It seems that Obama may–I said may–have had what might–I repeat, might–be a good and workable idea.
In a separate statement, the White House announced 2012 grants of $166 million to hire veterans as police officers and $320 million to hire them as firefighters and emergency personnel.
Obama also will include in the 2013 budget a separate $4 billion in funding to promote police hiring, with communities that hire post-September 11 veterans getting preference for the funds. Another $1 billion would go to employ firefighters and emergency workers, the statement said.
This actually makes a good deal of sense, if you think about it. Veterans would logically have the physical and emotional training to handle high-stress jobs like police officer or firefighter, so they’d probably be a good fit for these positions.
The big question, however, is what happens once the grant money runs out? The fear is that if the grant money goes away, so do the positions, and that could put these vets out of work again. Of course, this is somewhat offset by the fact that by the time the grant runs out, the vets would have valuable experience as cops or firefighters, which might make it easier for them to find another position if they find themselves looking because the grant money isn’t there anymore.
Overall, count me as a cautious supporter of this idea.
(Cross-posted at Conservative Wanderer. Police car image from Police Car Web Site.)
Anything from this weasel smells like a political ploy, but if it helps our vets, then, well, OK.
Have you noticed that all of Obama’s ‘solutions’ involve a larger role for government? This guy does not have any idea how the economy works. His ideas are worse than worthless.
True, but, as Tom said above, this seems to help out our vets, so it might be worthwhile.
Good. It’s not like a lot of the anti-war crowd from 2003-2009 has been in any rush to hire vets (and that is probably a sizable enough number of libs still holding grudges/biases so as to make a noticeable difference), so this is a welcome step. I’m just sorry that not enough police and fire services were doing this without needing this kind of encouragement. But then some government groups are like that–more internally focused than anything else.
I am for anything that helps Vets too, but one question comes to mind: would these vets have to join the Unions? There is, I think, the point. Turning vets, who are usually pretty conservative, into union members.
‘Tis a valid concern, indeed.
However, it may also be that the vets might turn the unions a wee bit more conservative instead of the union turning the vets into lefties.
As I said, I’m a cautious supporter, I wanna see the details… the devil is always in the details.
Hopefully the hired vets will get over the “all this for a flag” childishness and become good dependable union members. And if they end up serving the public as well, well, hey, value added!
“And if they end up serving ME well, well, hey, value added!”
fixed
I’d like to see more vets as teachers. They have a wide variety of skills and experience. Why restrict them?
I’ll go for that too. Especially history teachers.
Let me make sure I understand your premise.
Obama guts the military en masse, a military that he loathes to the man and woman, then pretends to care for them by ponying up the proposition that they should be hired by unionistas?
And you fall for that? God help us.
The Emperor knows that he’s adding even more to the ranks of the unemployed, then does a head fake speech and somehow we’re supposed to believe that he is well intentioned.
May I remind you of the fact that although the Iraq veterans were successful in their mission before Zero abruptly and unceremoniously pulled them back, he chastised them, called them baby killers, and undermined them every step of the way.
In the meantime a small group in St. Louis were courageous enough to hold a parade in the veterans honor.
Obama? Permanently AWOL for vets.
Don’t fall for the ruse. This was political pandering and nothing more, UNLESS he could get more union dues from newly created positions for unionized firefighters and cops.
I love you CW, but………….
Heh… that’s what I wanted, Henry… a good spirited debate.
Actually, I think Obama wants to look like he is “doing something,” and something for vets, who most Americans except the radical anti-war left support, and to top it off he’s also helping cops and firefighters… and most people like cops, and just about everyone likes firefighters.
Just because he’s doing it for political motives, however, doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a bad idea. Even things that Reagan did were pretty much done for political reasons. The firing of the air traffic controllers could be seen as a political move to reassure businesses that Reagan was on their side as opposed to on the union’s side, for example.
We also have to remember that not every vet that leaves the Armed Forces was forced out because of budget cuts. Lots leave every year just because their enlistment is up. This program helps those vets just as much as it does those that got hit with budget cuts.
Bottom line, it helps those who stood in harm’s way for us. I like it for that reason.
Listen. Don’t misrepresent me on this. If I had a company, a private sector company, and I needed to hire a competent, reliable, and skilled individual…former military are the very first people I would consider.
But I am not a private employer, I’m an employee, and because of Obama’s policies my business is not expanding and not hiring either. Hence, there is no private sector employing going on.
That’s 100% Obama. Don’t be fooled by this idiocy.
That’s why the Emperor of BIG STATIST GOV is proposing more public sector/unionista hiring.
Obama has f**ked the military, screwed up the mission and has added even more to the unemployed because of it. And guess what? Because of the cluster he’s created they may not be unemployed for long, unfortunately, and the conditions and survival might be much worse. But I’m no clairvoyant.
