Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) seems to get a lot done just by bringing matters to the public's attention. Here's one that is bound to cause a lot of discussion, a lot of outrage and, we'll bet, an eventual satisfactory resolution: The Defense Department is withholding bonuses of wounded veterans who are sent home from the war because they didn't finish out their tour.
GIs may be promised enlistment or re-enlistment bonuses of, say, $10,000. That is not unusual for the military in times of war, when not enough young men and women are signing up without the extra inducements. The Iraq and Afghanistan theaters are uninviting enough to impede recruitments at the desired pace. Without a draft, the Army is recirculating soldiers for third and fourth tours of combat duty.
So the enlistment bonus is a tool to keep the fighting units stocked with ready and experienced troops. There seems to be little argument against the practice. The soldiers earn extra money for their extreme sacrifices in behalf of their country. Citizens don't seem to begrudge these heroes their bonuses, as the service they render to their country is widely regarded as well worthy of extra cash.
So the soldier goes off to war with the prospect of a little more wealth, perhaps to buy a car, or pay for college, or help feed the family while he or she is away.
But here is where the controversy comes in: The soldiers who get seriously wounded and sent home are being obliged to pay back a pro-rated share of their bonus. The military's reasoning is that the soldier didn't earn the entire bonus.
It's easy to become irate at this policy. After all, the soldiers who got wounded suffer pain, anguish and perhaps permanent disability serving their country. To say that doesn't earn the bonus is to very much underrate the trial visited upon them.
Is the bonus intended to be a per-hour compensation for time spent? If so, it is a misdirected intention. Soldiers should be paid bonuses for their willingness to put their lives on the line and for the sacrifice they take on by signing up for service in an area of live combat. Their contribution should not be calculated in hours, days and months.
Schumer called this policy "just a disgrace," and he is right. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Executive Director Paul Rieckhoff said, "Asking wounded service members to repay part of their enlistment bonuses is an outrage."
It's hard to imagine the citizenry of the United States disagreeing. Wounded soldiers are earning their bonuses as surely as the soldiers who serve out their tours without injury.
For the Army to argue otherwise seems destined to not only fail to convince the doubters, but to alienate those doubters and virtually everyone else.
Opinion
November 29, 2007
EDITORIAL: Repay bonuses? Scrooge in uniform
- Editorial
-
-
Editorial: No raise for state legislators
This is not the year for state lawmakers to look for a raise.
- Editorial: A pair of aces among the Cards
- Editorial: Nurses, aides: a breed apart
-
Editorial: No raise for state legislators
- Cheers and Jeers
-
-
Cheers and Jeers: Feb. 6, 2012
CHEERS to Dr. Anne Cahill and JEERS to drivers who don't signal for turns and changing lanes.
-
Cheers and Jeers: Feb. 6, 2012
- Letters to the Editor
- Speakout
- In My Opinion
-
-
In My Opinion: E'town water, sewer essential
Elizabethtown has a history of economic ups and downs, Town Supervisor Margaret Bartley writes.
-
In My Opinion: E'town water, sewer essential
