treasury entirely and buy tropical islands for each vet who wants one?

It’s important to understand and remember that the benefits we provide for those serving on active duty and for our veterans aren’t gifts.  They aren’t tokens of our undying love for soldiers and sailors.  They are all part of an employment compensation package the government provides for a certain class of employees.  And overall, that compensation package is quite generous.

There is no other job in the world that will hire a totally unskilled individual with a mere high school education (or even a GED), pay them starting on Day One, provide food, housing, clothing, comprehensive medical care for the entire family (including vision, dental, and treatment pre-existing conditions), start them with 30 days of paid vacation per year, and then pay them to be trained in their field.  And that’s before they even start actually producing anything for the employer.

And then there is continuing education, college benefits (for a mere four years of employment!), tax free housing allowances, tax free shopping, travel, advancement opportunity, guaranteed pay raises, inexpensive life insurance, job security, and the ability to retire at half pay after working a mere 20 years.  And even if you bail on the job after just a few years, you get paid transition assistance, career placement counselors, subsidized home loans…  If this is “shoddy” treatment, as Mr. Humes calls it, then what about every other employee in America?  If you work for Joe’s Construction for 4 years and then quit, Joe probably won’t spend a lot of time or money making sure you get another job and helping you buy a house.

(It is true that military folks face people attempting to kill them at work.  But then, those same people are trying to kill all of us over here, too.  At least you get to shoot back in the military.  And Joe’s Construction isn’t exactly risk free, either – 1,239 construction workers were killed on the job in 2006.)

But all of this costs money.  Lots of money.  About a quarter of the Pentagon’s budget is devoted just to paying for these benefits packages.  A substantial increase in benefits for military personnel would necessarily increase defense spending overall, which the left would then, of course, complain about.  So at some point, reality kicks in, and we must recognize that while military personnel deserve generous compensation, there comes a point where you have to realistically set a price for the labor and skills you’re getting, and not spend more than you have to on payroll.

Understanding this and acting on it isn’t an “attack”.  It’s what grownups do when they don’t have unlimited money, and what responsible politicians do when they respect that they’re spending other people’s money that was given to them in trust for the benefit of the nation as a whole.

If Edward Humes thinks that we should “give” vets more, then he is more than free to break out his checkbook – there are countless organizations who will take his money on behalf of the veterans and active duty service members.  (Some will even actually benefit the vets.)  Better yet, sign up – they could use a hand.  Or he could just ask his fellow Democrats to stop prolonging the war by announcing to our enemies that we’re on the verge of surrender if only the violence can be extended through November.

But he – and the folks in Washington – need to start learning the difference between a gift and a paycheck.  They also need to understand the difference between the truly “respectful rhetoric” of McCain and the “pandering condescension” of many other politicians.  And this veteran would thank him not to treat me like a victim who needs his help, or a two dimensional political prop to bash his favorite candidate’s political opponent.