When John F. Kennedy urged Americans to "ask what you can do for your country,"
I don't think he had in mind the degree of sacrifice that the Bush administration is requiring of our National Guard and Reserve troops today.
These true citizen-soldiers are now pulling double and triple tours of duty in combat zones. Some have involuntarily had their enlistments extended through so-called "stop-loss" orders. On top of that, many are paying a severe financial price at home for their service.
Surveys show that 40 percent of Guard and Reserve personnel make less money when they are mobilized than they do when they are at work in their civilian jobs. For many families, that pay gap can make essential things like rent, mortgage payments, or child care unaffordable.
Congress has been haggling over ways to close the pay gap for over a year. But it has made slow progress. Why? Because the costs of the proposed solutions keep bumping
up against other budget priorities set by the administration and the congressional Republican leadership.
The Republicans' No. 1 priority has been to shower billions of dollars in new tax breaks on corporations and wealthy individuals. That imperative has crowded out nearly everything else. The Republicans have been loathe to come up with any funds to cover the Guard and Reserves' pay gap during long deployments, even though most of the ideas
that have been proposed would only cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars -- a relative pittance in federal terms, especially when the need is so great.
That flies in the face of the value we should be placing on military service. We need to stop nickel-and-diming the Guard and Reserves and start providing tangible help for
the collateral financial hardships they face.
There are plenty of workable ideas on the table, most of them proposed by Democrats. Last fall, Sen. Mary Landrieu proposed a measure, which I supported, that would give tax relief to small businesses that continue paying the salaries of active-duty Guard and reserve members during their deployments. That proposal was passed by the Senate as an amendment to a corporate tax bill, but then was shelved by Republican leaders in the House-Senate conference committee.
Sen. Evan Bayh has another good idea. In addition to the tax credits Landrieu has proposed, Bayh has called for direct payments to guardsmen and reservists who do not work for companies covered by the proposed tax breaks, or who are self-employed.
The White House has shown little inclination to support any such proposal, though. The president's austere fiscal 2006 budget proposal notes that 163,000 guardsmen and
reservists are likely to be mobilized in 2005 in the global war on terror. But nowhere in the budget does the president actually address the pay gap problem. Instead, the budget emphasizes the enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses needed to maintain troop strength, and touts the president's support for increased education and health benefits. The only measure proposed in the president's budget that directly addresses military salaries is a request for a simple 3.1 percent across-the-board pay increase.
Meanwhile, as the wheels grind slowly in Washington, a number of states have leapt more nimbly into action in support of the Guard and Reserves.
In New Mexico, Gov. Bill Richardson has proposed a plan called "Take Care of Our Own" that would provide the state's 4,027 active Guard members with $250,000 life insurance policies. Nearly two dozen other states are considering doing the same. Monthly premiums are just $16.25 per policy, so providing the benefit will cost New Mexico a mere $800,000 per year. Richardson's plan also calls for a tax exemption on 50 percent of military retirement pay for veterans starting a second career. That will cost the state just $6.4 million per year. And he intends to add a check box to New Mexico state tax forms so citizens can make small donations to a special fund for military families in need of help with such things as housing and medical services.
Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry has proposed a similar package of benefits for his state's guardsmen. In Oregon, Gov. Ted Kulongoski has set up programs to close the pay gap for state employees who have been called up for duty in the Guard, and to help their families pay their utility bills. And in Virginia, Gov. Mark Warner has launched an initiative to provide special employment assistance to military spouses and family members who must assume breadwinner roles while servicemen and -women are on extended tours of duty overseas.
All of these initiatives are welcome developments. But they are no substitute for strong support from the White House and Republicans in Congress. In a time of war, it is only right that we should ask what we can do for those who serve our country so well.
