The very spring and root of honesty and virtue lie in good education.
Plutarch
Veterans Jobs Bill: An Unpopular Dissent
There's a reason a bill sails without a dissenting vote through both chambers of Congress. I'm want to rant here a bit about the Democrats--in part, because I used to be one. Some of us remember the 60's and 70's where returning Vietnam veterans were not treated the way they are today: many did not come home, as they are today, in an almost politically correct tribute for their service and sacrifice, with kind acknowledge of the family members left behind. Many Viet vets were spat upon and labeled 'baby killers'. John Kerry, the recipient of multiple Purple Hearts (none of them involving a catastrophic injury), participated in a famous 1971 Senate meeting where he repeated some outrageous claims, all but labeling many senior officers 'war criminals'. Yet in the Presidential contest some 30-odd years later, John Kerry, who had thrown his medals away in a protest of the Vietnam War, was all too willing to be seen with and solicit votes from his fellow'war criminal' veterans. He invented character attacks from Bush and Cheney, thundering self-righteously to imagined slights against his patriotism and condescendingly compared his four months of service as a Navy officer in Vietnam against Bush's National Guard service and Cheney's deferments. Then we had the Swift board controversies--which was not this Hillary Clintonian vast right wing conspiracy. Bush, in fact, never ran the 1971 Senate testimony against Kerry, which I would have personally distributed to every veterans group in the nation.
The problem I had with Kerry was his lack of integrity; I'm not aware of a public apology Kerry has ever made for what he did and said in 1971, but it wasn't hard to understand that many Viet veterans were offended by what Kerry did: it was bad enough many American citizens disrespected them, but now one of their brothers in combat was attacking their professionalism. That's why the whole Swift boat thing came back to haunt Kerry. These guys felt that Kerry was two-faced and seeking to politically exploit something years ago he publicly disowned. The Swift board ads would have been perceived in a more critical light if Kerry had acknowledged his past mistakes.
I don't speak on behalf of wartime veterans. But my sense is that most live by a code of honor that emphasizes the team mission and the contributions of their buddies. The real heroes were the ones whom perished on the battlefield and the others whom will live with wartime injuries for the rest of their lives. I think, like all people, they are proud of the things they've done, particularly in the service of their country. But to try to exploit their service for political gain? I don't think so. Did McCain's political career benefit from his celebrity status as a prominent P.O.W.? No doubt, but let's keep in mind that most generals and prisoners of war do not pursue or are successful in a political career. I will mention a couple of telling differences between John McCain and John Kerry. Unlike Kerry, McCain never really went after Obama's lack of military experience. Second, John McCain, as the son of a prominent admiral, was offered early release by the North Vietnamese, and he rejected that: all the others before him had to leave before he in good conscience could do the same. On the other hand, Kerry's minor injuries gave him an opportunity to leave after only a few months versus a year in service, and he took that. I don't necessarily blame him for that, using an option available under military policy, but he was leaving his colleagues behind. Time after time I've seen injured soldiers wanting to go back and help look out for their buddies.
The Democrats think everything happens on the surface-level. It must be the number of flags behind GOP candidates--if they have 14, we'll get 20. In particular, over the past decade, there's been a particular emphasis by Democrats at dealing with the benefits of veterans and the families left behind. I have addressed this point before in the blog: I think the real way you honor the soldier is to honor his mission. There's no way to sugarcoat the fact that Obama attacked the decision to liberate Iraq. You may pay lip service to the serviceman's commitment and sacrifice.
What does this discussion have to do with the veteran job bill, which provides tax credits for veterans? My disagreeing with that seems quixotic, like going against Mom, apple pie and Chevrolet.
Very simple, and it has to do with basic economic facts: many companies will hire vets without being bribed into it, and that is pushing on a string, paying money with the national debt already exceeding its credit limit at $15T. And why is a more recently employed serviceman more equal than a civilian whom has been out of work for two or more years?
Obama is doing what he's always doing: he's politically motivated to seek voter approval in favored public service professions, like policemen, firefighters and teachers; add a special rule for vets. The problem I have: first, the money won't make a difference to real employers, because they're making a long-term decision based on their business' prospects. The private sector doesn't need to be bribed to consider vets, certainly in the case where a civilian alternative career is obvious (e.g., fighter jet pilots to airline pilots or medical professionals). I'm really getting tired of Obama picking winners and losers; it violates the very concept of equal protection.
Now I agree that many service members have a difficult time finding a second career; I have a father and a brother whom retired out of the military at middle age and spent several months or a few years before finally landing a desired job opportunity. I believe that there have been volunteer private sector organizations and VA programs to help with placement after separation, plus, of course, military veterans usually enjoy significant educational benefits and other benefits (home loans) to help the transition to civilian life.
