The obstacles facing veterans both nationwide and on our own campus are enough to cause more than one headache. Many veterans struggle to find enough money to pay for the cost of living, let alone the cost of education. Rather than putting up additional obligations for further service before veterans can seek a future outside of the military, we should be doing everything possible to help erase some of the burdens facing those returning home from war.
Congress has proposed two separate bills expanding veterans’ benefits: one pushed by congressional Republicans and President Bush, the other pushed by the Democrats and led by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va. The Republican proposal is less expansive but party members contend that it encourages military retention.
The Democratic proposal is far more expansive but requires an income tax increase on the affluent. Some argue the proposal would encourage military members to drop out after reaching the minimum service requirement.
The Webb version has so far gained the most support both in Congress and among the American people. The popularity of the Webb bill has caused several Republicans to break with the party line and vote for it, despite Bush’s promise to veto. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, voted in favor of the bill, while Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who is up for re-election in the fall, voted against it.
State Rep. Rick Noriega, of Houston, the Democratic nominee for the Senate race this year, was on campus Thursday giving a press conference criticizing Cornyn for his vote against the bill and stating his support for it.
As a veteran and state representative from the Houston area, Noriega believes the Republican alternative to be a "watered-down" version, which would ultimately shortchange our soldiers. He continued to recall his own retention interviews with soldiers, who more often cited repeated deployments to Iraq than the lack of financial incentives as the problem, thus attempting to refute Cornyn’s main argument that Webb’s bill could damage military retention.
The differences between Cornyn and Noriega echo the national arguments concerning the bill, as well as the inability of Congress to agree on a plan of action for not only this issue, but also any major item on the agenda. Given the enormous costs of the Iraq war, it is difficult to argue that we should not be investing equally large shares into the future of our soldiers returning home. While either proposal would be an improvement over what we have, the Webb version would be the most comprehensive approach.
Busby, an English sophomore, can be reached via [email protected].
