Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Too Grateful To America’s Veterans?
Only the New York Times would put it quite that way:
Unfortunately, the modern-day lionization of veterans has itself gone too far. In Washington, this knee-jerk support has resulted in policy decisions that will hurt both vets and the larger public over time… Since 2000, the Department of Veterans Affairs has seen its budget nearly triple. Its programs run the gamut from burial benefits to job training. But among the biggest cost drivers is the disability-compensation system, which now approaches $60 billion per year.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, the kicker:
And while most vets who receive disability checks deserve them, one of the worst kept secrets among those seeking a disability rating is that the system can be beaten. Claim the right combination of symptoms, whether you are suffering or not, and there is a decent chance you can get a monthly disability check, tax free, for the rest of your life. There are even blogs out there to walk you through the process of claiming an injury that cannot be disproved.
You mean a government program can be gamed by the unscrupulous? The Times has (at last!) found a social benefits program it doesn’t like and — by the strangest coincidence — it just happens to involve the military. In point of contrast, Social Security Disability Insurance, a program that libertarians and conservatives have been wary about for decades, costs over $144 billion a year, more than twice the cost of the veterans’ program that the Times finds too generous.
The op-ed piece, written by a former Navy pilot, is a fascinating bit of parallel thinking. It talks about the Veterans Department’s disability program the same way conservatives and libertarians have been talking about the welfare state since the New Deal. The laundry list of complaints sync almost perfectly: an inefficient and often clueless bureaucracy, an overly sentimental approach to viewing social problems, and politicians eager to engage in pandering and vote buying.
The Times was clever in picking a veteran to write this op-ed. A run-of-the mill staffer or columnist — few of whom have ever seen the inside of a recruiting station — would attract massive criticism. Effectively, the Times has used a veteran as a politically correct shield to make their point that the Veterans Department is too big.
This isn’t to say that the DoD and Veterans isn’t a bloated bureaucracy. Even the parts of government that should exist have a tendency toward empire-building and rent-seeking. The basic hypocrisy of the Times is in attacking one part of the federal establishment it isn’t terrible fond of, while refusing to apply the same standards to the rest of the $4 trillion that Washington doles out each year.
If you’re keen on cutting back the bloat, there are easier and better places to start than among those who have served.
I work with some guys who are 60% disabled or more, and they are always suggesting I have my claim reassessed to get above the paltry 10% I received during the cost savings period that was in effect when I separated from the Navy. Funny thing about it, I’m the only one of the lot going to the VA to have my service connected injury treated. The rest carry on merrily, receiving their big checks every month. Heck, I don’t even get a check for my 10% until 2030 or so because I received a severance from the Navy. Not to come off as bitter, but these guys are pulling down a military retirement, a VA disability check, and making the same wages I am (some of them are overtime whores as well — I don’t know how they handle tax season.)
I don’t know that it’s gaming the system, but it sure looks like a sweet deal.
Interesting point, KP.
It seems like they should at least have to try to have the injury repaired before they can collect a lifetime of benefits.
But to the OP’s point, yes it is remarkable what it takes to get the NYT to turn against a program. I think your analysis of this is right on.
I’m sure if boiled down the real point of the NYT contention is that this particular program does not purchase democrat votes.
I would like to see a little more rationality about military and veterans issues. They are such sacred cows that no one will even ask sensible questions like “is the money being spent wisely?” So far my experience (limited but increasing) with the VA medical system is they evaluate performance based on both the McDonald’s and standard government models: how many served and how much of the budget is consumed. If I get the same vibe from the place later this month as I got when I went last month I’ll have to write about it. To foreshadow the thing, my working title is “Shameful Honor.”
The direct payments are one thing, and a problem, but disabled veterans of any stripe have an unassailable advantage in federal employment.
I know a few guys who work in the Treasury Department and they complain about the disabled veterans. They get most of the promotions.
During my transition back to civilian life the VA reps who showed up basically told us exactly what to say and how to say it to get at least 10% disability (it can be increased later and is fairly easy to do). They weren’t so direct about it, but if you were paying attention all the hints and specific terms you needed to use were there.
I never could do it. Part of me wishes I had (the part that’s paying student loans), but I doubt I’d have the same work ethic if I just got 1k a month for doing nothing, and practically unlimited access to easy federal jobs.
I’ve not seen the promotion thing in effect where I work, but it is a small community. On the govjobs, do you view them (as many seem to) as a continuing benefit of prior military service? I’m grateful I was able to continue service through the gov because I actually believe in the mission here, but also because I was told my education and experience was only worth about $12/hr in the real world. That would have been about a 65% pay cut if.
The problem with veterans is that they are disproportionately white, conservative and rural. The NYT cares not if programs for the urban non-white poor are hideously expensive and badly run. As long as Those People are properly dependent on their betters and vote their requisite gratitude, all’s well.
But it seems unnatural to a white liberal for white non-liberals to also be the beneficiaries of badly run programs. The NYT attacks the VA and get a naughty thrill for criticizing government spending while simultaneously snarking at the edges of the whole military service/patriotism thing they loathe.
The worst part decline of the MSM is how predictable and boring they have become. I am old enough to remember when Marxists still had a revolutionary spark but the modern left is just a snarky narcissism that regards morality and honor to be lifestyle threats.