I think most conservatives in Congress realize there's a slippery slope argument here: Obama's inevitable next step is to demonstrate how hypocritical pro-growth, limited-government Republicans and conservatives are by agreeing to help veterans but not others whom are long-term unemployed. But how does a military conservative vote against giving military veterans special treatment?
I would have voted AGAINST this bill/law, not because I'm against fair considerations of veterans as job applicants, but I think a true military veteran is a proud professional and feels that his experience speaks for itself and employers should not have to be bribed to hire him or her. All they want is the same opportunity as any other unemployed person, nothing more, nothing else. This legislation, in my view, undermines their marketability because it's implicitly saying that soldiers holding their own on the battlefield can't hold their own in the job market and we have to bribe employers to hire them?
After this commentary, I will probably be on every vet's enemies list..... SIGH!
Ron Paul: I'm With the 99%? Thumbs DOWN!
Okay, from one libertarian-conservative to another? Ron Paul, you seriously don't mean to confuse the 1% with Wall Street bankers? No doubt some of them are in the 1%, but Gates, Ellison, Buffett, and others did not make their fortunes on Wall Street. You must be out of your mind to mollify people whom are pursuing unlimited federal expenditures for positive rights. Ron Paul is right in pointing out the corrupt nature of a crony relationships between the big banks and the federal government, but he's overlooking (or choosing to ignore) that the Occupy Wall Street crowd is not sympathetic to an individualistic philosophy but rather a communitarian one. I believe that Ron Paul thinks he's being clever here: he's saying pro-market groups have an unlikely alliance with these left-wing groups. But let me point out the original purpose of TARP was not to invest in banks; in fact, many, if not most banks did not want to take the federal money and paid it back--with interest--the first opportunity they could.
The Washington DC DAR GOP Presidential Debate:
Gingrich vs. Paul on the Patriot Act: Ron Paul Thumbs UP!
Here's an abridged version of the exchange:
ED MEESE, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: At least 42 terrorist attacks aimed at the United States have been thwarted since 9/11. Tools like the Patriot Act have been instrumental in finding and stopping terrorists. Shouldn’t we have a long range extension of the investigative powers contained in that act so that our law enforcement officers can have the tools that they need?
GINGRICH: Well, I think that Attorney General Meese has raised a key point, and the key distinction for the American people to recognize is the difference between national security requirements and criminal law requirements.
BLITZER: So, Speaker, just to clarify, you wouldn’t change the Patriot Act?Let me just briefly summarize here: Gingrich is saying that we need to do whatever it takes to proactively guard against WMD being used against the American people, and he's essentially willing to do whatever it takes, i.e., throw personal liberties under the bus, to get there. He thinks the Patriot Act doesn't go far enough. What Ron Paul is saying is that once you throw the Bill of Rights under the bus, this is no longer America. There are some provisions of the Patriot Act which undermine negative rights without judicial review. There are ways to be proactive within a due process concept. I would also add that it's almost impossible to prevent every possible terrorist act, and our police and intelligence agencies are made of fallible humans. Each year many Americans die by homicide; but we don't resort to a police state to prevent homicide.
GINGRICH: No, I would not change it. I’m not aware of any specific change it needs. And I’d look at strengthening it, because I think the dangers are literally that great.
PAUL: I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty. I’m concerned, as everybody is, about the terrorist attack. Timothy McVeigh was a vicious terrorist. He was arrested. Terrorism is still on the books, internationally and nationally, it’s a crime and we should deal with it...Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security. I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.
GINGRICH: I don’t want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we’re sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you.
PAUL: This is like saying that we need a policeman in every house, a camera in every house because we want to prevent child-beating and wife-beating... You might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms. And we will throw out so much of what our revolution was fought for.
Political Humor
"It looks like the supercommittee chosen by President Obama to come up with a plan to solve the deficit has failed. The best idea they came up with? A bake sale." - Jay Leno
[Even that idea broke down when the Democrats insisted that the cost of ingredients had to come out of the Defense budget and all home bakers had to pay union dues.]
"President Obama came home after a nine-day trip to Asia. Well, he got to see some stuff he never sees at home, like jobs." - Jimmy Fallon
[Obama would have been home sooner, but he had a hard time trying to convince the Chinese to raise the US credit limit. Things took an ugly turn when he accidentally called Chinese President Hu Jintao John Boehner...]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups *
* This is the last song in my Boston series. The My Favorite Groups series will resume after the New Year covering Styx. My blog tradition is to cover holiday tunes at the end of the year, and I will resume this practice starting with tomorrow's post.
Boston, "Can'tcha Say (You Believe in Me)". My #3 favorite Boston song (between "More than a Feeling" and "Amanda"). For some reason the stations I was listening to at the time never covered the song... Brilliantly crafted pop, superbly sung; the ultimate power ballad. Why can't today's musical artists write and perform material like this?
