Veterans Advocates Slam Washington Post for Calling for Cuts to Disability Benefits
A Washington Post opinion piece calling for cuts to veterans’ disability benefits has drawn widespread condemnation and outrage from veterans and their advocates.
The op-ed, penned anonymously by the Post’s Editorial Board, complains of the growth of the VA’s disability benefits budget, while conveniently ignoring how 20 years of war might have contributed to the increase in disabled veterans. Instead, the Post cites advances in “battlefield medicine” to explain the rise in costs. In other words, veterans used to die on the battlefield. Now they expect disability benefits.
It didn’t take long for veterans to fire back.
VFW’s Ryan Galucci slammed the Washington Post for seeking to balance the budget on the backs of disabled veterans. The cost of veterans’ benefits, he states, “is not only a reflection of more Americans surviving the battlefield, but it is also our country recognizing the inherent danger of military service.”
The recently passed PACT Act is one example of the country recognizing those hazards. The PACT Act unlocked disability compensation for veterans battling lethal cancers caused by exposure to toxic burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, Agent Orange outside of mainland Vietnam, and toxic water at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.
“The Honoring Our PACT Act rightfully expanded toxic exposure benefits to veterans who have suffered debilitating illnesses, some dating all the way back to the 1950s,” Galucci wrote. “Does the Washington Post Editorial Board prefer these veterans, their families and survivors continue to suffer in silence as they have for years?”
The Post piece is short on concrete proposals, but one idea they float is means-testing for disability benefits recipients. If a veteran brings in over a certain amount of income, they suggest, that veteran would no longer be eligible for the disability benefits they earned when they signed up to serve.
Paralyzed Veterans of America condemned the Post for pushing the view that compensation is only about lost wages, while failing to consider “the incredible sacrifice and catastrophic consequences of Veterans’ service.” What’s more, many veterans who are partially disabled work and support their families, a source of pride and purpose in their lives.
PVA also called out the article’s lack of relevant supporting data and input from disabled veterans themselves. (No space was given to veterans advocates in the article.)
Here at the Rep For Vets, we believe disabled veterans deserve a voice, and disability compensation regardless of their work status. While it’s true that the VA’s disability rating system is due for an overhaul to bring it in line with the modern workplace, the goal should not be balancing the budget on the backs of veterans.
The Washington Post’s Editorial Board clearly has no idea what they’re talking about when it comes to veterans’ benefits policy. Their article is disrespectful, ignorant, and out of touch.
The VA has since issued a statement that they will not be implementing the Post’s proposals. The swift rebuke of the Post’s Editorial Board should send a signal to lawmakers and budget wonks as well: Don’t touch veterans benefits.
Veterans working with disabilities deserve our support and recognition. We should honor their sacrifices in the form of fair, tax-free disability compensation.