Don’t fall for this faux empathy and the false premise that the unemployed military returning to America is the root of our unemployment problem. Obama is the root of our unemployment prolem.
And although he preens… He doesn’t give a FLYING…about these new civilians.
He just doesn’t want this issue to become an ISSUE during his quest to enslave the American people, former military and all, in his marxist/socialist/utopianist jihad against America.
After all. He only has to win one more election before constitutional elections no longer matter.
Of course Obama’s trying to blunt his abysmal record on employment. That’s not in dispute. He’s even having BLS play games with statistics in order to try to look good, as Bryan pointed out earlier.
But helping vets is the right thing to do. It’s the right thing when we fund the VA hospitals, it’s the right thing when we fund the GI Bill, and it’s the right thing to help them get jobs after they leave the Armed Forces.
This is also not a new idea at all. Veterans have been given preferential treatment when applying for federal jobs for a very long time. This just gives an incentive to local agencies to do the same thing.
What part of my message didn’t you understand?
Veterans don’t need government based preferential treatment in a vigorous American economy. The rest will take care of itself. Veterans skills trump phony college certificates any day of the week.
But Obama isn’t offering a vibrant and growing economy. He’s presiding over a declining economy and this stunt is basically saying, ‘Hey. America sucks, and I’ve screwed up the economy and depleted the military, but in order to save my ass the least I can do is to pretend to care for those military I’ve personally caused to be unemployed.’
If I have a growing business and I need to hire someone then military service speaks volumes over a college degree for new hires. Duh.
That you don’t understand this is mystifying to me.
Then why has the preferential treatment for hiring vets in federal jobs existed since the Civil War, if this website is to be believed?
That preference has been presided over by multiple Republican presidents, why did they never repeal it, if it’s not needed?
CW, my brother, Mr. Saddleburr has done an excellent job of articulating my deep feeling of uneasiness considering this policy. He has been able to show:
1) this is merely political
2) the economic policies of Obama are the issue
3) potential increases of public sector / unionized employment is unwise
I will add 4) The USA is broke. Every extra dollar wasted at this time is only digging the hole deeper.
The preferential treatment of veterans has been political since inception. No president/legislator wants a repeat of ‘veterans marching on Washington’ because of ______ (fill in the blank – my memory is hazy on the history of this but I seem to remember ‘back pay’ was once and another time for ‘something’…and I’m too lazy to look it up right now) again.
My friend, sparking a good debate is one thing but carrying it too far is another. As per our drawn out private discussion yesterday, please accede to Mr. Saddleburr’s logic and give him his due. As “cautious supporter” of this proposition, it is your duty to do so once the very good reasons for caution are laid on the table.
And what say you to those who would have the vets “funneled” into teaching jobs, which would subject them to teacher’s unions?
I say, “This is America! Where you can grow up to be anything you want if you work hard enough.”
Let’s see, teachers – even in my right-to-work state – are required to join the union and are “public sector employees”. That falls into point 3 above, yes?
Now I had several vets as teachers in my public education and they were, generally, the best ones. I particularly enjoyed my math/physics/chemistry teacher (small school, folks – my graduating class was 24). He had an Army Chemistry Field Manual from which I concocted some exquisitely fun things!
The main point is we need less government, not more. This policy is specifically targeting more employees and spending. You are even concerned about when the grants dry up. How many municipalities are on the verge of bankruptcy? How more many public sector employees will it take, once those grants die off, to bankrupt even more?
And all this, as you well know, is coming from a public sector employee. If I could I would be in the private sector but, alas, life has dealt me a hand which makes that implausible. It’s either public sector for me or charity (welfare) and I prefer to work.
Thanks, brother (we’re not really related, folks, but we’re such good friends it’s almost like we are brothers). You just made my point for me.
As I said above:
I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I support supporting our troops, even with our tax dollars. I’d rather support those that stood in harms’ way for us than some freeloader who could work but would rather get a monthly welfare check.
Meh. More vote-buying, IMO.
Thomas Sowell:
“Back in the 1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration hired more young men in the Civilian Conservation Corps than there were in the U.S. Army. But that never brought unemployment down into single digits at any point during that entire decade. As late as the spring of 1939, the unemployment rate was 20 percent. Government-created jobs did not mean a net increase in jobs then — or now. But this is only mundane reality. What makes a great political talking point is government coming to the rescue of the unemployed by creating jobs. That talking point helps politicians get reelected, even if it does nothing for the economy in general or for the unemployment rate.”
Obama additionally wants to militarize domestic policing and fight the looming Christian Republican terror threat, so this works great to neutralize ex-military working in government jobs instead of building businesses or working for non-government business like you saw in those bait and switch recruiting commercials. Speaking of bait and switch, I think they went to war to protect and defend the Constitution too. Doh! “Welcome home suckers,” our politicians might say in a rare moment of honesty.
