Obama’s Veterans to Work initiative is a bad deal for progressives

[jwhitesj]

Helping people break through barriers and overcoming obstacles is a one of the core beliefs of liberals and progressives. Earlier this week, President Obama announced his plans for an initiative that would help veterans find work when they returned home from active duty. This plan accomplishes some noble goals. The problem with this initiative is not in the achievements, but in the process of getting there.

The first problem is using the tax code as an incentive. We are constantly arguing for the closure of tax loopholes, yet were willing to support another one because it helps veterans. We need to stop enforcing legislation through the tax code. It is bad business and a big reason why we are in the position we are in now. If we want to help veterans, we need to expand programs to help veterans. We can increase the funding of GI bill program; we can set up a veterans work administration whose goal is to find military veterans employment, we can give free vocational training to veterans. There are many programs that we can set up that don’t require the use of the tax code and give more tax breaks to corporate America.

The second problem is it gives an unfair disadvantage to civilian job seekers. By giving a tax break to corporations to hire veterans, you are creating a system that “prices out” civilians from the work force. This doesn’t fall in line with our egalitarian beliefs. Instead of hiring based on who is the more capable person, the decision becomes purely economic. This fails our sense of logic. We can give assistance to those that need it, but to directly undermine the process by making it cheaper to hire a veteran compared to a civilian goes too far.

There are a lot of things we can do to help veterans after they return from active duty. This initiative is the wrong approach. It doesn’t pass the litmus test for liberal ideology, and ultimately is bad for America.

[EC]

1. This was done before and it did work a little

what really put many of the Nam vets around here to work was the Postal Service and other GOVERNMENT JOBS that are no longer available.

Oh, and as for getting jobs ahead of other unemployed, most around here felt the vets should have first go at the jobs.

[saras]

2. You're overlooking the biggest point...

which is that there's no reason whatsoever in the law for the corporations to actually use the money for that purpose. After all, fighting unions so as to lower wages so as to make it more cost-effective to hire Americans IS working to hire veterans.

[BR_Parkway]

3. They actually have to hire the veteran, they don't get the money on some promise

to do it.

And this is one area where some tax breaks or other subsidies are a whole lot different than a loophole about using the corporate jet. For many jobs, teaching a person to do that job who came home without a leg or has an prosthetic arm is probably going to take longer/cost more money. So there would be a number of companies who would pass on that candidate and hire someone who didn't need the extra training.

[jwhitesj]

4. You make a good point

I haven't thought about it from that angle.

[sad sally]

6. Take the measly $120 million from the Libya War Budget - just do it.

More than one million veterans are unemployed, and the jobless rate among those who joined the services after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, stands at 13.3 percent. And more than one million service members are projected to leave the military between 2011 and 2016 in a faltering economy.

-snip

The proposed tax incentives would provide companies a $2,400 credit for hiring an unemployed veteran and $4,800 for hiring a veteran who has been unemployed six months or longer. An existing tax credit for firms that hire veterans with a service-connected disability would be increased to $9,600. The White House estimates the cost of the program to be $120 million over two years, depending on the number of hires.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-urges-firms-to-hire-vets-offers-incentives/2011/08/05/gIQAAlRBxI_story.html?du

[pwb]

5. I think it is a great idea. Proud of you Mr President.

It is Progressives kids who serve in the military, keep that in mind. There are very few republican veterans.

[AsahinaKimi]

7. There was a time when

Veterans could get access to better jobs, but now to most employees, they don't care about whether or not someone served their country or not. The thing is, there are still a lot of Korean and Vietnam Veterans who are out of work, or have been laid off. Getting them a job is most difficult when there are younger people who can fit the bill. Recent military veterans may have a better chance of getting a job over older Veterans, but they still have to compete with the rest of the younger population seeking work.


I have a friend who is 27 years old, who worked for Borders Bookstore for 9 years, until she got laid off. She is not considered old by any means, yet she can't even find a job at a McDonalds because she is "over qualified" and there is no one else willing to hire her. Her Unemployment is about to run out and she is very worried. She lives in Los Angeles, which is a huge area with lots of driving, and yet she still can't find anyone willing to look at her resume!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

8. '1st problem is using the tax code as an incentive'. IMO, exactly WRONG! Rs' 'Achilles heel'

is that any tax cut is like crack to a rockhead. Bill Clinton went "under the radar" and REPLACED and INCREASED the hated Republican bogeyman of federal "welfare" for poor kids with a refundable tax credit

Almost a decade and a half later, the Clinton tax credit continues to thrive and actually put up to $5,657 apiece into the pockets of poor falies in 2009, in the form of IRS "refund" checks.

