Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Dec. 2, 2002 / 22 Kislev, 5763

Jonathan Turley

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

A cruel bait and switch for vets | It may be one of the cruelest bait-and-switches in history. At issue is a promise by the government to World War II and Korean War veterans that their health-care benefits would be guaranteed for life.

Now that this bill has come due, the government has reneged and said it is not legally bound to make good on its promise. One of these veterans is Robert Reinlie, who had more than 30 missions in a B-17 bomber over Europe during World War II. He flew through walls of German flak and antiaircraft fire to survive in one of the war's most hazardous duties. Now, at 81, he is fighting his own government in court, and this time he is losing.

A federal court of appeals in Washington ruled last week that although a promise was made by the government, it was a promise that could legally be broken. The court ruled that the loss was significant for these veterans and that the breach of the promise was shocking. Yet it could not force the government to act morally.

This controversy began near the end of World War II, when the military was struggling to keep veterans in its ranks. A war against the Soviet Union was viewed as almost inevitable, and the government needed veterans like Reinlie.

So it made a promise: If military personnel would serve at least 20 years, they would receive free lifetime medical care for themselves and their dependents.

Tens of thousands of veterans responded and soon found themselves fighting in Korea against waves of Chinese soldiers. They had made a promise to serve, and this was a generation that was taught to keep a promise, even at the cost of one's life.

The government has never denied that it made this promise. Government lawyers soon realized that, even though a promise was made, the only thing preventing Washington from reneging was a moral commitment.

In our government, this made it an easy decision.

In 1995, the government informed all veterans over 65 (by definition all of the World War II and Korea veterans) that they would have to seek medical care from Medicare. Though they could request free care from military hospitals, they were given the lowest priority for such care and usually were turned away because of the downsizing of military facilities.

Even before 1995, the government was taking money out of the benefits of veterans, who were often unaware that they were having such monthly deductions.

As a result, most had to purchase supplemental policies, which could cost hundreds of dollars a month. Many of these veterans, almost all in their 80s and 90s, cannot afford the additional cost for the health care that they were promised would be covered.

While fighting the veterans in court, the Clinton and Bush administrations secured billions of dollars in pork-barrel projects, special-interests breaks and subsidies from a willing Congress -- a Congress that recently appointed a committee to expand its own taxpayer-funded health club and recreation facilities. Many members of Congress apparently believe that the Battle of the Bulge refers to their own selfless struggle against unsightly weight gain.

While the new Tricare system from veterans is generous in a number of respects, there continue to be costs imposed on these veterans and other covered beneficiaries. Any such costs violate the promise of the government, a promise that the military encouraged recruiters to make in written documents.

The hypocrisy of our government was never clearer than this month on Veterans Day. While these politicians were using World War II veterans as human props, government lawyers were in court stripping them of their benefits. While officials waxed poetic about the "debt that we owe and can never repay" this greatest generation, the administration was busy contesting any legal obligation to pay at all.

Ironically, Washington had to rush to guarantee an insulting end to the lives of those who gave so much to so many. World War II veterans are dying at the rate of 1,200 a day.

In some ways, the government is acting consistently with its past. In 1932, more than 20,000 veterans of World War I camped out in Washington demanding promised bonuses from Congress. The government sent in tanks under the command of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who viciously attacked with heavily armed troops and burned their makeshift camp to the ground.

So now our politicians are busy sending off a new generation of young Americans to fight in our name. We have promised them much, and politicians have again professed undying support for them and their families. Meanwhile, the government is trying to quickly dispatch one generation of veterans before the first of the new generation of wounded come home.

Of course, the dwindling number of World II veterans will still be sought out by these same politicians for photo ops every Veterans Day and pushed to the front of the parade. They just have to watch their step; if they trip and break a hip, they are on their own.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Jonathan Turley is J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law George Washington University Law School. Comment by clicking here.

11/15/02: Junk justice
11/07/02: OUR second-class soldiers
10/30/02: 'Quirin' revisited: The dark history of a military tribunal
10/22/02: Un-American Arrests: Mass detainments of the innocent may be the ultimate form of crowd control, but the tactic is unconstitutional
10/16/02: Reverse pawn shops? Broke state officials across the country have been looking for businesses to buy their assets at a fraction of their worth to pay for budget shortfalls
10/08/02: A legal tattoo hullabaloo
10/02/02: Gagged justice sets dangerous precedent
09/25/02: The Great Salmon Rose Caper
09/17/02: Reparations: A Scam Cloaked in Racial Pain
09/12/02: This country's hidden strength
09/04/02: 1st Amendment protects even the ugliest among us
08/28/02: A secret court goes public
08/20/02: I defended Ashcroft during his nomination; he's become a constitutional menace
08/07/02: San Francisco embracing states-rights
07/31/02: Who needs Jenny Craig when you can have Johnnie Cochran?
07/22/02: The meaning of justice and the madness of Zacarias Moussauoi
07/16/02: The President vs. the Presidency
07/08/02: How one woman's whims dictates the rights of millions
07/02/02: Just say 'no' to extracurricular activities
06/24/02: Missing Ted Bundy
06/10/02: A comedy of eros06/14/02: 05/31/02: Beyond the 'reformed FBI' hype
05/23/02: Do we really need a Federal Marriage Amendment?
05/19/02: No "battlefield detainee" should leave home without a U.S. birth certificate
05/10/02: The perfect constitutional storm
04/26/02: 'Slave of Allah' wounds justice
04/12/02: The importance of being nameless
04/05/02: The adjusted value of justice
03/18/02: How Clinton got off: A law professor's take
03/11/02: Profiling and the terrorist lottery
03/05/02: Yes, Sharpton, there was a failure of justice
02/28/02: The Lay of the land
02/14/02: Living in constitutional denial
02/05/02: Legal Lesson for Afghanistan: War's Not a Slip-and-Fall Case
01/25/02: Sever "Jihad Johnny"'s ties to his homeland
01/21/02: "Out of sight, out of mind," but they're still prisoners
01/14/02: Your papers, please!
01/07/02: Prescription for disaster
12/18/01: Madison and the Mujahedeen
12/07/01: In the U.S., espionage crime is easy to understand but difficult to prove
11/19/01: What type of 'creature' would defend bin Laden?
11/19/01: Could bin Laden be acquitted in a trial?
10/28/01: The ultimate sign of the different times in which we are living
10/25/01: Al-Qaida produces killers, not thinkers
09/28/01: The Boxer rebellion and the war against terrorism
08/31/01: Bring back the silent Condit
08/27/01: Working out the body politic

© 2002, Jonathan Turley