Forgotten Warriors?

Veterans of World War II returned to a grateful, generous country that was about to embark on an unprecedented quarter-century of prosperity. Korean War veterans cashed in on much the same rising curve of material benefits. Viet Nam vets, by contrast, are the dubious beneficiaries of the nation's immediate troubled past and uneasy future.

Unsung, disproportionately poor and poorly educated, G.I.s have been drifting back from Viet Nam to face unenthusiastic employers and--in the vets' view--sometimes unsympathetic officials of the Veterans Administration. Now the nearly 3,000,000 Vietvets seem to be facing an ungenerous Nixon Administration, which is bent on making budget cuts at what veterans believe to be their expense.

The gathering protest broke in Washington last week, as the Senate and House veterans' committees discussed the future of benefits. At issue was the Nixon 1974 budget, which proposes a $277 million cut for the VA. The reduction seems small compared with the overall estimated VA outlays of $11.7 billion, but considering that the VA's obligations have never been greater, the trimming hurts. Said James Mayer, president of the National Association of Collegiate Veterans: "The budget cuts have started, and the veterans are beginning to suffer."

Viet Nam veterans have been suffering for a long time--if only by comparison. The ex-servicemen of World War II got tuition paid in full at even the best private colleges plus a "subsistence allowance" of $50 a month for a veteran without dependents, which was adequate in the late 1940s. Veterans on today's G.I. Bill collect only $220 a month, which is enough to cover tuition at most state universities, but leaves little or nothing for living expenses.

Veterans complain that a lack of schooling and training programs have placed them near the end of the line when it comes to jobs. The least fortunate are the hard-drug addicts, who have returned home to a country that is not prepared to take care of them. According to the VA, there may be as many as 100,000 such heroin users.

Precisely how--or even if--the Administration's proposed cuts will further disadvantage the veterans is still unclear. Last month the VA proposed to reduce the payments to some 225,000 physically disabled veterans who have been out of service less than 20 years --predominantly the victims of Indochina's land mines and booby traps. Though the plan also would have increased payments for psychological disabilities on the grounds that they are more of an impairment to employment, the idea met with such outrage that President Nixon shelved it, at least temporarily. The Administration also fired Olney B. Owen, the VA executive who had prepared the original draft, although Owen had done so under strong pressure from Nixon's Office of Management and Budget. Last week Nixon Administration officials said that the idea of restructuring the disability benefits had not been dropped, but was still under "intensive review."

Wisely. American Legion spokesmen who appeared before congressional committees were equally concerned with proposed cuts in medical funds. Legion Commander Joe L. Matthews pointed out that the daily patient load for VA hospitals is to be cut by 5,500 patients to 80,000. Other veterans' spokesmen argued that medical facilities are already inadequate.

The Nixon Administration's position is that veterans of all wars are being adequately cared for and that the VA program needs tightening. VA Chief Donald Johnson, a World War II infantry sergeant and past national commander of the American Legion, claims that the proposed changes are intended to create administrative efficiencies and bring benefits into line with realities. He argues, for example, that new prosthetics and the decreasing importance of jobs in manual labor have made amputations less of a disability--hence the lower payments proposed for physically handicapped veterans. The cuts, says Johnson, "just reflect our ability to spend prudently and wisely."

The Administration can hardly be faulted for trying to contain VA costs, which have increased 100% over the past eight years, largely from the Viet Nam War. The argument, rather, should focus more on priorities. Many veterans charge that the VA has become a bureaucratic fiefdom, intent on protecting and expanding the benefits of its largest and loudest constituency--the veterans of both world wars and Korea. Veterans' lobby groups also tend to favor older men. Lobbying has concentrated on increasing the already staggeringly expensive ($4.3 billion this year) military retirement plans, which benefit career servicemen.

More of those lobbying efforts and more funds might better be spent on younger men just home from a bitter war. The needs of the several hundred returning prisoners of war will clearly be taken care of, but it is highly questionable whether the several million other Viet Nam veterans will be looked after in a similar spirit.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.