Date: May 15, 1924
Bill Vetoed: H.R. 7959, a bill to provide adjusted Compensation for War Veterans
Fate of Veto: Overridden
(Original document available here)
To the House of Representatives:
Herewith is returned, without approval, H. R. 7959, a bill “to provide adjusted compensation for veterans of the World War, and for other purposes.”
The bill provides a bonus for the veterans of the World War and dependents of those who fell. To certain of its beneficiaries, whose maximum benefits do not exceed $50, this bonus is to be paid immediately in cash. To each of its beneficiaries who are not to receive such immediate cash payment there is to be provided free insurance under a 20-year endowment plan. The face value of each policy will be based upon the military service, the average amount being at least $962, payable at the expiration of 20 years or at death prior thereto. After the lapse of two years the holder of a policy may borrow thereon from banks at reason able rates of interest. If amounts so borrowed are not repaid by the veteran, the Government is obligated to pay to the banks this indebtedness, which ultimately reduces the maturity value of the policy.
An appropriation of $146,000,000 for the fiscal year 1925 will be required to provide the prorated annual cost of the insurance and to meet cash payments to those not receiving such insurance. This does not include administrative costs, which will amount to approximately $6,500,000 the first year. For the fiscal year 1926 an appropriation of $155,500,000 will be required, and the annual appropriations for the 20-year period will aggregate, according to the lowest estimate, $2,280,758,542. These and the other figures herein are from the Veterans’ Bureau, but the Treasury estimates are materially more. That part of the annual appropriation not required to meet the cash bonus or to pay policies maturing on account of death will be invested in Government bonds. The face value of the bonds thus acquired plus the interest thereon reinvested will equal during the 20-year period the maturity value of the insurance policies, aggregating at the lowest estimate $3,145,000,000.
The money spent for the acquisition of these bonds manifestly can not be spent for any other purpose, no matter how urgent our other requirements may be. In other words, we will be committing this nation for a period of 20 years to an additional average annual appropriation of $114,000,000. This of itself should require most serious reflection, but if we are to have such commitment it should be in some form which would be in harmony with recognized principles of Government finance. The provisions of this bill are not so in harmony. Under it the Government will not have in the fund in 1945 two and a half billions of dollars. All it will have will be its own obligations, and it will owe two and a half billions of dollars cash. It will then be necessary to sell to the public this two and a half billions of bonds—a major operation in finance which may be disastrous at that time and may jeopardize the value of federal securities then outstanding.
We have no money to bestow upon a class of people that is not taken from the whole people. Our first concern must be the nation as a whole. This outweighs in its importance the consideration of a class, and the latter must yield to the former. The one compelling desire and demand of the people to-day, irrespective of party or class, is for tax relief. The people have labored during the last six years under a heavy tax burden. This was necessary to meet the extraordinary costs of the war. This heavy assessment has been met willingly and without complaint. We have now reached a financial condition which permits us to lighten this tax burden. If this bill becomes law, we wipe out at once almost all the progress five hard years have accomplished in reducing the national debt. If we now confer upon a class a gratuity such as is contemplated by this bill, we diminish to the extent of the expenditures involved the benefits of reduced taxes which will flow not only to this class but to the entire people. When it is considered that less than $40 a year would pay for the average policy provided by this bill, there is strong ground to assume that the veterans themselves would be better off to make that small payment and be relieved of the attendant high taxes and high living costs which such legislation would impose on them. Certainly the country would. We have hardly an economic ill to-day which can not be attributed directly or indirectly to high taxes.
The prosperity of the nation, which is the prosperity of the people, rests primarily on reducing the existing tax burden. No other action would so encourage Business. No other legislative enactment would do so much to relieve Agriculture. The drastic executive campaign for economy in Government expenditures has but one purpose—that its benefits may accrue to the whole people in the form of reduction in taxes. I can not recede from this purpose. I am for the interests of the whole people. The expenditures proposed in this bill are against the interests of the whole people. I do not believe they are for the benefit of the veterans.
