|
 |
|
|
|
Better Death
Benefits
By: Editorial
The costs of the
war in Iraq are most obviously measured by the
deaths of troops and by the size of the war
budget. Earlier this week, the Senate Armed
Services Committee began by addressing some less
obvious costs and quickly expanded the hearing
to the complicated matter of helping families of
servicemen and women who have been killed or
wounded. Some of the questions raised are not
immediately answerable, but a simple change to
death benefits is and should be supported by the
full Congress.
As of last year, the military's "death
gratuity," the lump-sum amount families were
sent immediately after the death of a child or
spouse serving in the military, stood at a
miserly $6,000, and it was taxable. Sen. Susan
Collins, who serves on Armed Services, got the
amount doubled and made tax free, but the
committee understood that even that increase was
inadequate. Now bipartisan legislation by Sens.
Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Joseph Lieberman of
Connecticut, backed by the White House, would
raise that amount to $100,000, retroactive to
October 2001. It would further raise the
Servicemembers Group Life Insurance from
$250,000 to $400,000 and pay for the extra
coverage for troops in combat zones. Both Maine
Sens. Collins and Olympia
Snowe
support the increase.
Both of these benefits have been raised
periodically over the years and, given the more
than 1,400 deaths in Iraq, Congress is of a mind
to raise them substantially again, which it
should. As the committee heard repeatedly
Tuesday, no one can put a value on the loss of a
life, but the families that had been relying on
the service member's salary still have bills to
pay and will, of course, for years after. Sen.
Sessions referred to a bond that exists between
the public and the military, that part of the
bond was being able to reassure the troops
risking their lives that their families would be
taken care of in the event of their deaths.
While the military has a half dozen programs and
benefits for helping, its own studies say what
they currently offer is inadequate.
Congress is likely to agree. There remain
details to work out in this legislation and a
couple of other versions of the bill, but it
seems clear that the payments should be
retroactive and should not make a distinction
between combat and non-combat deaths. In a
statement, Sen. Collins told the committee, "The
death gratuity is a small token, but it assists
the grieving families with their immediate
financial needs." Making it something more than
a small token (and, as was suggested at the
hearing, calling it something besides a
gratuity) is the next step for Congress.
Beyond that, however, the committee began
thinking further about how body armor is saving
lives but returning many more soldiers with
missing limbs, gratefully alive but dramatically
changed. All branches of the military report
having programs to care for these troops, but
how is their earning potential after life in the
military affected?
On the question of insurance, how are service
members being educated to understand the
benefits of coverage they are offered and to
watch out for inadequate, overpriced products
that are foisted on them? What responsibility
does the government have to notify a beneficiary
such as a spouse if a service member cancels the
life insurance? The committee seems aware that
just as the troops have a duty to the nation,
the Congress has a duty to troop families.
It can begin by raising death benefits
substantially.
|
|
| |
|
|
