I would say yes. I think you would have to look at demographics. We have pre-baby-boomers, baby boomers, next-gens, Y-gens, X-gens. Industry will tell you they all have different outlooks on life. There's the “me now” generation; there's the generation of instant communications. We haven't talked about that. The younger cohort coming through feel they should be...maybe not entitled, but they feel they should receive something in recognition of what's happened to them, and they shouldn't have to struggle or fight, they shouldn't have to wait years, and there should be something that will look after them.
The only place they're looking is at their predecessors. They're looking at the World War II veterans and the Korean veterans and asking what's different. What is different is the World War II veterans...it was a different era, a different climate. They had a single, focused enemy, the nation had rallied, and they were all the same age. They were all post-Depression era. They all came back, and there was a mass cohort of a million veterans. Now we've got veterans from 50-plus different missions. They don't have a single voice. So these demographics are fitting in.
I think the majority are asking what was wrong with the old plan. Maybe the old plan needed to be tweaked to bring in some vocational training and some rehab and some job placement--not a clean slate--and now we're struggling with what we're going to do, especially when these guys hit age 65 and everything drops off.