The running expenses of the government for services and supplies must be met. Certain other obligations in the nature of investments for improvements and buildings are necessary and often result in a saving. The debts of the nation must be paid. The sum of all these is a tremendous amount. At the present rate it is nearly $35 for each resident of our country, or $175 for each average family every year, and must be for some time. This bill calls for a further expenditure in the aggregate of nearly $35 for each and evident and leaves nearly $175 more on each family, to be spread over a period of 20 years. No one supposes the effort will stop here. Already suggestions are made for a cash bonus in addition, to be paid at once. Such action logically would be encouraged if this bill becomes law. Neither the rich nor the profiteers will meet this expense. All of this enormous sum has to be earned by the people of this country through their toil. It is taken from the returns of their production. They must earn it; they must pay it. The people of this country ought not to be required by their Government to bear any such additional burden. They are not deserving of any such treatment. Our business is not to impose upon them but to protect them.
If this bill be considered as insurance, the opportunity for such a provision has already been provided. Nearly $3,000,000,000 of war risk and Government life insurance is now outstanding, and over $500,000,000 has been paid on such policies. When this provision was made in 1917 it was on the explicit understanding of the Congress that such insurance was to relieve the Government of subsequent contributions. The then Secretary of the Treasury said in relation to the proposed insurance act: “It ought to check any further attempts at service pension legislation by enabling a man now to provide against impairment through old age, total disability, or death resulting from other causes, and to give all this protection to those kindred who may be dependent upon him and who do not share in the Government compensation.” This opportunity was afforded all those who entered the service. It was distinctly understood that it covered every obligation on the part of the Government. The intent of this bill now to provide free insurance lacks both a legal and moral requirement and falls into the position of a plain gratuity.
Considering this bill from the standpoint of its intrinsic merit, I see no justification for its enactment into law. We owe no bonus to able bodied veterans of the World War. The first duty of every citizen is to the nation. The veterans of the World War performed this first duty. To confer upon them a cash consideration or its equivalent for per forming this first duty is unjustified. It is not justified when considered in the interests of the whole people; it is not justified when considered alone on its own merits. The gratitude of the nation to these veterans can not be expressed in dollars and cents. No way exists by which we can either equalize the burdens or give adequate financial reward to those who served the nation in both civil and military capacities in time of war. The respect and honor of their country will rightfully be theirs forever more. But patriotism can neither be bought nor sold. It is not hire and salary. It is not material, but spiritual. It is one of the finest and highest of human virtues. To attempt to pay money for it is to offer it an unworthy indignity which cheapens, debases, and destroys it. Those who would really honor patriotism should strive to match it with an equal courage, with an equal fidelity to the welfare of their country, and an equal faith in the cause of righteousness.
I am not unmindful that this bill also embraces within its provisions the disabled of our veterans and the dependents of those who fell. To state that the disabled veterans and these dependents are entitled to this additional gratuity is to state that the nation is not meeting its obligation to them. Such a statement can not truthfully be made. The nation has spent more than $2,000,000,000 in behalf of disabled veterans and dependents of those who died. It is now spending for compensation, training, insurance, and hospitalization more than $400,000,000 annually. Solicitude for the disabled veterans and the dependents of those who lost their lives is the nation’s solicitude. To minister to their every need is a sacred obligation, which will be generously and gratefully met. The nation stands ready to expend any amount needed for their proper care. But that is not the object of this bill.
America entered the World War with a higher purpose than to secure material gain. Not greed but duty was the impelling motive. Our veterans as a whole responded to that motive. They are not asking as a whole, they do not want as a whole, any money recompense. Those who do seek a money recompense for the most part, of course, prefer an immediate cash payment. We must either abandon our theory of patriotism or abandon this bill. Patriotism which is bought and paid for is not patriotism. Our country has maintained the principle that our Government is established for something higher and finer than to permit those who are charged with the responsibility of office, or any class whose favor they might seek, to get what they can out of it. Service to our country in time of war means sacrifice. It is for that reason alone that we honor and revere it. To attempt to make a money payment out of the earnings of the people to those who are physically well and financially able is to abandon one of our most cherished American ideals. The property of the people belongs to the people. To take it from them by taxation can not be justified except by urgent public necessity. Unless this principle be recognized our country is no longer secure, our people no longer free. This bill would condemn those who are weak to turn over a part of their earnings to those who are strong. Our country cannot afford it. The veterans as a whole do not want it. All our American principles are opposed to it. There is no moral justification for it.
