Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Caption contest!
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Manzullo denies Politico report *** Money, Money, Money, Money… Money
Posted in:
* This e-mail just arrived from Rep. David Harris (R-Arlington Heights), a retired National Guard Major General…
Just FYI, I can understand the Governor’s desire to provide a “significant” tax credit to companies hiring “unemployed veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan”
And having served 33 years in the military myself and also having a son in the US Army who is currently on a year’s deployment in Afghanistan, I know the great service and sacrifice that these service members are giving to their country.
But why discriminate against service members who did not serve in Iraq or Afghanistan?
What about the young sailor who is assigned to the Seventh Fleet (Pacific Ocean) and does not get orders to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom (which is Afghanistan)? Or what about the soldier who is assigned to Korea and spends a year on the DMZ at Camp Liberty Bell or Camp Bonifas (formerly Camp Kitty Hawk)? Or the Air Force airman that is assigned to Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska. Those service members are not normally given orders under Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom.
Are these service members any less deserving than those that had orders under Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom. You know, there are thousands of service members who were issued orders under Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom but they never set foot in either those countries (e.g., assignment to Camp Doha, the logistics supply base in Kuwait, or al-Udeid Air Force Base in Qatar).
Whether or not the proposal moves through the General Assembly, I know I am going to bring up this consideration when I can.
* The Question: Do you agree with Rep. Harris that Gov. Pat Quinn’s proposed tax credit to hire unemployed veterans who had orders for the nation’s two wars be expanded to include all vets? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:37 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Caption contest!
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Manzullo denies Politico report *** Money, Money, Money, Money… Money
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Can we expect Harris to offer an amendment to Quinn’s bill or just snipe at the Governor?
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:50 am
Why exactly does the state government want to bribe a private employer to hire a veteran instead of a better-qualified worker?
Comment by JN Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:50 am
Completely agree. These noble men and women do not choose where there are stationed, but they all choose to serve our country.
Comment by Shock & Awww(e) Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:50 am
Agree & I believe that Governor Quinn would too. I would have to assume he simply misspoke.
Comment by TCB Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:52 am
I wish the Governor would stop passing out money that doesn’t exist all together, but since we know that won’t happen, I would at least hope that he would think things like this through a little more.
And Thanks to all who do serve.
Comment by Homer J. Simpson Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:52 am
An underlying message here is that like most of the Governor’s proposal it is a poorly thought out policy idea.
The Governor sincerely cares about veterans but again leads with his heart (and political interests) rather than his head.
New spending, no matter how lofty, is absolutely wrong-headed right now. And if Quinn adjusts his proposal as Harris recommends to make it truly equitable, it will be even more expensive.
Comment by Adam Smith Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:53 am
As a veteran of Desert Storm and Deny Flight I do not agree. Yes all members of the armed forces volunteer, currently. But, not all members serve in the same way. I was stationed at a support base and did not come close to combat. I am not trying to discount any service, but not all military people have to make the same sacrifices that those in a combat situation do.
Comment by Libra Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:01 pm
Libra - can’t agree. I am a veteran of Desert Shield and Storm and Provide Comfort 1&2. I saw too many personnel hop flights into theater just to get the patch and leave before they got anywhere close to action. The military is a team and all memebers play a vital roll. Help them all or none. The members I know don’t want their brothers and sisters in uniform discriminated against because of the luck or bad luck of the draw.
Comment by Fair Share Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:10 pm
I completely agree. The main point is that these soldiers have bravely volunteered to fight for their country in any way they are needed. Just because they are not in combat does not mean they are any less important. Yes it is more dangerous, but who can say that the one shooting the gun is more important than the one behind the computers in an office watching over them?
Comment by Soooo... Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:13 pm
I didn’t vote because I am genuinely conflicted. On the one hand, if the policy is to help those who served to defend our country, it should cover all veterans. But there are already veteran preferences, and I tend to agree with those posters who raise concerns about whether we can afford this program.
On the other hand, there is genuinely a crisis with civilian employment of veterans who were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. I don’t know (or at least haven’t seen any evidence) that veterans who were discharged and didn’t serve in those theaters are having a more difficult time finding civilian employment. If the policy is in fact to deal with the very discrete problem of helping veterans from those two theaters who are having a harder time of it than most other Americans (and other vets), then clearly the policy should be limited only to that group.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:17 pm
I agree if you are going to do it just don’t do it for those who got orders for that area.
My dad was drafted during ‘early’ Vietnam and never went overseas, he did get called back in after he had been out over a year. Even though he would be the last guy to admit it I would think someone like him would deserve equal consideration.
