If you haven't already seen John Kerry's latest email,
PoliPundit has reproduced it. Reading it left a bad taste in my mouth...
well, several bad tastes.
First, the awkward phrasing of his intro to his Military Families Bill of
Rights is reminiscent of the fuzzy thinking and inability to communicate that
hurt him so badly in his campaign. It's the lingual equivalent of the visual
cringe one gets from seeing him with a
football, or
soccer ball.
Second, there's the nausea-inducing request for firsthand stories about the
hardships our troops and veterans experience. Sisyphean Musings thinks that this
may be an opportunity for
Finding Common Ground with Kerry, and characterizes the type reaction I'm
having as 'opportunistic bashing'. He states:
Taking care of soldiers and their families is serious business in the
military. For politicians, it is a bipartisan job.
I can't disagree with that sentiment, but I also can't quite believe that
Kerry is sincere. This bill represents a 180 degree change in attitude toward
supporting the military for Kerry, so it begs for close scrutiny. Perhaps he is
sincere. Perhaps this is the only 180 we'll get from him.
Kerry deserves to bashed for promoting a public political feeding frenzy on
emotions. Distasteful is a mild word to describe this tactic and it should be
bashed whenever the opportunity arises.
Sysiphus also wants input from those who have run a Family Readiness Group. I
spent a year getting feedback from one, and here's her response to Kerry's
email:
Mmm... ya know, they try to make you feel all patriotic or
something, but I don't really feel that way after reading it. I would like to
read the Military Families Bill of Rights. I must give Kerry credit for at least
trying to do something right to make up for all the crap he did before. I have
to reserve judgment until I see exactly what's included in our Bill of Rights!
So, what does Kerry want? Is it a good or bad? On February
18, he submitted
S.460 is "To expand and enhance benefits for members of the Armed Forces and
their families, and for other purposes."
Title I — Armed Forces Matters deals with increasing the strength of the Army
and Marine Corps. Sysiphus linked to Kerry's Feb. 14 speech, Strengthening
America's Military, which says:
When I return to Washington, I will introduce legislation
to increase the size of the military by 40,000—30,000 in the Army and 10,000 in
the Marine Corps—to meet the challenges of the new century.
I commend Kerry for making good on this promise.
Title II — Benefits for Member of National Guard and Reserve, Subtitle A —
Health Care Benefits. When National Guard and Reservists are called to active
duty, are they (and their families) not currently eligible for military health
care? If they are not, then I'd certainly support that. I can't quite conceive
how they would not be, especially the soldier. Where is he going to find a
doctor in Bosnia, Iraq, or Afghanistan that accepts a Blue Cross-Blue Shield
card?
I can imagine the system being "stingy" enough not to extend Tricare to the
families, and if that's the case, it should be rectified immediately, either
with the DOD paying the premiums for health insurance the family had in effect
when the active duty call came, or with Tricare coverage.
I do not see a compelling national interest in extending Tricare eligibility
to reservists not on active duty. This seems too much like a backdoor to a
national healthcare plan. Kerry's rationale for it is that reservists who don't
have coverage when not on active duty are liable to be in bad health when called
up and fail the physical. Is this a major problem? What percentage of reservists
do not have health insurance?
UPDATE: It looks like Tricare does cover Reserves and Guard members, but it also looks like it doesn't.
UPDATE II: Reservists and Guard members and their families are, and have been, covered by Tricare.
Frankly, someone is going to have to explain to me what the bill is actually
accomplishing here before I can support this part of it in any way.
(Parenthetical gripe: How does anyone without a law degree read and
understand those bills? Hyperlinks to the sections being amended would help. In
fact, I wonder how much a law degree helps in understanding...)
Title II, Subtitle B — Small Business Mobilization Assistance, or 'National
Reservist Enterprise Transition and Sustainability Act of 2005'. Sec. 37 of this
Subtitle appears to be a bureaucratic boondoggle that will line the pockets of
Small Business Development Center grantees without providing any tangible aid to
Reservists.
