Pentagon spending nearly $1 billion a year on soldiers' unemployment
WASHINGTON (AP) - Even as it faces budget cuts and forced employee furloughs, the Pentagon is spending nearly a $1 billion a year on a program that sends unemployment checks to former troops who left the military voluntarily.
Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers, a Labor Department program, is a spinoff of the federal-state unemployment insurance program. The Labor Department says the overall program is meant to help "eligible workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own" such as during layoffs.
But eligibility for the military compensation requires only that a person served in uniform and was honorably discharged. In other words, anyone who joins the military and serves for several years, then decides not to re-enlist, is potentially eligible for what could amount to more than 90 weeks of unemployment checks.
The program's cost rose from $300 million in 2003 to $928 million last year.
"It eats away at other parts of the budget, and is for people they no longer have control of," said Air Force veteran Joe Davis, a spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
"Why are we spending so much on (the program) at a time when we can't afford to build a new fighter jet?" said Samuel Wright, a former Navy lawyer who helps troops with employment and other legal issues. The Pentagon is facing across-the-board cuts because of automatic spending reductions that took effect this month.
Defense officials and outside experts have become increasingly concerned about the rising cost of the compensation program. And some believe it's evidence of weaknesses in other programs, such as those designed to help veterans find jobs. Some military experts suspect the availability of the money may be discouraging some veterans from actively looking for work and thus falsely inflating data on their unemployment - data that shows higher joblessness for Iraq and Afghanistan vets than for older ones and for society in general.
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman, said a factor in the higher costs is the increased use of National Guard and Reserve units over the past decade for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is, once they were activated, came home and were deactivated, they were added to the rolls of ex-active duty troops.
Another factor could be the recession, which resulted in higher overall national unemployment rates, he said.
The program for former military members started under a 1958 law aimed partly at helping troops transition from life in uniform to the private sector. Unlike the larger U.S. unemployment insurance program, there is no paycheck deduction from troops to fund the military one. In the private sector, employers pay a tax to fund compensation checks; in the military program, the service branches are the employer.
Claims are filed with the states. The Labor Department then tallies compensation sent to former military members and sends the bill to their individual service branches, as well as to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, where a smaller number of former employees also are covered.
Former military members are subject to the same state requirements as others when they apply to a given state for the money. All states have a requirement of some kind that recipients search for work while getting compensation, the Labor Department says. States vary in the types of search activity needed and the effort required, with some, for instance, requiring two job interviews within a certain period or different types of documentation on the search.
Nearly 120,000 people filed first-time claims for money in the military program over the last budget year, compared with 71,000 in 2008, the Labor Department says. Well over 515,000 have gotten compensation since 2008.
Wright, now director of the law center at the Reserve Officers Association, says the payments "ought to be for people who are actively seeking re-employment - it's not just free money."
Officials worry, too, about what will happen to costs when the military draws down from its wartime size, sending more troops out of the services.
A 2008 analysis for the Pentagon by the RAND Corp. research institution found that the sharp rise in military unemployment payments did not mean the civilian labor market for recent veterans had weakened. The study suggested "a rethinking" of the program and also noted the big increase in reservists called up over the decade.
It's not solely the number of reservists activated that matters, but also how many know about, and claim, their legal right to go back to their former civilian employers after coming home from mobilization.
"I think one reason that a lot of (recent) veterans are unemployed and have great difficulty finding work is because employers are routinely violating" the law on returning troops and that too few are being prosecuted for it, Wright said. He says his law center gets more than 700 calls a month from people complaining about that or other employment or legal issues.
There are plenty of other reasons troops may not go straight from life in uniform to one in the private sector.
The need for "down time" - particularly among those who saw combat - can be a huge factor in re-acclimating.
Some troops also find it hard to face civilian life after the more authoritarian and regimented style of the military.
It also can take time for some to figure out how their military skills and experience translate to private sector jobs.
And some may not want what's being offered in the job market.
"A lot say, 'Hey, I joined the Army or Marines so I could get out of working at McDonald's,'" Wright says.
The unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans is 9.4 percent, compared with 7.7 percent among all Americans, and has been higher for some years.
The compensation "could be funding the acclimation period for veterans; some veterans may be declining employment opportunities or choosing not to seek employment," said a study last year by analysts at the Center for a New American Security.
That may be inflating the program's cost and "artificially inflating the ranks of unemployed veterans with individuals who are not actively seeking employment," said the study, which looked at how American business executives view hiring veterans.