Citation: Proceedings and Debates of the First Session of the Seventieth Congress of the United States of America
The Coolidge Foundation gratefully acknowledges the volunteer efforts of David McCann who prepared this document for digital publication.
I think the bonus for veterans is a great idea. Despite them saying, “We owe no bonus to able bodied veterans of the World War” I completely disagree. While not necessarily being disabled, many veterans do suffer from PTSD and other mental illnesses. Therefore, I disagree with the veto for this bill.
I agree with President Coolidge; national debt is definitely not what is best for the American people.
I also disagree with the veto of this bill. Coolidge’s words show that his perspective is from the 1920s, when mental illnesses like PTSD (“shell shock” in his day) were not fully understood or taken seriously. He expects all veterans to “man up” and take care of their own needs without material reward other than their base wages. Coolidge claims that the bill “would condemn those who are weak to turn over a part of their earnings to those who are strong,” but today, we understand that our veterans with PTSD are often the weakest in our society and need to be rewarded generously for their service. That said, I do completely understand the economic aspect. This bill spent money the government did not have, so perhaps a more frugal reward would have been a good middle ground.
Also, thanks to the Coolidge Foundation for making the research for the scholarship application so straightforward. I’m honestly enjoying this.
H.R. 7959 presents the most interesting of conundrums. Beginning with a personal notation of the result, I would agree with the override of President Coolidge’s veto; however, it is not without the consideration of the weight between national expenditure through taxation and the abandonment of individuals who are hitherto become a massively undersupported group–the veterans. Coolidge’s justification sees him remarking on how “the intent of this bill now to provide free insurance lacks both a legal and moral requirement and falls into the position of a plain gratuity” indicating his own position, which may lack the nuance of empathetic experience, that the patriotic work of veterans left no harrowing mark upon them which moral obligations of the nation which subjected their people to should uphold. Perhaps it shall undo some of the work which Coolidge has sought to enact on the public debt, but it is also in the wake of war which such debts must be considered in relevance to the necessary rectification of citizen deficit. Coolidge chooses the more repairable economy in misconstrued action for the greater people than the oft-forgotten individuals who provided the sanctity for Coolidge to make such a decision. As such, I agree with the Senate overriding the veto.
Rheotric like this makes it all the more fascinating as to what the beliefs of figures like Coolidge, aiming to work for the bests interests of the people and holding onto whatever progressive ideals were reasonable at the time, would entail in the modern day. With a more universal understanding of mental health issues and physchological trauma, especially for veterans, Coolidge may have been more understanding. I wonder how his budgeting theories would evolve to cater to voices who have been historically silenced.
I feel like those who oppose this veto are far too focused on the monetary benefit it proposes to the veterans, as well as his discussion of how patriotism cannot be payed back in money, rather than the costs to the entire American people, including those same veterans. His argument that the raised taxes themselves wouldn’t even be worth it for the veterans is a valid argument, because they would also be paying an increased amount of their hard work to the government, which is unfair to not only them but to the rest of the American people. I also feel like it is ignored how he dissects the amount of money that is already paid to the veterans in order to ensure that they are taken care of after their service in the military, money that is already a part of the budget, doesn’t raise taxes, and doesn’t increase the national debt.
I feel as though where Coolidge and many others might divert when thinking of military service. Coolidge’s interpretation of service seems to stem more from the word service itself: an act done not for financial gain but out of pure intrinsic moral obligation. Others, as we see now, may see military service as more of a career; and thus they would expect it to come with the same benefits, such as pension, that would come with other careers. Coolidge here makes very clear that he stands against these sort of benefits, though does delve into the nuance of disabled veterans. He does so while maintaining that he holds the upmost respect for those who serve our nation. What strikes me most about this veto is that it is almost unpolitical; that is that Coolidge was acting out of his beliefs and not what would garner him public favor. This quality of his is a most admirable one and one that I hope to see echoed more in our day.