Umm, not to get all Chicago School on you, but we’re conservatives here. If the private sector says your education/experience is worth $12/hr, isn’t that what it’s worth? The extra 65% is a subsidy.*
*Obviously I don’t know your sitch, and I am assuming you’re taling about equivalent jobs, but I am curious as to how you address that internally
There are many instances of graft, if you want to call taking money to something you’re not entitled to as a public employee. The NYT may be right in making their readers aware of the VA problem but I’m willing to bet that they will not write any articles about non-military public employees.
There are many cases of cities that post non-police jobs in the help wanted ads in their municipalities to comply with requirements that they must advertise these positions. Non-police jobs are posted but you have to pass a battery of tests. If your relative is a loser they won’t get that job. When it comes time to hire in many cases the relative of someone currently working for that city will be hired for that non-police job.
I know of a case where a municipal water department went to their city council and asked for funding to start a summer jobs program for high school students. Who got those summer jobs? Children of water department employees, that’s who.
Graft is relative it seems.
Veterans get hiring preference when they compete for federal jobs filled from outside the government. Once they become federal employees, veterans usually get no preference when they compete for promotion with their fellow employees within their agencies.
Along one (minor) dimension, I agree with the NYT. As a veteran, albeit one who never saw serious combat, I’m well and truly fed up with the “Thank you for your service” nonsense. It’s generally insincere, an automatically walked through Hihowareya. The way it’s offered in “news” program interviews sounds equally so.
On the larger question, NYT is committing a common error of the Left: it’s all about the money and not at all about the execution. The paper bleats about a few bad apples gaming the system while carefully ignoring the way the system itself, in the case of the VA, is an utter failure. And a terrific waste of money.
Eric Hines
That is the official stance. But as my friends tell it the vets still get some advantage which is difficult to compete with. I may be hearing biased info, or it might just be that vets tend to promote other vets, or just tend to be better at work in general.
I’ve often thought about this. I have two service connected injuries. I have often been encouraged to go get setup on disability for them. I don’t. I don’t for two reasons. First, the VA, in my mind, is for people injured in combat. I was not. Second, that’s just not me. I can work. I can pull down a decent salary. While its true my injuries have had some effect on my quality of life, that is minor.
It isn’t politically correct to suggest that we do too much for veterans. But it’s possible that we do. I know one person who gets full disability from the VA. They were never in combat and never injured. In reality the person is just fat and lazy. I know another person the VA has covered 100% for decades now. They were even provided an expensive motorized wheel chair, and a lift in their vehicle. The lift and wheel chair have never been used. Not ever
There are probably a million such stories. Does it prove my point? Probably not. They are just anecdotes. But I do think there is some truth to the article, loathe as I am to be in agreement for even a second with the New York Times.
This is possible. Some positions are filled by looking both outside the government (from a civil service register) and inside the government (from a merit promotion list) and choosing which list to hire from. Vets will still get preference on the civil service register. But any additional discussion of federal hiring/promotion procedures will lead to madness.
There is no equivalent to being a Missile Technician, except in general skills. Applied to particular weapons systems those skills, plus the added character requirements, are worth a bit more because not just any schlub who can run a crane can be trusted to do it with 100 tons of explosives and unmentionables on the hook. The vast reduction, however, comes mostly from the civilian workforce not valuing military experience/skills as equivalent to prior civilian experience. I was viewed as having basically zero or minimum work experience — entry level at anything I tried. Coming back to the same place as a civilian where I already worked as a sailor meant that my 14+ years actually counted for something.
That said, for my job classification I make high average. A case could be made that the federal benefits add a lot to the package, but those things don’t buy a lot of gas or groceries.
I have one friend who did 4 years in the Navy as a yeoman (which is Navyspeak for secretary) at a training facility. Not a go out and shoot things training facility — a 400,000 sq foot school building. She is probably 80% disabled. She’s also on SSI because of a plethora of other health concerns, but it’s the VA disability that blows my mind. Perhaps I should have strived for more paper cuts while I was in.
The disability pay-outs are not really the biggest problem, though there’s a great deal of fraud. Fraudulent claims gum up the works in processing legitimate claims, which impact labor costs. The benefits side of the VA has lots of employees. In fact, the VA is second behind DoD in number of federal employees it employs. Making it harder to prove a disability would cost more in the long run. So, Veterans filing fraudulent claims should be called out for driving up costs and holding up care of legit needs. However, there are other factors driving the high cost of the disability-compensation system. One of those is the treatment of those disabilities. The latest boondoggle to attempt to relieve the backlog in treatment is the Veterans Choice Program. The program sounds great because it allows Veterans more access to private healthcare. Congress threw a bunch of money at it, and it’s been a disaster. The program essentially made the VA an insurance agency, because Veterans have to file claims with the VA, instead of the private healthcare provider filing the claim with the VA. That means the Veteran is responsible for payment until the VA decides to approve the claim. Some Veterans have had their credit ruined, because the VA is (shockingly!!) slow to process claims in a timely way. I’m sure you’ll be hearing more about it in the weeks to come. Welcome to CYA Summer in DC!
That is a really despicable Op-Ed. It does not surprise me the NY Times published it but that is low even for them. Of course fraud must be rooted out, but to frame it as a veteran’s issue is outrageous.
Old Bathos: #6 “The problem with veterans is that they are disproportionately white, conservative and rural.”
You obviously don’t go to the Atlanta VA hospital.
I would suggest the that the information they provide is possibly neither comprehensive nor forthcoming.