Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:43:52 PM EDT
|
| The first time I ran into Robert Tracey, the noted veterans' advocate of Morristown, I was at a Bill Bradley book signing in Mendham, passing out flyers for my congressional campaign. Mr. Tracey kindly waved me off with a smile saying that he strongly supported our incumbent Rodney Frelinghuysen, indicating that he's "always there" for veterans. In politics, conventional wisdom says that you need to spend your time engaging the "persuadable" voters, and I sensed that Mr. Tracey was probably not going to be very receptive if I tried to engage him in a lengthy discussion about his congressman's voting record. It's painful for me to resist these opportunities - as I've always prided myself in educating the electorate. I believe in what Jefferson said when he stated "an informed democracy will behave responsibly", but this probably wasn't the time or place to talk about how our incumbent is currently rated the worst representative in NJ according to Disabled American Veterans, an advocacy group for disabled veterans with a history dating back to WWI. Yet our same representative is quick to steal photo ops with vets any chance he gets, and touts votes for veterans benefits that are non-controversial and passed by overwhelming majorities.
Unlike our congressman, I'm not a veteran myself, and no deed that I can lay claim to even comes close to the sacrifice that these people have made for our country..... |
| Tom Wyka :: Rodney "always there" for vets? |
| ...I'm humbled by their service. Maybe it's for this reason that I feel we all owe so much to our veterans, regardless of their status as draftee or volunteer. Maybe it's also for this reason that I feel such anger over this recent vote of our incumbent against the House version of the new G.I. Bill.
The G.I. Bill of 1944 that Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed helped so many WWII vets go to college in the post war years. It was partially credited with building the solid middle class that was so very strong in this country through the 1950's and 60's. The legislation turned out to be a tremendous investment for the American economy as it was estimated that every dollar spent on education by this bill created about 7 dollars for the US economy. It made complete sense to invest in one of the most motivated and reliable segments of the population.
Resistance to today's GI Bill being offered to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans comes with some absurd rationalizations - and some complete falsehoods. Some detractors (even on the Democratic side) are stridently opposed to creating a new "entitlement" program. To put it in perspective - the cost of 5 years of spending for education benefits for our vets would cost about as much as we spend in 9 weeks in Iraq. Even if you have no desire to honor vets with some assistance in improving their life back here at home - the investment in our economy proves that this plan is one of the best examples of "pro-growth" fiscal policy.
One of the most interesting criticisms which comes from the likes of John McCain, state that this program might create an exodus from the armed services and cut reenlistment rates. The Congressional Budget Office dispelled this myth saying that the improved benefit will bring more quality recruits into the service, and the expected reenlistment cut versus the improved new enlistment amount will likely be a wash. Sounds like a much better strategy than lowering standards for recruiting by waiving certain criminal records which is starting to become the trend.
The President stands poised to veto the Congressional effort - simply because the White House wants a "clean" defense spending bill, and will only approve what the White House is asking for. But does "clean" mean washing your hands of the responsibility to our soldiers to help them put their lives in a better place when they come home?
And revisiting our own representation - what exactly does it mean to have a Congressional Representative that's "always there" for veterans. Does that mean "always there" for a photo-op when passing out an earmark or two to the local VA hospital, or should it be that they are "always there" to look out for veterans' interests where it really counts - on Capitol Hill when it's time to vote. |
|
Featured Stories  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