Hey, if a vet wants to work in business, go for it!
If a vet wants to open his own business, go for it!
If a vet wants to be a teacher, go for it!
And if a vet wants to continue to protect and defend citizens with a badge and/or a fire hose, go for it!
This doesn’t force vets into police or fire jobs, it just opens the door a bit wider for them if they choose to pursue that sort of career.
Think so? I know a marine who served in iraq and made a sensational elementary school teacher. Why couldn’t Obama suggest they become school teachers? After all, the US military has the most effective educational system in our country. We know this, because in Iraq, when they were denied the support of the UN and the US State Department, our military identified the diplomatic skill sets needed, and educated their own people to do the jobs of the UN and the US State Department. They taught their ordinary troops (including 30% black) to deal with foreigners in a foreign situation and a different language.
WHY DIDN’T OBAMA SUGGEST THAT US SERVICEMEN BE FUNNELED INTO TEACHING JOBS????
I submit that it may be because he is prejudiced.
Bravo Zulu, Valerie!
There’s only one problem with that. Marines speak of the unspeakable. Personal responsibility.
How can this sort of thought be introduced into the public school system?
That there is KRAZY TALK.
Obama: Let me sell you this retread, at a premium price.
Last time I checked, many cities-counties-states ALREADY had some form of vet-preference hiring processes in place for police and fire personnel. Vets had to pass all the established basic requirements (civil service testing, psych, physical, etc.) and prove honorable discharge, but they gained a boost because of their military service and preferred status in the hiring process.
Is this still true? If so, Obama is simply saying taxpayers should pay more for a system that’s already in place. Which, now that I think about it, sounds typical for Obama.
I’m a vet and Iam always outraged when people talk about vets as if they can only do work such as police or fireman. Do we not have brains? Do we not have the ability to be teachers, businessmen, entrepreneurs, farmers, even, God forbid, academics? I had four combat tours and now I work in a fairly intellectually demanding job, and I am excelling.
I despise this commander-in-chief, and wasn’t very fond of the last one either.
Our nation is at war for its very way of life, and we are letting the Constitution and its exceptional liberties,protections and responsibilites slip away from us, beguiled by libtard socialism. Get a grip folks!
Less government is better, political handouts are poison. Nosane person believes anything from The Ones mouth nor his supporting cast of Klass Klowns.
It must drive Obama crazy that Petraeus has an Ivy PhD. That just doesn’t fit his stereotype about the military. In fact, Obama has sterotypes about anyone without a degree in (fill in the blank) studies or law. He is the one who will save them all. Valerie Jarrett said so.
as the Armed Services have been indoctrinated, so shall the civil services be
interesting how all those vets, who swore an oath to defend the constitution, would now have to swear some kind of equivalent pledge to defend the “D’s”
Another simplistic solution from people who see the military as just police with heavier firepower. They can’t differentiate between national defense and law enforcement. How many of these men and women want to come back from their deployments in Iraq or Afghanistan, where they couldn’t be sure which “civilians” were trying to target them with deadly force, and go to work in a job where they have to deal with OWS protesters bearing signs “All my heroes kill cops!” They also will have to deal with the fact that almost every time they make an arrest, they get in trouble with some “offended group” that then tries to take them to court. These types of cases are often pushed by activist prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves.
On the other hand, the application of military force to cleaning up the OWS messes sounds like an effective plan.
The “Won” giveth with one hand, and taketh away with the other.
Shortly, all Veteran’s Disability payments must be received via direct-deposit. There will be no further hard checks. Sounds good, yes?
Except that by law, a Veteran’s disability payment can neither be taxed (it’s not income, it’s compensation for injuries incurred); nor can it be liened or dunned under most circumstances. Still sounds good, yes?
Except for all of the Veterans who have liens or what have you. The government says the checks cannot be touched – until the instant they go direct to your bank account, whereby it can be taken away just like that.
I predict when this goes into effect, we will see a spike in homeless Veterans.
I’m all for supporting vets, my company is actively hiring vets who are qualified for any job opening. I’m agains the Federal government spending US taxpayer money to hire jobs that should be funded at the state and local levels…state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes are for first responder positions. If we go down that path of again depending on Federal dollars, what happens when the funding runs out, right, the states have to pick it up or cut positions. Sorry, we are broke because we have strayed from the enumerated powers in the Constitution, we must return to those principles and we have to cut spending.
If my town has an opening for first responders, I hope they give strong consideration to hiring veterans, same goes for any private company hiring. I know of one veteran who served as a medic, he is certainly qualified for any EMT / paramedic job but he could not do it, he said he to change careers, the memories are too vivid from dealing with so many severe combat injuries, he’s doing well now, the career change was perfect for him.
Our President is not pro military, watch the other hand http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/02/perfect-obama-pulls-combat-pay-for-us.html