I agree with Coolidge on this veto, although it is with great reluctance. Mental illnesses were common among veterans but not seen as a disability, making prior bills ineffective towards mentally affected veterans. Also, while Coolidge speaks of patriotism, it must be known that conscription was a major source of men entering the war. Therefore, being forced to fight in catastrophic conditions is just reasoning for compensation. The only reason I agree with Coolidge is because I do agree that this bill would make no difference, as taxes would raise for everyone including them for its implementation. With the bill, taxes would raise disadvantaging them and the people, and without the bill they would not have special benefits but they and the people would continue to have reduced taxes. It’s just not worth it.
While I do see President Coolidge’s point on how the bill would increase taxes, national debt and overturn the time and dedication they have put into the economy for acts of patriotism that they are still paying for after the war in things such as compensation and insurance fees, I respectfully must disagree with his decision to veto the bill. I have to state that I do feel a sense of irony over how he feels that they should receive no reward for being patriots and thinking of America and its citizens as they put their lives on the line to fight for America. These veterans ultimately represent some of his strongest ideals that he has repeatedly shown throughout his life which are that of service and dedication to others,, but he does not feel they should receive any benefits for doing that. We see this when he states,“ We have no money to bestow upon a class of people that is not taken from the whole people. Our first concern must be the nation as a whole. This outweighs in its importance the consideration of a class, and the latter must yield to the former.” Without even considering the monetary benefits, I can say that these veterans at the very minimum deserve to live a secure and prosperous life without having to worry about small trivial matters after all they sacrificed for their country and continue to live with post wartimes.Therefore, I agree with the veto being overridden.
Coolidge’s opposition to this bill speaks to his overall position that the government should not spend to aid a specific group of people, but rather only to spend to aid the people as a whole. Such would be deeply unpopular nowadays, but perhaps our national debt would not have reached its current state.
I think that in order to get a sense of the validity of the bill, we’d need a more scientific overview of veteran conditions at the time. Was the amount of money already being provided working as intended? An answer to this question might better inform our views of Coolidge’s actions. While I saw many people raising the topic of PTSD, I don’t think that this bill in particular would work to alleviate such an issue. The insurance policies included therein would not be targeted to such mental issues and thus provide little assistance. Blindly providing them with more material assistance and insurance wouldn’t have helped them in any extra amount. So, I personally agree with the veto, coming from the information Coolidge had available to him. Nowadays, I’d suggest a more mental-health approach targeted to the able-bodied veterans.
I find his reasoning to veto the bill quite interesting. He is arguing to value the benefits of the majority (the whole nation) over the harms to the minority (the veterans), while also saying the pride of patriotism in fighting in the war is equal to the monetary compensation that would have been given by this bill. If this bill had been passed, the increase in taxes would have not only affected the working American, but also the veterans who had difficulties integrating back into society. H.R.7959 would have made this integration even more difficult because more of the the veteran’s income would have been taken by the government, so altogether whatever monetary compensation brought on by this bill had to make up for both the increased taxation and the situational obstacles brought on by it for the veterans.
I can’t agree with this speech regarding morality, however, economics proves his claims correct. I believe the war veterans should have received compensation for their service. The Great War had too many casualties and traumas for the government to deny reparations. The veterans wouldn’t use it lavishly, they would have paid for medical care, put their children in school, invest in a trade to get back to pre-war feelings. Placing that money back in the economy. Coolidge declaring that the veterans didn’t want to money was uncalled for because he wouldn’t know. On the other hand, taxes would surely go up if the bill was not vetoed. This would disadvantage the people as a whole because they will have to catch up with inflation, again. After the Gilded Age, it is known that disadvantaging the majority working class will lead to rebellions and violence, therefore, it was best not to increase taxes for the veterans compensation.
It would be interesting to look into the responses of veterans at the time to this veto. Surely there were supporters of Coolidge’s economic theory, but the families of those most greatly affected by PTSD from the war may have taken a different stance on the matter. Coolidge was tasked with an incredibly difficult decision in this veto, almost as though he would have to decide between two groups, the American people and the veterans who served them. I think that his response at the time was appropriate for balancing a budget that veterans would be contributing to through tax money, but in hindsight, the government has a responsibility to the brave men and women who most directly serve it and must understand their trauma and grief in a post-war environment. Now that we have a better understanding of the physiological impact of war, I believe Coolidge would have emphasized re-writing the bill to more directly address the health of veterans in a veto statement rather than rejecting the bill in its entirety.