Veteran Against Veteran

JOHN E. BOOTH

A UNITED STATES civil servant was honored recently at a White House ceremony lor saving the Veterans Administration, and thereby the taxpayer, $63,410 in laundry bills. The savings accrued as a result of her suggestion that percale rather than muslin sheets be used at U.S. veterans hospitals. Unhappily for the taxpayer, this estimable lady is a rarity in what may well be the most extravagantly wasteful expenditure in the nation’s history — the veterans program as it is presently constituted.

The fifth largest item in the national budget, with an outlay of about $5 billion annually, the veterans program is inflated by hundreds of millions of dollars in waste. Most of these funds go to veterans whose claims can in no way be justified by wartime injury or present unique need. The largess is funneled out to the accompaniment of overwhelming congressional approval, pleadings of the powerful veterans groups who lobby for it, and the heedless enthusiasm of a public mesmerized by the word “veteran" and largely uninformed on the basic issues.

The man who has been seriously injured in line of duty to the extent that he cannot assume a normally rewarding life merits every consideration a grateful nation can bestow upon him, as do the widow and children of a soldier who has given his life for his country. But to what extent beyond readjustment benefits are we to provide for a man simply because he wore the uniform?

The major veterans programs today include compensation, pensions, and hospitalization. Compensation is money paid to a veteran with a disability which was either incurred or aggravated by his military service — in other words, a serviceconnected disability. The amount of compensation is dependent upon the degree of his disability or his physical loss.

Compensation payments to World War II and Korean War veterans, the chief beneficiaries of this type of benefit, amount to $1.33 billion annually and go to 1,716,961 veterans. Conservative estimates indicate that more than half of these veterans should not qualify for any compensation. These are for the most part the veterans who are rated as having a disability of 10 to 20 percent. A report on veterans benefits in the United States issued in 1956 and signed by General Omar N. Bradley — a report which still stands as the most thoroughgoing and enlightened study of veterans affairs ever compiled —noted that a 10 to 20 percent disability rating does not represent any impairment of physical vitality. The Bradley report recommended that consideration be given to terminating a majority of these claims by making a lump sum settlement. Since the claimants were collecting compensation at the rate of more than $300 million a year, the suggestion seemed extravagantly generous and is typical of the magnanimity of spirit of the Bradley report. These veterans, of course, would continue to be eligible for medical attention for their service-connected ills. It is worth noting that of all the service-disabled, only 25 percent have disabilities which were incurred in combat zones. Many are on the rolls because of liberal presumptions of service connection and would probably have developed their disabilities without military service.

Even the disability rating of 100 percent, measured in terms of mortality rate or impairment of earning capacity, was not a reflection of actual total disability, the Bradley report found. For example, it reported that 41 percent of the “100 percent” disabled were employed sometime during the year and that 11 percent indicated that they were working substantially full time. Doubtless as the years go by, these men will be less favorably situated. But as the Bradley report delicately puts it, “When so-called 100 percent disabled veterans engage in highly remunerative employment, the Veterans Administration program becomes susceptible to misunderstanding and criticism.”

THE PARAPLEGICS

While we provide hundreds of millions of dollars to veterans who probably do not deserve it, we refuse to provide adequately, let alone generously, for the paraplegics, who face a life lacking most of the dimensions of human fulfillment. They include veterans paralyzed below the waist, with accompanying serious circulatory difficulties and other internal problems such as loss of procreative powers, improper functioning of bowels and bladder, and danger from pressure sores.

For a housebound paralyzed veteran who is confined to a wheelchair or bed, the government provides $5280 to $6300 a year, plus an allowance of $276 a year for a wife and $192 for a child, with lesser amounts for additional children. For the veteran requiring constant attention, there is a $200 monthly allowance for an attendant — if such can be found for that money. Since he cannot use public transportation, he is given $1600 toward the purchase of a car. He also receives a $10,000 onetime grant toward a specially equipped house. The Veterans Administration takes care of his medical needs, although in the opinion of the executive director of the 700-member Eastern Paralyzed Veteixins Association, rehabilitation programs are entirely inadequate and psychiatric counseling for the critical psychosocial problems of the paraplegic is virtually nonexistent. The special needs of the paraplegic are not met by his allotments, and he is invariably reduced to a standard of living below normal. The official reason for the inadequate funds? Economy!

World War I veterans are now the major beneficiaries of the pension system, which was designed for veterans with non-service-connected disabilities who are unemployable and have limited incomes. For all practical purposes, a veteran is considered to be “permanently and totally disabled” at age sixty-five if he is retired from full-time employment and has 10 percent permanent disability. Few persons of this age are unable to prove a 10 percent disability. As a consequence, in 1964 a million men were receiving pensions amounting to more than $1 billion per year.

