Stop Paying for Veterans' Earned Benefits With Other Veterans' Earned Benefits
One of the most frustrating phrases in Washington is, "How are you going to pay for it?"
On the surface, it sounds reasonable. Congress has a responsibility to be mindful of the federal budget. The principle behind PAYGO, or "pay-as-you-go," is simple: if Congress creates new mandatory spending or reduces revenue, it should offset those costs so the deficit does not increase. In theory, that's fiscal responsibility.
The problem begins when Congress decides that the easiest place to find those offsets is within the veteran community itself.
Veterans Should Not Have to Fund Veterans
Military retirement, disability compensation, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), education benefits, and survivor benefits are not welfare programs. They are earned benefits.
Service members earn them through years of service, deployments, injuries, illnesses, and, in far too many cases, by giving their lives.
When Congress expands one earned benefit by reducing another earned benefit, it sends a troubling message:
"Your service is valuable, but only if another veteran or survivor pays for it."
That should never be acceptable.
A Dangerous Precedent
This is not about whether a particular benefit deserves to be expanded. Many proposals absolutely do.
The concern is the funding mechanism.
Once Congress establishes the precedent that one group of veterans can finance benefits for another group of veterans, the question is no longer whether earned benefits are protected.
The question becomes:
"Whose benefits get cut next?"
Today's offset may affect one disability rating.
Tomorrow it could affect survivor benefits.
Next year it could affect military retirement.
The precedent matters because once Congress proves it can balance veterans' legislation on the backs of other veterans, every future proposal becomes vulnerable to the same approach.
Earned Benefits Are Different
Congress rarely tells Social Security recipients that their cost-of-living increase will be funded by reducing Medicare for another group of retirees.
It would be unthinkable to tell federal employees that one retirement system must be cut so another retirement benefit can be expanded.
Veterans deserve the same respect.
A promise made to one generation of service members should not be financed by breaking promises made to another.
Congress Has Other Options
Congress has tools available beyond shifting costs within the military community.
It can:
Prioritize spending elsewhere in the federal budget.
Identify genuine waste, fraud, and abuse.
Increase revenues if it chooses.
Design legislation that is funded through broader budget negotiations.
Those are difficult conversations.
Taking benefits from one group of veterans to pay another is politically easier.
Easy does not make it right.
The Military Community Should Not Be Forced Into Competition
Perhaps the greatest damage caused by this approach is that it divides the military community.
Combat-disabled veterans are told they can receive long-overdue benefits only if another group loses something.
Surviving spouses are told their modest increase depends on someone else's reduction.
Future service members are told that their earned compensation is negotiable.
Instead of celebrating improvements together, veterans and survivors are pushed into arguing over who deserves limited resources.
That is exactly the opposite of what Congress should be encouraging.
Honor the Contract
Every generation of Americans has asked young men and women to volunteer for military service knowing they may be injured, disabled, or killed.
In return, the nation makes a promise.
Not a conditional promise.
Not a promise that depends on finding another veteran to pay the bill.
A promise.
Fiscal responsibility matters. Responsible budgeting matters. But balancing the books should never come at the expense of those who have already paid for their benefits through military service and sacrifice.
Congress should debate which benefits to expand.
Congress should debate how much those benefits should cost.
What Congress should stop debating is which veteran, retiree, or surviving family should be asked to sacrifice so another can finally receive what they have already earned.
Veterans should never be forced to pay for veterans.
The United States made a promise to all who served. Congress should honor that promise without asking one part of the military community to carry the cost for another.