IMO, President is EMULATING Clinton's success in cloaking progressive spending to stimulate demand as "tax cuts", and needs to do much more of it. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1680529 .

[jwhitesj]

9. You helped change my mind

This discussion has changed my mind on the subject. I know understand the difference between this and a tax loophole and how this can be a good thing.

[pinboy3niner]

16. Good on you

And welcome to DU, jwhitesj. :hi:

The alternatives you came up with are all good ideas--but they are all things the federal government (and the states) have been doing for a long time. At the federal level the programs often involve multiple departments/agencies--DVA, Labor, Commerce, the SBA, etc.

Despite these efforts, the number of homeless (and jobless) vets just from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars alone has tripled in a very short time.

[jwhitesj]

17. It wasn't about the vet's

My problems had nothing to with vet's, as you can tell I advocated expanding programs for them. My problem was giving more money to corporations, also I know a lot of people that have been looking work for a very long time and I don't want to see any law come about that could hurt their chances of getting employment.

[pinboy3niner]

18. Programs like this are structured to prevent abuse

I'd have to look up the timeframes, but I know it was done for VN-era vets, and it worked. Employers were reluctant to hire vets at that time because of the controversy about the war and those who served and the negative stereotypes about potentially violent, 'tripwire' vets.

Tax incentives are an effective (and cost-efective) way to 'incentivize' employers. Controls built into the program keep it from being a giveaway to corporations. And vets who gain employment this way normally stay on after the incentive period--entirely on the employer's dime.

Few civilians begrudge vets this type of benefit. It's kind of hard to go against vets when you're sporting a "Support the Troops" ribbon on your car.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

20. Well, THIS is a first! OP authors usually fight to the death. Welcome to DU!

[jwhitesj]

21. I'm not here to fight against people wanting to do good things

I'm here because I want to help spread the good that is the progressive ideology. I want to fight against the idiocy of the teapary movement. I'm not here because I'm some idealogue that only cares bout being right. If a well reasoned argument can be made that proves my opinion wrong, I am happy to admit that I had a lapse of judgment or faulty thinking process. My only objective is to defeat conservatives and tea party nuts who want to ruin everything great about our country.

[Fire1]

10. But according to our 'liberal ideology' hiring illegal

immigrants is 'ok'?

[surrealAmerican]

11. The only reason companies hire illegal immigrants ...

... is to cheat their workers out of adequate wages, benefits, and working conditions. According to our "liberal ideology" employers should not be allowed to cheat or abuse anybody that way.

Blaming "illegals" is going after the wrong target. We need to make employers treat their employees fairly.

[Fire1]

14. No, you missed the point. Nobody is blaming illegals like

nobody is blaming veterans. Personally, I think veterans should be the first in line to get jobs. They earned it.

[L0oniX]

12. Like he ever gave a flying f*ck about progressives anyway.

Most vets are going to vote repuke after being brain washed by the oxycontin freak Limpballz

[JoePhilly]

13. Translation ... Obama's every breath is bad for liberals.

This is nonsense.

Part of the problem vets face is that they lose time while serving. You and I don't. And the unemployment rate for vets reflects this fact.

Then they come back, and a guy who was saving lives in Iraq can't get a job driving an Ambulance here.

The training doesn't transfer.

btw ... an unemployed VET adds the same amount to the unemployment rate as any other unemployed person.

[mythology]

15. I would think that unemployed vets would cost more

Given the rate of mental illnesses and high unemployment in military veterans, I would assume that getting them back employed would likely work to lessen the impact of depression and/or loneliness a returning veteran would have. Plus a job with health insurance would at least give them a better shot at dealing with some of the other mental health issues so many veterans have.

[Arkana]

19. You have no earthly idea what you're talking about, do you?

Companies have gotten innumerable tax breaks that the government hoped would nudge them into hiring more people for YEARS now. How on EARTH is one that favors hiring returning GIs--a group of people that have a great deal of difficulty reassimilating into normal life--a bad idea except in some Republican wet dream?

[jwhitesj]

22. apparently not

I suggest reading the entire thread