It said the Defense Department should work to better understand the complex needs of veterans during transition to civilian society and figure out how "efficient, helpful and necessary" the unemployment compensation is.
"Questions to be considered include which veterans require an acclimation period, how much time is generally needed and whether (the compensation) is currently supporting recently separated veterans through that acclimation period," the authors said.
Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers, a Labor Department program, is a spinoff of the federal-state unemployment insurance program. The Labor Department says the overall program is meant to help "eligible workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own" such as during layoffs.
But eligibility for the military compensation requires only that a person served in uniform and was honorably discharged. In other words, anyone who joins the military and serves for several years, then decides not to re-enlist, is potentially eligible for what could amount to more than 90 weeks of unemployment checks.
The program's cost rose from $300 million in 2003 to $928 million last year.
"It eats away at other parts of the budget, and is for people they no longer have control of," said Air Force veteran Joe Davis, a spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
"Why are we spending so much on (the program) at a time when we can't afford to build a new fighter jet?" said Samuel Wright, a former Navy lawyer who helps troops with employment and other legal issues. The Pentagon is facing across-the-board cuts because of automatic spending reductions that took effect this month.
Defense officials and outside experts have become increasingly concerned about the rising cost of the compensation program. And some believe it's evidence of weaknesses in other programs, such as those designed to help veterans find jobs. Some military experts suspect the availability of the money may be discouraging some veterans from actively looking for work and thus falsely inflating data on their unemployment - data that shows higher joblessness for Iraq and Afghanistan vets than for older ones and for society in general.
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman, said a factor in the higher costs is the increased use of National Guard and Reserve units over the past decade for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is, once they were activated, came home and were deactivated, they were added to the rolls of ex-active duty troops.
Another factor could be the recession, which resulted in higher overall national unemployment rates, he said.
The program for former military members started under a 1958 law aimed partly at helping troops transition from life in uniform to the private sector. Unlike the larger U.S. unemployment insurance program, there is no paycheck deduction from troops to fund the military one. In the private sector, employers pay a tax to fund compensation checks; in the military program, the service branches are the employer.
Claims are filed with the states. The Labor Department then tallies compensation sent to former military members and sends the bill to their individual service branches, as well as to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, where a smaller number of former employees also are covered.
Former military members are subject to the same state requirements as others when they apply to a given state for the money. All states have a requirement of some kind that recipients search for work while getting compensation, the Labor Department says. States vary in the types of search activity needed and the effort required, with some, for instance, requiring two job interviews within a certain period or different types of documentation on the search.
Nearly 120,000 people filed first-time claims for money in the military program over the last budget year, compared with 71,000 in 2008, the Labor Department says. Well over 515,000 have gotten compensation since 2008.
Wright, now director of the law center at the Reserve Officers Association, says the payments "ought to be for people who are actively seeking re-employment - it's not just free money."
Officials worry, too, about what will happen to costs when the military draws down from its wartime size, sending more troops out of the services.
A 2008 analysis for the Pentagon by the RAND Corp. research institution found that the sharp rise in military unemployment payments did not mean the civilian labor market for recent veterans had weakened. The study suggested "a rethinking" of the program and also noted the big increase in reservists called up over the decade.
It's not solely the number of reservists activated that matters, but also how many know about, and claim, their legal right to go back to their former civilian employers after coming home from mobilization.
"I think one reason that a lot of (recent) veterans are unemployed and have great difficulty finding work is because employers are routinely violating" the law on returning troops and that too few are being prosecuted for it, Wright said. He says his law center gets more than 700 calls a month from people complaining about that or other employment or legal issues.
There are plenty of other reasons troops may not go straight from life in uniform to one in the private sector.
The need for "down time" - particularly among those who saw combat - can be a huge factor in re-acclimating.
Some troops also find it hard to face civilian life after the more authoritarian and regimented style of the military.
It also can take time for some to figure out how their military skills and experience translate to private sector jobs.
And some may not want what's being offered in the job market.
"A lot say, 'Hey, I joined the Army or Marines so I could get out of working at McDonald's,'" Wright says.
The unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans is 9.4 percent, compared with 7.7 percent among all Americans, and has been higher for some years.
The compensation "could be funding the acclimation period for veterans; some veterans may be declining employment opportunities or choosing not to seek employment," said a study last year by analysts at the Center for a New American Security.
