Supporting the Troops Means Making a Difference

This article first appeared in the Staunton Daily Newsleader, June 8, 2008

Signs in their front yards, bumper stickers on vehicles. We say thank you at graduations, at sporting events, in church and any other public arena where it seems appropriate.

Supporting our troops, and thanking them for their time and sacrifice is a popular thing in today's society. Regardless of whether or not you support the war, most people support the warrior. But how far does this support go?

Does it stop at saying "thank you?" Does a sign or a bumper sticker show appreciation for soldiers who are willing to risk their lives for the country that they love? Because it is so popular to support the troops, it is smart politics to enthusiastically exclaim gratitude for today's veterans.

But just like the sign and the bumper sticker, is patriotic rhetoric enough to say thank you? U.S Rep. Bob Goodlatte, 6th-Roanoke, vocally supports the troops and the war in Iraq, but when it was his turn to vote on the Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, Goodlatte decided it was not in the best interest of the country to thank the troops with an updated GI Bill.

The Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, introduced by U.S. Senator Jim Webb, D-Virginia, would update the GI Bill to provide today's veterans with benefits that are comparable to those received by World War II veterans — tuition at state colleges and universities.

Politicians have the right to vote however they feel is in the best interest of their constituents. In return constituents have the right and obligation to hold their representatives accountable for the manner in which they vote. Goodlatte owes it to the citizens of the 6th Congressional District, specifically the veterans of this area, to explain his decision to vote against updating educational benefits.

Goodlatte is a fiscal conservative, and believes in smart spending. Updating educational benefits for veterans will cost approximately $2 billion dollars a year, less than one week of war in Iraq.

The fact that Congressman Goodlatte is frugal when it comes to spending doesn't justify his oppositional vote. It is possible that Mr. Goodlatte will take the angle that the updated benefits will hinder re-enlistment.

This is a hollow argument, and it is one that ignores the plain and simple fact that retention rates are low due to multiple deployments on soldiers and high stress on the families. Let's pretend for a minute that updating benefits would have a negative effect on re-enlistment; wouldn't regular enlistment rise thanks to these increased benefits?

The bottom line is that passing the Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act would show our soldiers the gratitude that America feels through productive policy, not just fancy rhetoric. The good news for Representative Goodlatte and the bad news for veterans across the country, is that President Bush will most likely veto this bill. This is good news for Congressman Goodlatte because it will give him an opportunity to rethink his vote. All citizens of the 6th Congressional District who openly support our troops should encourage Representative Goodlatte to reconsider his vote.

It is time for politicians to stop using veterans as a political tool and start working to improve an out-of-date benefits system.

Author: Seth Lovell