Leaving the service and not being able to find work I would argue is not unique to where we had you serve.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:19 pm
Harris is correct in pointing out that there exists other areas in the world where service, although technically or legally not combat, is still above and beyond the call of duty. We should help out those serving our country in those areas as well.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:20 pm
No. I don’t support the tax credit at all. I support our veterans and thank them for what they did. But the state needs to start to learn when to say no and when to side with its long term interest and the taxpayers. There’s too much candy and not enough vegetable eating going on so while we thank the veterans, (and support moms, and kids and non profits and every other group that has a case for things like this) we have to learn when to just say no.
Comment by shore Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:25 pm
My dad was drafted in 1952 by luck he served in West Germany. He was always given the benefits due a Korean War vet. At the induction center they counted off by 4’s every 4th quy was sent to the Marines and then to Korea.
My brother was on a submarine when Saigon fell, he is treated as Vietnam War vet. This was long after we had combat troops there and he was hundreds of miles and hundreds of feet deep away.
Royko wrote once that every vet is a vet wherever they serve, because once you are in you go where you are sent.
Comment by jeff Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:26 pm
I agree with Rep. Harris and those above who say that this is an example of the governor not thinking things through before opening his mouth.
One thing that I find ironic is that veteran’s preference is a very big part of the State of Illinois hiring procedures. This means there are a lot of veterans working for the State of Illinois. And Governor Quinn is outspoken in his support of providing for veterans. Yet he doesn’t seem to hold veterans in as high regard once they become State employees.
It would be interesting to know how many of the State employees that did not get their raises or steps and how many of those that are going to be laid off in the Human Services budget cuts are veterans. Are those cuts to those veterans going to free up the money for PQ’s more favorite veterans, those who would benefit from the new peogram?
And finally, in the world we live in any service person could find themselves in the middle of combat at any time. If none of the members of Seal Team six were ever in either Iraq or Afghanistan they should not get the same considerations? What about a sailor in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea who finds himself in action against Iran, God forbid. or Somolian pirates. Or those folks at Fort Hood who found themselves attacked by a home grown terrorist?
You serve, you deserve.
Comment by Irish Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:27 pm
I can see a temporary credit for veterans after the war is over, but I can’t see a permanent benefit for all ex-service members. As pointed out, they do collect other unique benefits for service.
But, how do you pay for this? Which others suffer cuts to their programs/jobs to pay for this? Will Quinn close down a few more developmental facilities, hurting the disabled and those who care for them instead? They seem to be his favorite target of late.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:28 pm
While it is great to give the vets a leg up, it’s just a part of PQ’s pandering legacy to create a special class of beneficiaries who will fight over the crumbs proposed by the State.
BTW I am a vet.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:36 pm
Every single member of our armed forces is a hero and deserves our undying admiration. That being said, those that serve in combat situations face a different and more difficult set of challenges. The stress they are put under can make integrating back into society very difficult, and they deserve our help in that respect.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:12 pm
With all due respect to the Vets–If they can show they were in combat then give them a break or preference in hiring, however just because you enlisted for 4 years does not necessarily prove you have the knowledge or expertise over someone who went to 4 years of college. I realize this is not P.C. but I have hired vets because of the preference clause and they simply could not do the job. I appreciate them for their service but only people in WAR/Battle should get the breaks.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:19 pm
I voted yes. In general, where service was performed should not have an impact on any veteran preference. The only distinction I would support would be for those veterans who are service-disabled.
Comment by 10th Indy Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:22 pm
Even if a veteran wasn’t unfortunate enough to find his/herself getting shot at during service, they all made sacrifices, spending months away from loved ones. At a time in life when most of their friends were spending time partying, they were doing whatever their country told them to do. They all deserve whatever perks we can give them.
Comment by TwoFeetThick Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:25 pm
How about ‘none of the above.’ I greatly appreciated eh service of these men and women. If they were not compensated for their sacrifices I would agree that they should have advantages in the job market.
That said, giving an employer a tax break to hire a possibly less qualified candidate is wrong imo.
Comment by Brewster's Millions Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:25 pm
It is astonishing that 82% of the people in the poll supported this credit. The state is broke people!!!
Comment by Louie Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:27 pm
I think there is a difference between a veteran who has been in combat and one that has not.
Comment by I don't want to live in Teabagistan Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:27 pm
Ugh… “him/herself”.
Comment by TwoFeetThick Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:27 pm
I think we just need to end targeted handouts and stop creating entitled classes.
