Webb veterans bill misses the mark

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

Recreating the great success of the G.I. Bill after World War II for veterans of the war on terrorism is the best idea to emerge from this Democrat-controlled Congress. But poor conception can condemn even the best-intentioned legislation. A cast in point: a bill introduced by Sen. Jim Webb, Virginia Democrat, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008. This bill is likely to attract more recruits with its very favorable educational benefits, but it will also cause the overall military re-enlistment rate to drop from approximately 42 percent to 36 percent, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

As explained to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, in a Thursday letter, CBO estimates that the bill "would result in a 16 percent increase in recruits," which is one benefit of a very generous package. But the experience of Pentagon retention experts suggests that every additional $10,000 in educational benefits reduces overall retention by slightly more than one percent. The Webb bill would "more than double the present value of educational benefits for servicemembers at the first reenlistment point — from about $40,000 to over $90,000 — implying a 16 percent decline in the reenlistment rate," the CBO concludes.

In practice, this legislation could worsen the already serious manpower problems faced by the Pentagon. It would likely siphon off of the most experienced service members while expanding the overall pool of raw recruits. One can certainly see the unpleasantness of the politics of this issue. Who wants to argue against greater educational benefits for military veterans? But then again, no well-intentioned person wants to pass a bill that seriously exacerbates the already challenging problem of military re-enlistment. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have greatly accelerated service-member burnout in a number of areas. Insofar as lawmakers oppose this bill on the above grounds, they are certain to find themselves open to accusations of "opposing benefits for veterans" by pointing out the economic and manpower downsides.

Mr. Webb's preference for the citizen-soldier ideal of yore is admirable. But it remains to be seen whether the U.S. military can achieve that while simultaneously fighting the current global war against radical Islamists. It obviously makes no sense to pass legislation that creates perverse incentives by tempting the most valuable members of the current wartime military to leave the military. Congress and the president need to come up with a better bill — one that helps veterans without encouraging legions of fine people whose skills are still needed on the battlefield to retire from the armed services.