That may be inflating the program's cost and "artificially inflating the ranks of unemployed veterans with individuals who are not actively seeking employment," said the study, which looked at how American business executives view hiring veterans.
It said the Defense Department should work to better understand the complex needs of veterans during transition to civilian society and figure out how "efficient, helpful and necessary" the unemployment compensation is.
"Questions to be considered include which veterans require an acclimation period, how much time is generally needed and whether (the compensation) is currently supporting recently separated veterans through that acclimation period," the authors said.
This comment has been deleted
@feral I liked the first part, but it just went down hill from there lol. I cannot "like" in all good conscienceÂ
Unemployed soon to be employed (military small print)Â again if N.Korea keeps going the way they are going.
Why 90 weeks? If the Pentagon needs to trim this program, how hard would it be to reduce the number of weeks of unemployment?
@danoseknows  That is a promise to the troops when they signed up. You're not suggesting that America break that promise now that the fighting is done...are you?  Because that would be really schytie.
@Icarus No, I'm suggesting an idea that would maintain this program, but for fewer weeks. I'd prefer the Pentagon find something else to cut first, but if they really can't, this is at least an idea.I believe this could simply be implemented with incoming recruits, not taken away from those currently in this program.
@danoseknows @Icarus Ya dan0 so lets screw the soldiers that put their life on the line for you. Maggot!
This comment has been deleted
@Dr. Rawdog Â
With a volunteer military there must be good incentives to induce kids to write a blank check for their lives. If the government reneges on those promises then the whole volunteer system breaks down and nobody can have a little war without having a bunch of other people to send to fight it. Â
Remember in 2002 when America was already in Afghanistan and the four horsemen; Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,Rice whooped up a bunch of nationalistic support to invade Iraq on the basis of fear, lies, and false promises?  Well, those eggs hatched and became the chickens that are now coming home to roost. Â
In other words; don't blame the soldiers who wrote that blank check for their lives. 4,000 paid with their lives, 30,000 paid with their bodies, and untold thousands have paid with their minds, and the cost to the families of those soldiers is unfathomable. However, we know the approximate cost of those "wars" to America is about $2 Trillion and will likely cost about $6 Trillion due to carrying the debt and the long-term liability to those soldiers.Â
Somehow, the American people were hoodwinked by the four horsemen in 2002 into writing a blank check to prosecute a "war" against an innocent people and they whooped and hollered and drove their monster trucks around the public square while flying huge American Flags and they stuck magnets to their cars to "support our troops" but that is just another B.S. lie. There are only two ways to support American troops: DO NOT SEND THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE/HOLD LEADERS RESPONSIBLE b) Take care of them when they come home and make good on the promises that sent them to war in the first place.Â
The greatest crime is that the four horsemen will never be held accountable for their crimes against humanity or against the American People and their abuse of the American Military.Â
This comment has been deleted
@Dr. Rawdog Let me summarize; America cannot go back on promises to American troops after they served. Stop blaming the troops and see a physician for that vaginal itch.Â
@Dr. RawdogÂ
Some of thee people didn't quit, they were "layed off". Thus they were told, you either go, or you go with pay. They chose to go with pay.Â
This comment has been deleted
@Dr. Rawdog@Repoman
Well it could be either but the way it sounds is they were going. They voluntarily left to get some kind of severance instead of not voluntarily leaving and not getting it when they were forced out anyway.Â
But we can both think of it this way. These folks served and likely served in combat. Unlike us who work 40-60 hours a week, when âon shiftâ they worked 24. So we could consider this as back payment for overtime not paid when on shift in country serving actively.
90 weeks is about 2 years and at $40,000 (at most) thatâs $80,000 total or about 4000 hours at $20 an hour. Thatâs about 167 days and I am sure they spent more than 24 hours a day 7 days a week one duty for 167 days.
If we call it overtime back pay does it seem more palatable?
We spend that much on POTUS unemployment and 100 times as much for damage control when POTUS actually decides to do something.
@Julie I'm curious how an immigrant such as yourself can quickly become a hater of one political party vs another.  Where does one learn to hate that way?
@Sundowner @Julie Well, I would not say one over another. If I was to put a number on it, I would estimate that 90%% of D initiatives I disagree with and 80%% or R. The 10%% difference is R preventing D to do something harmful so they get my support. My dislike for politicians is not only across US parties, but also across the whole world. There are few politicians that I believe are good and reasonable people, but very few.