Comment by Solomon Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:29 pm
Include the Vietnam veterans - many are getting older and had significant physical and emotional scars - but no help or support. My brother served in Vietnam - he died unemployed - I paid and am paying his debts - he needed help with re employment
Comment by sadie Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:29 pm
I think veterans would be better served, pardon the pun, if the state got its fiscal house in order, attracted new jobs, and stopped the nonsense of adding new programs to the state budget.
Our current fiscal policy is like putting a blindfold on a drunk and pointing him toward a cliff.
Comment by Knome Sane Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:29 pm
==I think there is a difference between a veteran who has been in combat and one that has not.==
While all military personnel certainly are volunteering to be put in harm’s way, I do agree with this sentiment and so voted no. Also because of the state’s financial situation, I’m against any tax credit, no matter how good it might feel.
Comment by Robert Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:32 pm
Include Vietnam vets, most I know (including my father) died young (56). I don’t know of too many that are left, besides my Mom’s brother who was on a boat in the Navy during Vietnam, and her cousin who was in the Air Force during it.
But I agree, why just pick some vets and not others? They all did their time, for some it was much more difficult, but they could have been called to either of those wars at any time.
Comment by 3rd Generation Chicago Native Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:36 pm
The General should do a little research before blasting out e-mails…
According to the Tribune, the credit would apply to those who “serve in support” of OIF and OEF, so those in Kuwait, Qatar, or even the US in some cases would be covered.
Comment by M O'Malley Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:41 pm
Completely agree with Rep. Harris on their inclusion.
I really want to support this. I don’t think I can come close to fully understanding what veterans sacrifice. I want those veteran’s to come home and find work. This might help. But I also think the money that would go towards this would also support veterans who own or already work at businesses that are owed money by the state, to pay for healthcare services Veterans receive that are now part of the backlog, and maybe putting the deficit first means we could finally stop considering flat appropriations for educational institutions that can train these men and women for second careers a good budget year.
I can’t blame the governor for wanting this program. He’s right that it’s a problem, but all he has right now are Band aids.
Comment by Dirty Red Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:51 pm
@Louie =It is astonishing that 82% of the people in the poll supported this credit. The state is broke people!!!=
You’re misunderstaning the poll. The question isn’t whether or not you support the credit, it is do you support the idea that it should only apply to the vets of Iraqi & Afghanistan wars.
Comment by TCB Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:53 pm
In an all volunteer army I dont agree with any hiring preferences for Veterans. They knew when they signed up what they were getting into. And please save the protecting our freedoms comments.
Comment by Rick Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:58 pm
The bill is HB4575. The reason why the bill only includes OEF and OIF is because these are the men and women coming home from battle. Yes, vietnam vets are equal in my eyes but they have fully integrated back into society. In the next four years there will be over one million veterans leaving the military. And most of these service members have borne the scars of battle and are trying to transition back into their homes and jobs.
I commend all veterans who have served in combat but the ones who need the most help are the ones coming home right now.
Comment by You can call me Al Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 2:10 pm
I am a Viet Nam Veteran. I was drafted. The government took two years of my life. They owe me for more than what I was paid to do a job. For those that enlsted, they got paid for what they did.
Comment by Stooges Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 2:12 pm
TCB @ 1:53 - Exactly!
Comment by Irish Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 2:12 pm
It’s a great need, and like most others in the Governor’s speech, it would be nice to do if we had the money.
If we do it, Harris is right. He’s a good judge of our fiscal situation; but I was surprised to hear some of these new spending and tax-break programs in the speech at this time.
The immediate challenge is for veterans separating in this era.
Comment by mark walker Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 2:48 pm
Why is always vets getting benefits? I understand all the rationale and stepping into combat criteria. As other have said not everyone in the military actually did time in a battle zone and just being a vet does not make you qualified for any job. My cousin just finished a 20 year career repairing helicopters in Germany. Never came close to a war zone. What about all the other people who served in some non-military way such as AmeriCorp, nonprofit groups, poverty programs?
Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 3:02 pm
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) estimate that the unemployment rate nationally for these particular vets is around a staggering 11.5 percent. Governor Quinn’s proposal needs to be targeted at this particular subgroup due to the current downsizing of our armed forces as our nation extracts itself from two wars. The current plan is for the Army to cut 27,000 soldiers and the Marine Corp to downsize by 15,000 to 20,000 over the next few years.
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2010, about 11.0 million veterans had served during World War II, the Korean War, or the Vietnam era. Nearly all of these veterans were at least 55 years old, and more than half were at least 65 years old. In 2010, just over one-third of male veterans of these earlier wartime periods were in the labor force, and their unemployment rate was 8.4 percent. If Illinois can afford this plan, which is a legitimate concern, then it should be targeted to the smaller group of veterans.
