| By Lorraine Bieber - Nov 12th, 2007 at 11:05 am EST |
| Also listed in: Young and Youngish | Voting Issues | AssemblyWatch | Americans Against Escalation in Iraq |
Categories: Action Alerts, Budget Priorities, National Security, Peace and Armed Conflict, African-American Issues
It's time Ohio began rewarding the new generation of military veterans by providing them bonuses, much the way it gave back to veterans dating to World War I, State Treasurer Richard Cordray wrote in a letter delivered Monday to state legislators.
Cordray seeks a ballot issue that would ask voters to amend the state constitution to allow the state to issue bonds to pay for the bonuses. The state would pay about $106 million in bonuses to veterans of the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan wars if the Legislature and voters approve the idea, Cordray said. Ohio traditionally has used the ballot to pay such bonuses and they would cost taxpayers nothing.
Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Massachusetts are among the states offering bonuses to veterans who served in the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan. New Hampshire offered bonuses to Gulf War veterans.
CORDRAY’S PROPOSAL:
• Up to $1,000 for military personnel who served in the Persian Gulf War and in current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan
• Up to $500 to those serving elsewhere during the same timeframes
• $5,000 to families of those killed in action, in addition to other allowable benefits
"While modest, these benefits recognize the service of our war veterans and help with their transition back to civilian life," Cordray said.
Click here to express your support for Cordray's proposal and for Ohio's veterans.
“Ohio’s tradition of honoring the sacrifices of soldiers who served during periods of major conflicts defines our state’s history as well as its geography,” Cordray noted. Veterans have been rewarded through land grants, relief for their families, and voter-approved bond amendments:
REVOLUTIONARY WAR: Large tracts of the Northwest Territory, which later became the state of Ohio, were districts reserved to compensate veterans. This practice continued from 1776 through 1855.
CIVIL WAR: In 1862, a state property tax was levied to create a fund “for the relief of the necessities of the families of non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates.”
WORLD WARS I & II, KOREAN AND VIETNAM WARS: Ohio issued bonds through separate voter-approved amendments to the state’s constitution in order to provide compensation to its veterans.
Under Cordray's plan, the Legislature would decide whether to put the amendment on the ballot next year. If lawmakers decline, Cordray could circulate petitions seeking voter signatures to place the amendment on the ballot.
Rep. Peter Ujvagi, a Toledo Democrat and advocate of veterans' issues, on Tuesday began looking for co-sponsors of a resolution that would authorize the amendment for the ballot.
While Americans remain divided by the Iraq war, the bonus program offers Ohioans a chance to weigh in on how returning veterans are treated, Cordray said. "This is very much Ohio's tradition. I'd like to believe this generation has the same commitment that previous generations have had," he said.
Click here to express your support for Cordray's proposal and for Ohio's veterans.
To read the full text of the proposed amendment, a cost analysis, and background on previous veterans’ ballot issues and military bonuses in Ohio, go to www.ohiotreasurer.gov
Comments are closed for this post.
Ohio traditionally has used the ballot to pay such bonuses and they would cost taxpayers nothing.
Life doesn't work that way. It's never true that paying out money in $1000 increments doesn't cost anything. What happens is people buy bonds, we give the proceeds out as bonuses, then eventually we pay the bondholders their principle plus interest. That's what government bonds are.
It's all well and good to want to give more to veterans. But we should be willing to find the revenue streams now, rather than just add to our debt load.
From the FAQ: Link
"...The time value of money also suggests that the difference between an immediate appropriation versus bond financing would weigh in favor of bond financing. With triple tax-exemption (federal, state, and local) the interest costs of carrying the bonds would be minimal, probably below the investment earnings that would be achieved on the forgone funds. In addition, the initial issuance costs of a straightforward bond issuance of this sort would be minimized as well. Finally, as proposed this bond issuance would not count against the state's debt ceiling, and as a once-in-a-generation use repayable over either a ten or fifteen year cycle, it would have little or no impact on the state's total debt load for future generations."