Readers of Tom Philpott's Military Update column sound off.

Coburn's Hold On Vet Bill Draws Heat, Support

A great column on Republican Sen. Coburn's heroic attempt to save taxpayer dollars at the expense of wounded veterans and their caregivers.  Oklahomans must be thrilled, having the senator and God knows who else in the “Party of No” looking out for their interests and concerns about the national debt.

What does his voting record on defense spending and no-bid military contractors like KBR look like?  If ever there was a Fox News-ready phrase, “water-boarding the next generation with debt,” is one hell of a dazzling metaphor.

But no, we can't offset the benefit with higher taxes, especially not on the wealthy, because they've gotten so comfortable with that cushy 15 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends while the nation is at war.  We surely don't want them sacrificing their comforts as they struggle through the economic downturn.

Good for Harry Reid for getting S. 1963 [the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009] on the floor for debate.  My solution is neither eloquent nor well thought out, but if we can bail out Wall Street and the banks, we can pass this bill.  I don't care if the Treasury has to print the money and the next generation has to suck it up.  JUST DO IT.

PAM GALLAGHER
Bluffton, S.C.

I think Senator Coburn has a point in that disabled veterans from all wars should be granted the same benefits.

I am a 100-percent disabled vet from the Korean Conflict that is in dire need of a caregiver.  Include all vets!

GEORGE BRENISER
Via e-mail

The good doctor should go back to being a doctor; he seems very good at that. Out of 34 recent veterans-related bills, he has only voted 'yes' three times.

The good folks from the state of Oklahoma may want to rethink reelecting Dr. Coburn and leave the law-making to someone more qualified.

SCOTT BITNER
Disabled American Veteran, 1998-Present
Hines, Ill.

Better Deals than SBP

I disagree with your positive assessment of the military's Survivor Benefit Plan. You failed to mention thousands of instances where no benefits are paid. If the spouse dies first, your money is gone. Why isn't this part of your calculation?

The financial fact of the matter is this: Purchasing a long-term annuity in middle age is a bad deal.  Just because the government subsidizes this poor financial product doesn't suddenly make it a good product.

My wife will continue to maximize her [federal] Thrift Savings Plan contributions and I'll maintain life insurance into my 60s.  When I die she'll either not require any more funds from Uncle Sugar or she'll make up for it with proceeds from life insurance.

SBP would have cost me over $200 per month for the rest of my
  life.  Certainly, if I died the month after I retired, that would have been
  $200 well spent.  Instead, that $200 a month buys an incredible amount of
  non-taxable insurance payable in case of premature death.

I am flabbergasted that so many of my comrades have opted to purchase SBP.

JOE REDMON
Via e-mail

I too opted out of the SBP as I had no control of the plan.  If my wife died before me, all that money is gone.  If we got a divorce after we paid, say, for 25 years, who gets the money? The government.

So I took the money I would have paid into SBP, invested some in mutual funds, bought and sold property, bought rental property, started a consultant business and together, she has more than enough to live a good lifestyle if I die before she does.

And if she crosses the bar before me, then I still have the dollars, not the government. The kids will get the rest.  If I were asked to advise a retiring military person, I would bring out both sides of the equation and let the retiree decide. I bet he would opt out.  Never sign onto a program when you have no control.  It is your money and your retirement pay.

You should have included something like this in your report.

CURTIS LEARY
Master Chief Petty Officer, USCG-Ret
National President
Armed Forces E9 Association

The intent is to provide a viable benefit for the veteran, but the SBP option is very expensive for most young retirees.  The reason many turn it down is that they understand this.

With good fiscal discipline throughout his or her career, a retiree will find a much better return on investment by purchasing a combination of whole life and term insurance and investing the difference.

Minimum SBP coverage is cost effective, however, so the retiree may like to supplement other investment methods with it.  And, of course, if you cannot secure life insurance, or it would be extremely expensive to do so, due to some physical issue, SBP could be the only insurance a retiree may be eligible for.  But these are very few retirees.

In the future, please present the total picture instead of a tongue lashing to retirees who have practiced good fiscal discipline.

ROBERT W, RYAN
Lieutenant Colonel, USAF-Ret.
Edmond, Okla.

Letters may be edited for clarity or length.  Write to Military Forum, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA  20120-1111, send e-mail to militaryforum@aol.com or visit www.militaryupdate.com.