Pinhead or Patriot?

The Coffee Shop
1

DeMint explains his veterans ‘no’ vote

Sen. Jim DeMint knew that casting the lone vote against a veterans jobs bill wasn’t going to make him very popular – especially just a day before Veterans Day. But then again, the South Carolina tea-party Republican has never really cared about winning the popularity contest.

Nevertheless, he went to great length to explain on the Senate floor Thursday why the legislation amounted to nothing more than politics, almost anticipating the attacks from Democrats who later circulated an email quoting DeMint saying veterans are just another “political group.”

“I’ll probably be accused of not supporting veterans by the politicians pandering for their votes. But, I am not going to be intimidated into voting for something that may make sense politically but is inherently unfair and isn’t going to work,” DeMint said before the vote. “It might sound like good politics, but it is not good policy.”

The veterans bill, passed by the Senate 94-1, would provide tax credits for firms that hire unemployed or disabled vets. But DeMint opposed the legislation, arguing that the tax breaks won’t encourage hiring, would complicate the tax code and amount to the government picking winners and losers.

At one point, he said, “We’re pandering to different political groups with programs that have proven to be ineffective.”

“All Americans deserve the same opportunity to get hired. I cannot support this tax credit because I do not believe the government should privilege one American over another when it comes to work,” DeMint said.

“I am deeply thankful for the courageous and selfless service our veterans. They have performed for our country a service that we will always be in their debt for. And, above all, I am thankful for their sacrifices to protect freedom and equal opportunity in America,” he added. “But we don’t pay them back for their service and sacrifice with false promises of government programs that have proven not to work.”

2

Pinhead in my opinion. The government has an addional duty of care for disabled vets.

3

That bill sounds like a political move without any real benefit.

From my experience there seems to be an incentive to hire verterns without this measure. They make good employees and people feel they deserve special treatment for their service to the country. So I think many companies already target hiring veterens. And also retaining them in a down economy. I’m not sure why you would give them a tax credit for something they already want to do.

4

I’ve read reports that their unemployment rate is higher than the general public’s. Somewhere in the area of 12.5%

5

But DeMint opposed the legislation, arguing that the tax breaks won’t encourage hiring, would complicate the tax code and amount to the government picking winners and losers

I guess, then, that DeMint can be counted on to vote against and tax breaks (like continuing the Bush tax cuts for wealthy taxpayers) because that won’t encourage the job creators to, well, create jobs.

6

Without doing a lot of digging I’m leaning patriot. For some reason we seem to have made compensating our servicement and women a ridiculously complex equation.

You start with clearly inadequate pay but are told that’s then ok because you have to factor in educational grants, exceptional health care, reliable pensions, the CoL adjustments that you get from on-base shopping and housing and 1,000 other benefits that some politician introduces under some patriotic sounding bill title and that no-one dares object to (including, when stuff like this passes, marginally better job prospects).

Would it not be simpler to do away with everything after the first number but sit down and work out what is a fair wage for risking your life for the country? It obviously comes down to how much more they’d get paid under option B but I’d be interested to know whether the veterans on the board actually favor the byzantine calculations under calculation A?

7

Ugh. It isn’t about “a fair wage for risking your life for the country,” as if it’s an economic calculation.

I’m sort of morbidly curious as to what you think a “fair” price for something like that would be, but I think I’d prefer not to know.

8

oddly enough, I agree with him on this one. Weird.

9

I’ve read reports that their unemployment rate is higher than the general public’s. Somewhere in the area of 12.5%

I guess the ones working with me have used their GI Bill benefits and earned degrees. I wonder if the 12 percent left the military with no useful skills? My brother spent 20 years in the Air force with some skills that I would have thought he could use., but he went to school and worked in another area. If they don’t have the right skills it would make it harder to stay employed. I know we have kept people at work who were actually current reservist and their military status is considered. We dropped from 20 people to 5 and a lot of good people lost their jobs. The one guy in particular, was not one of our top 5 to keep, but we found him work on another team. He was a good employee, and in any other economy would not have to worry about a job.

We also had subcontractor working with us who was a veteren with disabilities. He also was a great worker and we kept him working up to the point in time his health just no longer allowed him to work and he retired.

And in similar discussions over the years I’ve hear people get advantages because of the veteren status so I thing that happens in at least some companies.

10

Here’s what sticks in my craw:

I cannot support this tax credit because I do not believe the government should privilege one American over another when it comes to work,” DeMint said.

Nevermind the fact that he’s simultaneously arguing that we shouldn’t be giving them an advantage over another group while arguing that such initiatives are proven failures: he says he’s unwilling to advantage one group, but has no qualms whatsoever about disadvantaging others–specifically, single mothers and gays who pursue jobs as teachers in the public education system. I can only assume that ban would apply to veterans as well.

As to this particular bill, I don’t know if his claims are valid or not.

11

Well how would you calculate it?

Our unconditional thanks and admiration are given. If that’s all it took we wouldn’t be having this discussion. To put it another way, if they’re only working for the glory why pay them at all? That is not intended to be disparaging but it’s naive to think that, although the weight of each factor may vary among individuals, pride, service AND salary and benefits are not important in deciding if the job is worthwhile.

The fact is though that every system out there designed to “help” servicemen and veterans does so by saving them money or making it easier for them to get money. I wish it weren’t so ugly but it is. There is a $ amount that you could pay a soldier in salary that would exactly compensate him for the loss of on-base shopping. There is a $ amount that you could pay a soldier in salary that would enable him to buy an insurance policy as generous and comprehensive as that afforded to veterans. And on and on.

There are men and women working alongside our troops now who I presume, as private contractors, don’t have any of these additional benefits. I’m guessing they have their salary and their company benefits just like any other private sector employee. If you want to work out a “fair” price for doing that sort of work I’d start by looking at what they’re paid.

Even the CBO recognizes this view as legitimate (my underlining):

Other observers, including some service members, view the military’s traditional pay system as standing in the way of an efficient or cost-effective all-volunteer force. They argue that a greater emphasis on cash compensation—which would allow service members to choose the goods and services that they valued most—would enable DoD to maintain a larger and more capable force for the same total cost as the present force. Those observers note that today’s military increasingly emphasizes a more expeditionary force, so families are less likely to accompany a deployed service member. In addition, two-thirds of active-duty members and all reservists live off-base, so onbase communities may not serve those members as effectively as a more cash-based system would. Also, cash can be more easily targeted toward those personnel who are most productive or who possess the skills that the military wants to retain.

(http://www.cbo.gov/...ype=0&sequence=1)