Comment by Rod Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 3:10 pm
I agree. People in the armed services go where their orders state they go. I would no less want to be in the DMZ than in Afghanistan. All those that will eventually call themselves vets are performing work that is needed at this time. There shouldn’t be a difference in how they are treated.
And for those who disagree with them getting preferencial treatment in hiring, that is a tough one. One doesn’t have to be a vet to be more qualified for a job, and I’ve seen vets come into jobs where they had no qualification. So, I’m torn on that part.
Comment by Wickedred Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 3:38 pm
I had to go with Solomon on this. We do not need a more entitled class.
If you have not served are you then a lower class citizen.
The closest I came to winning the lottery was when I was 19. My draft lotto number was 10. Needless to say I was called down to the induction center. After half a day I was found to be 4F. For those of you too young to know what that meant I was considered physically unfit for military duty. That now means I get no preference for State or Fed employment.
Back in those days along with the draft some of the reasons for joining were,serve country, need job,stay out of jail, so on and so forth.
I do think some are in todays service for reasons other than to protect our country.
Having said that I do thank those who have put it on the line and feel they should get everything they were promised for thier service. They should get better pay and those wounded should have top medical for life. Much past that it starts to be some politco pandering to a certain group.
Comment by Bemused Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 4:17 pm
When these folks sign up they are saying “I will serve my country and will give the ultimate sacrifice if called upon to do so.” They do not have a choice in their assignment. They do not have strings attached.
So, why do we take one volunteer over another? We should treat all veterans with the same respect and due.
Comment by Sunshine Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 5:28 pm
Out of almost 100 applicants, we recently hired a veteran who had served some time in the Afghan conflict but had mostly served stateside. She was the best candidate for the job. No incentive necessary.
Comment by D Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 5:55 pm
I agree with the comment that this is more Quinn pandering on the only issue he has popularity on. We all care about veterans, and certainly Pat Quinn does too. But, they already have entitlements for being veterans, and there are many, many deserving people in Illinois. I am the son, brother and uncle of veterans. None of them expect these perks. What they do expect is mental health treatment. Veterans are far more likely to end up in prison from substance abuse, DUIs and sex offenses than civilians.
Comment by state worker Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 6:23 pm
I believe that any previous member of the service should be given preference and be interviewed for a job opening; after the interviews are completed the best qualified candidate should be hired.
And, quit giving our State’s money away in tax break gimmicks and come up with a true job creation plan. That’s why I voted no.
Comment by Jechislo Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 6:49 pm
Forgot to explain. Voted yes. Either you give all veterans preference or you don’t give any. You don’t get to pick and chose … most the vets didn’t get a choice of their assignment.
The way the State hiring used to work (can’t speak to the last 9 years), veterans preference doesn’t necessarily mean a vet will get hired, it just makes sure they will be considered.
But the real issue is should government be trying to artificially create jobs. Bribing private industry to hire a vet is no different than bribing companies to “create” new jobs. But it can have unintended results. Here is an example:
Building where I used to work had security handled by a private firm. Every year the contract changed between two security companies and the guards usually switched companies also. Why? Because there was a federal tax credit for companies “creating” jobs. When the company that was “out” bid & won, they “created” about 10 new jobs at that company. Nobody counted the 10 “lost” jobs at the other company. This all happened because the tax credit made it cheaper for the “out” company to bid even though they paid the same wage as the “in” company. That tax policy made it impossible for a guard to work up any continuity with one company and contributed to stress & disruption every year because they weren’t sure they would be rehired by the other company.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 9:10 pm
Forgot to clarify one item above … it was a new job “first year” tax credit.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 9:12 pm
Why is Harris more worried about showing up the Guv than he is about the 12.5% unemployment rate among OIF-OEF vets????
Did he stop to think that since the state has ZERO dollars to do this anyway maybe Quinn was trying to limit the scope to where it could have the most impact?
Besides, Pres. Obama has already advocated for a similar program on the national level. The Hire Heroes Act was the only part of Obama’s comprehensive American Jobs Act that the GOP voted for.
If Quinn’s proposal goes through it would be gravy on top of the national veterans-hiring program.
While we’re on the topic — Veterans should check out IAVA’s Combat to Career program, Smart Job Fairs and other resources.
http://iava.org/Combat2Career
http://iava.org/smart-job-fairs
http://iava.org/content/careers-after-combat-employment-and-education-challenges-iraq-and-afghanistan-veterans-0
Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 10:29 pm