What I liked about the mandate letter was the opportunity to provide an option for wounded veterans to receive a long-term pension benefit or a one-time payout. What I liked about it is that it respects an individual's right to choose, and at the same time, a business case can be made to see what is in their best interests. If I'm a 20-year-old receiving $250,000, how does that compare to a lifelong allowance that takes me and my spouse through to the age of 90, for example? There is a business case that can be made in those terms.
As to whether it actually fits the 1919 model, that's a specific question, and I really don't have the answer to that. Really, I'd have to take a good hard look at what the 1919 model is all about.
It's the long-term benefit that these Afghan vets or post-Cold War vets are receiving that's giving them so much difficulty, because the money runs out. If they're wounded at the age of 25 or 30 and their money runs out at 50, 20 or 25 years later, we're leaving them in the lurch, and we did not leave their parents in the lurch.