At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who comes up with a good idea; it just matters that it’s a good idea. On the other hand, when it comes to politics, credit sometimes matters.
A little over a week ago, Senate Dems unveiled their policy agenda for the 109th Congress. The very first item on the 10-point list, a bill called S. 11, was devoted to standing with American troops and included a provision to increase death and survivor benefits.
Death and survivor benefits provide the government an opportunity to help military families at their hour of greatest need. S. 11 increases the death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000.
Fast forward a week and we see that the Bush administration has uncovered a great new idea. Notice if it sounds familiar.
President Bush will propose that families of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and war zones of the future receive an extra $250,000 in government payments.
The plan, which includes retroactive payments to the spouses or surviving relatives of the more than 1,500 who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since October 2001, will be part of the 2006 budget proposal submitted to Congress next week, the Pentagon’s personnel chief said.
A tax-free “death gratuity,” now $12,420, would grow to $100,000.
But as it turns out, the Bush administration is only taking part of a good idea, and leaving out some important details.
Under the approach embraced by the Pentagon, death and survivor benefits would be increased as the Dems proposed, but only applied to troops who are killed in war zones as defined by the Bush administration. In other words, as Salon’s Tim Grieve put it, “If you’re killed while serving in Baghdad, your family members will get the increased benefits. If you’re killed while training to go to Baghdad, they won’t.”
As is usually the case, Dems are fighting for better military benefits than the Bush administration is willing to provide.
Democrats argued Tuesday that President Bush’s proposal to boost government payments to families of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and future war zones should extend to all military personnel who died on active duty.
Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that while he agreed with Bush’s plan to give those families an extra $250,000, the money should also “apply to all service members on active duty” and not just those who died in Pentagon-designated combat zones.
If Bush is going to pick up on a Dem idea, the least he could do is take the whole thing.
Watch closely for this in the State of the Union tomorrow. Bush will probably mention it as proof of his support for the troops and their families, Dems will applaud it, and the media will ignore the fact that it was the Dems who unveiled the idea as part of their policy agenda over a week ago.
Post Script: Following up on an earlier post about Dems doing more to articulate the religious values inherent in their agenda, it’s also worth noting that Dems should do more to explain how much better they are than Republicans on military issues.
After all, it’s the Dems, not Bush and the Republicans, who proposed scaling back tax cuts for the richest Americans in order to provide $1 billion for expanding health-care benefits for reservists and their families; $1 billion to improve military housing; $350 million for targeted pay raises for enlisted members; $141 million in danger pay and family separation allowance increases; $50 million to improve family support programs for reservists; $14 million for public schools near military bases that teach many military dependents — an approach quickly rejected by the GOP. Indeed, the Republicans’ appreciation for our military became quite clear when their draft-dodging candidate smeared a war hero as anti-military, they mocked injured troops during their national convention, and then blamed current troops when things went poorly in Iraq.
There’s no reason in the world for the Republicans to win the “military vote,” as they did in November.