About two months ago, a Senate budget proposal included a cut to retirement compensation for veterans. A news conference was held in the Senate on Dec. 17 to give legislators an opportunity to persuade other lawmakers to remove the proposal from the budget.

According to a Washington Post article by Lori Montgomery, “authors of the budget deal, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.), have agreed to amend the provision to exempt disabled retirees and survivors of those killed in action.”

President Obama signed the controversial, bipartisan budget plan, which had already been approved by Congress. Veterans have earned a comfortable retirement, and this cut will not prohibit them from receiving just that.

Veterans deserve the absolute best resources and treatment (socially as well as medically) that this nation can provide, for they are the protectors of it. This being said, the specific details of the budget deal must be considered to provide support for why the cut was not the worst option available.

According to the same Washington Post article, the cut is a “one-percentage-point reduction in the annual cost-of-living increase.” To clarify, the decrease in payment should not be viewed as a gross amount less, but rather as less of an increase.

Because of this, the cut to veteran retirement benefits is, although unpreferable, acceptable. Again, the idea of the plan is to slightly cut increases in pensions for working-age men and women that have retired from the military.

The politics of the plan must be considered as well. The budget deal received a large amount of bipartisan support in the Senate, and was a very controversial plan.

In many legislation topics, bipartisan support is a good indicator that the plan or law under question is acceptable and necessary for the nation.

According to the Center for American Progress, “1.5 million veterans are at risk of homelessness due to poverty, lack of support networks, and dismal living conditions in overcrowded or substandard housing.” In addition, more than 968,000 veterans lived in poverty in 2010.

These staggering figures show that there is a great issue in the U.S. regarding the care of our veterans. This is a common reason for people to lack support for the budget plan. Also, specifically older veterans feel cheated, in a way, by the plan, and think there could have easily been a better, more satisfying approach.

Lt. Col. Stephen Preston said to the Post, “Those of us who make it to 25, 30 years, we deserve to get what we were promised,” he said. “It isn’t even really about the money. If we need to balance our budget, fine. But let’s not balance it by breaking the deal you have with me, who served, in order to provide for somebody who just showed up,” he said. “You just don’t do that.”

The poorly addressed issue in this country of veterans living in or close to poverty must be solved, but failing this budget plan would not have helped the problem. The deal was reasonable, for the “cut” was not actually a direct cut, but rather less of an increase in pensions. In addition, it will not take effect until 2015, which allows other possible solutions to be explored and substituted for the plan, if necessary. Veterans put everything on the line and undoubtedly deserve a comfortable retirement; this plan will not violate their rightful benefits for defending our nation.