Congress is preparing to pay for veterans' care by shortchanging the next generation of service members — the latest bipartisan bargain that sells out Americans who haven't yet left the force.
The Take Care of America's Veterans Act includes Section 108, which would change how the VA rates tinnitus and sleep apnea for future disability claims. Veterans who already hold those ratings would generally keep them. But anyone who files after the bill passes would be evaluated under new, lower criteria — and those reductions are then counted as "savings" to help pay for the rest of the legislation.
That means two sailors serving side by side at Naval Station Norfolk or Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story could leave the Navy months apart and receive different compensation for the exact same service-connected condition. The one who leaves this year gets today's rules. The one who leaves next year gets the discounted version.
Eric L. Mallett, a past state commander of the Virginia VFW who served 22 years in the Navy, laid it out plainly in the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot: "You do not stop looking out for your fellow sailors just because your own service is complete." Mallett noted that when bill supporters say "current veterans are protected," that's cold comfort to the service members currently serving at Hampton Roads commands who would face reduced ratings upon separation.
The target of Mallett's appeal is Republican Rep. Jen Kiggans, herself a Navy veteran representing one of the most military-connected districts in the country. Kiggans is positioned to challenge Section 108, but the question is whether she will — or whether the bipartisan machinery that produced this bill will roll over the next cohort of veterans to fund promises to the current one.
This is the pattern: Washington sends Americans to fight foreign wars, then scrambles for offsets when the bill comes due. Rather than reckoning with the full cost of care, the establishment creates a two-tier system — grandfathering today's veterans while quietly downgrading tomorrow's. Both parties get to claim they "supported the troops" without ever accounting for the full price of the commitments they made.
The Portland Press Herald's letters page, for its part, was occupied with a debate over off-leash dogs on Willard Beach — a parochial concern that illustrates the distance between the coastal gentry's priorities and the stakes facing military families.
Section 108 is not a technical adjustment. It is a deliberate choice to balance the books on the backs of Americans who are still serving. The bill's sponsors should explain why a sailor who files next year deserves less than one who files today — or remove the section entirely.
The open question is whether Kiggans and her colleagues will treat future veterans as constituents or as line items.