With that said, however, I am in US long enough to see how differently BHO is treated in media than Bush. It's like hearing two people arguing and knowing that they both wrong, but one of them gets support of a crowd, I would be tempted to criticize the one who gets support even though it could be misinterpreted as me agreeing with the other wrong person
@Julie "...they fail to admit that believe in lack of any god requires just as much unfounded faith as believe that some god does exists."
 [IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/14akhmo.jpg[/IMG]
BTW, I also feel the same about religion vs. atheism debate. I usually argue against atheists because first, they tend to make fun of religious folks and second, they fail to admit that believe in lack of any god requires just as much unfounded faith as believe that some god does exists.
@Sundowner @Julie That seemed directed at Presidents in general.
@Sundowner @TreeWizard @Julie Did my response answer your question you would you like some specifics?
@Sundowner @TreeWizard @Julie I can see how you thought that.
@TreeWizard @Julie I was basing it more on previous comments she's made, not so much this one (although the last part of her remark seems to be aimed at this president, no?).
"Why are we spending so much on (the program) at a time when we can't afford to build a new fighter jet?"
http://www.propublica.org/special/the-most-expensive-fighter-jet-ever-built-by-the-numbers
"Thanks to the sequester, the Defense Department is now required to cut more than $40 billion this fiscal year out of its $549 billion budget. But one program that's unlikely to take a significant hit is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, despite the fact that it's almost four times more expensive than any other Pentagon weapons program that's in the works."
The nerve of these veterans! The Pentagon gave them 4-5 deployments worth of work, and now they come back and take their time finding a job! And all the while the hard-working defense contractors need just a couple hundred billion more for the F-35 (they've almost got it working).
I like the number of "reports", "studies" and "speculators" in this article claiming.... "some believe", "factor could be", "study suggested", "plenty of other reasons", "can be a huge factor", "some may not "....
Would be a lot shorter if they just admit..."we don't know"
@sargerator I always see those terms and think of that old weather guy, Bosley.  He always threw in the "I think it might..." and "Maybe today...."  Never an ounce of fact in the forecast.
Thank you mr bush!!!
This comment has been deleted
@TheUglyTruth You're using that metaphor wrong. And, there is no proof that Obama has ether a small penis or spends tax payer money on loose women.Â
@Icarus @TheUglyTruth Bush probably had a Huge Wiener like 12 incher.
@TheUglyTruth @LostSoul What does a weiner have to do with this story?  You guys and your weiners.......
@TheUglyTruth@LostSoul
Really? What math did you complete on school because by any measure the two men are at best about equal and at the least Bush II has a couple trillion in deficit Obama has not yet to compile.Â
Indeed if you want to go by proportion of overall debt, Reagan has the biggest killer. If you want to go by actual dollars and the actual dollar value at the time you go to Bush II. If you want to uncover WHO started our current debt, think Nixon (who could have NOT doe it but chose to fight inflation) and if you want to know who recently had a nearly balanced budget think of Clinton.Â
So the addition says that Republican's have been no better and could be argued far worse spender than any democrat since Truman.Â
But don't pat anyone on the head yet, even THIS program was started by Bush II.Â
Isn't the REAL problem the government's failure to consider the long-term costs of all of these police actions that we've been involving ourselves in since WWII? Â Now they've overspent (again) and want to cut out the little guys.
I'm great with helping vets transition to civilian life, but 2 years of free money for a VOLUNTARY separation is utterly ridiculous. Why would they even look for work? Anybody who is gainfully employed and pays taxes should be angry about this.Â
"'Why are we spending so much on (the program) at a time when we can't afford to build a new fighter jet?' said Samuel Wright"
In my opinion: those who served > new fighter jet
@JTesla And, most of those people....hypocrites....stuck "support our troops" on their car and wanted to "get Hussein" in 2002 and were all whooped up about the "war" and bought into the lies; hook line and sinker, that the "war" was going to be "shock and awe" and bought into the whole "mission accomplished".   These same idiots now want to blame Obama for the trillions of dollars wasted and refuse to acknowledge their own ignorant nationalistic support and whine about the debt and bad economy.  Their support for G.W.B. and the four horsemen killed American prosperity for 99 years.
@Icarus @JTesla I am still hyped about the Iraq war. I feel optimistic. This program is worth every penny. Rather my money go to Vets than pay some illegal to go to college.