Sec. 214 — Veteran Entrepreneur Loans. I can support this one. It's
relatively straight forward and non-discriminatory. I'd like it better if it
were limited to veterans below the equivalent Army rank of Colonel, maybe Major.
Sec. 215 — Grant Assistance for Military Reservists' Small Businesses. Seems
redundant, but then I'd have to read the Small Business Act to be sure. I'm
naturally suspicious of any government program with "grant" in its title.
Subtitle C — Other Mobilization Assistance and Benefits. Sec. 221 — Credit
for Income Differential for Employment of Activated Military Reservist and
Replacement Personnel. Again, the mumbo-jumbo of this is daunting to the average
citizen. It sounds like it's giving a tax credit to small businesses for some of
the wages they will pay to replacements for employees called to active duty. Is
this necessary? The wages paid are an ordinary business expense, aren't they?
Then again, maybe it's a tax credit for employers who continue to pay
employees on active duty. Again, these wages are a deductible expense without
this bill, so a tax credit would be an incentive to a business to continue to
pay employees on active military duty. I'm proud of any business that has chosen
to do this, but I balk at the government encouraging it in this manner because I
think it will engender ill feelings toward reservists from active duty
personnel. The tax dollars of active duty personnel would be supplementing extra
pay for reservists. A completely voluntary, patriotic-based decision by a
business to do this would not be viewed as discriminatory toward active duty.
Title III — Military Family Benefits. Sec. 9511 — American Military Family
Relief Fund. Is this establishing a new government program specifically to do...
what? No, I do not support this. This is redundant, establishing a new
government program to do what existing programs already do, and what private
charities are already doing better.
Sec. 302 - Penalty-free withdrawals from retirement plans for individuals
called to certain active duty. I'm ambivalent about this one. It sounds good,
but I wonder if it is not encouraging a bad financial move. Overall, I think I
would support this.
Title IV --Death Gratuity and other Survivor Benefits. Sec. 401 — Increased
Amount of Death Gratuity. Is this for any death from any cause while on active
duty? If so, I do not support it. There is a huge difference in a combat death
and one resulting from a motor vehicle accident on a civilian U.S. highway in a
private vehicle. Every U.S. citizen shares the exact same risk in the second
case. I agree that $12,000 is ridiculously low, but isn't there also a fairly
cheap life insurance that soldiers, including reservists, are allowed to buy?
Perhaps expanding that program, making it even cheaper would be a better
alternative. I think $250,000 is too much, at this time. This is a figure that
should, perhaps, be indexed to wages, but should start off more reasonably.
While I acknowledge the sacrifice and want to make sure families are taken care
of, the figure should not be so high it might trigger thoughts of "buying the
farm".
Sec. 402 — Death Gratuity Excludable from Federal Income Taxation. Um, of
course.
Sec. 403 — Extension of Period of Temporary continuation of Basic Allowance
for Housing for Dependents who die on Active Duty. In light of Sec. 401 and 402,
6 months should be ample time for families to obtain housing. I think this one
falls under "feel good" more than it does necessary.
UPDATE: An emailer tells me 6 months may not be enough, especially for those who are living in military housing. For them, it's a matter of a forced move, not just losing a certain number of dollars. I probably wouldn't object to a provision that the military foot the bill for the move.
Title V — Veterans Benefits. Sec. 501 — Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Treatment for Veterans of Service in Afghanistan and Iraq and the War on Terror.
I'm not sure about this one as it mandates additional personnel be hired using
existing funds. In principle, I support it, but realistically, some other
service will be cut to fund it. Which one?
Title VI — Revenue Provision. Sec. 601 — Partial Repeal of Rate Reduction in
the Highest Income Tax Bracket. Substituting essentially "whatever rate the
government needs (or wants) for this" for a set percentage is an incredibly bad,
bad, bad idea. Not only no, but hell no.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Watching Sausage Being Made
- Bad legislation promoted with Tales of Woe?
. 