Inherent in the pension system are implications for present and future taxpayers which are staggering. The pressure is relentless to extend pensions on an ever grander scale, increasing present rates and extending coverage. The current goal of some veterans organizations is to provide a pension for every World War I veteran whether or not he needs it. The same pressures will doubtless be felt for the World War II veteran as he approaches retirement age. In fact, many World War II veterans are already on the pension rolls.

In the formlessness, and often mindlessness, of veterans legislation over the years, one of the few discernible threads is that of precedent. The benefits given to one generation of warriors are automatically used as building blocks for the next, need or reason notwithstanding. The extension of pensions to the 2,226,000 World War I veterans will serve as precedent for the 20,756,000 veterans of World War II and Korea, who will, of course, have infinitely greater political power.

Indisputably, the veteran disadvantaged in life from his period of military service deserves help. But it is the leitmotiv of nearly every emotional argument in Congress for increased veterans benefits that every veteran is so disadvantaged. The very opposite is true.

Veterans of World War I have a median income (including pensions) half again as high as that of nonveterans in the age group of sixty-five and over: $2368 for veterans to $1509 for nonveterans. The point here is not that $2368 is a desirable level of income, but that the veteran without a serviceconnected disability does not rate special treatment over the nonveteran. Should not all government programs for the aged be placed on a common basis?

A favorite argument of those pressing for wider pensions for World War I veterans is that they are inadequately covered by social security. The fact is that 90 percent of them are covered. The bonus awarded to World War I veterans was in lieu of the kind of benefits received by World War II veterans under the G.I. Bill of Rights, and the amount was roughly commensurate in buying power with awards under the G.I. Bill, although the latter was certainly planned more advantageously for the veteran. World War I veterans have already received a total of $35 billion in benefits, and expenditures per man have averaged $7400.

In the case of the World War II veteran, the facts are even more compelling. Not only is he in the mainstream of the American economy, but by 1956 his income had moved about 20 percent ahead of the nonveteran’s in the same age group, and it continues to be higher than the median income of $5465 for nonveterans. World War II veterans are better housed, have more education and better opportunity for employment than nonveterans. Ninety-six percent of all World War II veterans are covered by social security.

Their fortunate status has been achieved in large part through the G.I. Bill of Rights and other laws which offered far-reaching benefits: mustering out pay for every man, cash income during unemployment, assistance in obtaining new jobs or reinstatement in former jobs, opportunities for education or training at government expense, and special loans to assist in purchasing homes, farms, or businesses.

NOT LESS, BUT MORE, MORE, MORE

Considering the generally favorable economic status of the veteran compared with that of the nonveteran, the universally applicable social security benefits, and the considerable waste already in the program, a policy of reason would call for a curtailment of benefits. But of the six hundred or more bills introduced last year by various members of Congress before the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, a great number called for multimillion-dollar increases in benefits. Frequently, the sponsors know that their bills will be turned down, though this nominal effort will win the affection and votes of veterans groups back home.

A bill potentially catastrophic to budgetary considerations or to any semblance of prudent policy came perilously close to passage recently. It called for pensions of $100 a month to all World War I veterans with ninety days of service whose income did not exceed $4800 if married and $3600 if unmarried. There would be no requirement that the veteran be disabled or unemployable. The program would cost about $1 billion in the first year alone, with a cumulative cost of nearly $20 billion. A particular irony of the bill’s concept is that while the top limitation on an eligible veteran’s income would be $4800, the median income for all families headed by a sixty-five-year-old individual is only $2897 per year. Moreover, half the male population of the country has an income of $4081 or less a year. In short, some twenty-three million taxpayers would have to contribute to tax-free pensions for veterans with no service-connected disability and with incomes higher than their own.

When the bill was held up in the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, two hundred and one congressmen signed a discharge petition to force the measure onto the floor over the committee’s objections. Only eighteen more signatures would have been required to get it there. It was widely recognized that if the bill should reach the floor of the House, it would be extremely difficult to defeat because of election-year pressures. But the pressure for this bill could be but a dim foreshadowing of pressures to come. With 44 percent of the nation’s population composed of men, women, and children potentially eligible to receive benefits as veterans or members of their families, it is evident that as the 20,756,000 veterans of World War II and Korea approach retirement age, pressures will be overwhelming.

HOSPITALS UNLIMITED?

Of all legislation recently passed, a bill signed into law last fall by the President perhaps set the most destructive precedent. It provides for nursinghome care for aging veterans regardless of serviceconnected illness. Limitations on eligibility and duration of stay are imprecise, and care is permitted not only in veterans hospitals but, on an extensive scale, in private and public nursing homes at government expense.

Last year the Veterans Administration operated 168 hospitals with a total capacity of 120,000 beds and more than 700,000 patients annually. This vast hospital system was set up primarily for the treatment of war-disabled veterans. As such it would have been less than one third its present size. But a proviso was accepted which quickly turned it into the largest hospital system in the nation. If there were empty beds, Congress decided, needy veterans with non-service-connected ills could use them. An oath of inability to pay is considered sufficient evidence, but the oath is often taken lightly. In any event, the admittance of veterans with non-service-connected ills to the hospitals resulted in a classic example of bureaucratic expansion. As soon as a hospital was built, qualified veterans with service-connected ills would enter it; the empty beds would then be filled by those without service-connected ills, and so there would be no more room for veterans with serviceconnected ills! The result? In the vast and growing system of VA hospitals, approximately 70 percent of all patients have no qualifying service-connected disability.

The number of living veterans over sixty-five will climb to eight million toward the end of the century, or six out of ten males over sixty-five in the United States. From 80,000 to 120,000 nursinghome beds will be required, at an annual cost of $300 million to $500 million and with cumulative costs ranging up to $10 billion. The Bureau of the Budget, whose voice runs through countless hearings on veterans affairs like a rare thread of reason in the wilderness of self-seekers, political opportunists, and the irresponsibly or willfully misinformed, put the matter into perspective at a congressional hearing in May, 1963:

“The fundamental question raised,” a representative of the Bureau testified,

is whether the Federal Government should enter the field of providing nursing home care for a special group of our citizens — veterans with illnesses or disabilities not caused by wartime service — or whether it should instead rely on more broadly applicable Federal, State and local programs which are designed to help make available such care for all our citizens.

Basically the needs of veterans which do not arise out of their military service are in the same category as the needs of other citizens who are infirm, chronically ill or without income. Moreover, since veterans as a group are better educated, have better jobs and higher incomes than nonveterans there is no economic justification for singling them out for additional special benefits. It is particularly significant that even those over age 65 have substantially higher incomes than nonveterans.

LEGIONS IN THE LOBBY

The word “veteran” carries with it a national air of sanctity, and the veterans lobbies appreciate the fact. At congressional hearings on veterans bills the lobbies invoke the glories of every single son who wore the uniform and plead for never-ending tribute (mostly cash) to him. “I feel confident that the Congress at this time will not be party to the creation of doubt, fear, despair, pessimism and cynicism in [support for] the after years of our war veterans” is but a restrained sample. But emotion works. It induces in Congress and elsewhere a state of Orwellian doublethink: “. . . the power

of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

There are a number of veterans lobbies. But the 2,600,000-member American Legion is the most powerful and most effective. It doubtless has been of service to numbers of veterans who have needed guidance in getting their benefits, and it is responsible in large measure for the G.I. Bill of Rights. But to its discredit is an endless pressure for endless benefits, a pressure rarely relieved by moderation.

The Legion in 1963 ranked seventh among 286 national organizations which under law must report their lobbying expenditures. It spent $105,000 for legislative purposes. Its budget also included $143,000 for public relations and $760,000 for overall administration.

The lobbying effort is not wasted. All too frequently congressional elections are won by margins of only hundreds of votes. Many members of Congress are unwilling to risk the ire of the Legion, knowing that Legion headquarters in Washington can easily request state Legion offices to apply pressures which could spell disaster at the polls.

The leadership in Congress which has made it possible to turn back the most extreme demands of the veterans groups is headed by Olin E. Teague, chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. A multidecorated combat veteran himself, Mr. League has, with courage and wisdom, and often with little support from his own committee, steadfastly held to a line of reason.

But the pressures are mounting. The veterans organizations are on a collision course with any reasonable veterans program, and they are well armored. Observers in Washington have compared them to old-fashioned labor unions which year in and year out must get added benefits all around or lose their members. The veterans organizations are dedicated to the premise that the very fact of service entitles a veteran to extraordinary rewards for life. They overlook the vast disparity in quality of service among the veterans.

THE PRESENT IMPERATIVE

We need a bold new veterans program. The impetus for such a program can come only from the White House. The responsibility is clearly the President’s. His plans for the Great Society and for wise public spending compel his action. A desirable step would be the formation of a presidential commission of distinguished citizens, backed by a research staff, to draw up guidelines for a new veterans program. The President ought to back forcefully a program he approves, and President Johnson’s extraordinary mandate from the voters gives him a historic opportunity to act.

The President will have to face more forthrightly the pressure tactics of veterans groups and the demands of politically intimidated congressmen and senators which together recently caused him to make a partial retreat from an Administration order to close eleven hospitals in the vastly overblown system of 168 VA hospitals. In the end the President settled for closing just six hospitals.

A philosophic underpinning for any new veterans program could well be taken from the Bradley report: “Veterans benefits are a means of equalizing significant sacrifices that result directly from wartime military service. . . . Military service in time of war or peace is an obligation of citizenship and should not be considered inherently a basis for future Government benefits. Our national survival requires that every citizen do his part and make whatever contribution is required of him.”