Military says GRRRRRR F-you, Give me my money back
See this is what happens when you sign up for money and not for the love of your country.
Apparently, thousands of wounded soldiers who served in Iraq are being asked to return part of their enlistment bonuses — because their injuries prevented them from completing their tours. From Pittsburgh’s KDKA:
Fox was seriously injured when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle. He was knocked unconscious. His back was injured and lost all vision in his right eye.
A few months later Fox was sent home. His injuries prohibited him from fulfilling three months of his commitment. A few days ago, he received a letter from the military demanding nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus back.
“I tried to do my best and serve my country. I was unfortunately hurt in the process. Now they’re telling me they want their money back,” he explained.
Happy Veterans Day
There is an interesting connection between this article and the Wal-Mart post here from a few days ago. Neither states nor corporations should be expected by anyone to be benevolent entities. States have agendas and bureaucratic survival instincts that have nothing to do with the well-being of the people. Corporations have the financial interests of their boards and stockholders as paramount over everything else.
That’s why I worry about Ds who trust the state to take care of people, and Rs who have the same expectation of corporations.
That’s why, two weeks ago, when UD pulled together the “usual suspects”–academic, government, and corporate leaders–in President Harker’s economic summit (later endorsed by the News Journal as the only way to build a culture of entrepeneurialism in Delaware!?) that we are simply letting ourselves in for more of the same.
if I had my druthers I’d go with those that are more inclined to lean on government than corporations
Wow. We’ve been discovered by some hard core Ayn Rand reading mothers.
Listen up Steve. We might not expect states or corporations to be benevolent entities – but I would hope we would expect them not to be malevolent entities.
Christ. The lack of maternal affection really took a toll on these freaks.
That’s why I worry about Ds who trust the state to take care of people
The people ARE the state. When we vote tax dollars to take care of someone in need, we are taking care of our own.
“Corporations have the financial interests of their boards and stockholders as paramount over everything else.”
Awesome! Can I borrow your copy of “Atlas Strugged”?
The result of this position is well catalogued by Sinclair in “The Jungle”. This is the reason we have poison in our pet food and lead in our kids toys. Like the GM execs said in the ’50s “hey those belt things are really expensive”.
Feel free to thank a liberal for every initiative that has ever made air cleaner, products safer, food uncontaminated, and everything less dangerous – when every corporate giant said is costs too much.
Your welcome!!
Loved this take on business as viewed by New Labour in merry old England:
The businessman to ‘New’ Labour is the epitome of ‘modernity’ and pragmatism only doing what works and doing so with supreme efficiency. Indeed ‘New’ Labour’s deification of the businessman reaches Soviet heights of hagiography and surely it can be only a matter of time before Blair awards in true Stakhanovite style one of these businessmen the Order of Brown for increases in his productivity quota of ‘entrepreneurialism’.
Moonbootica
Read carefully (those who apparently have never read Rand if you think I agreed with her): I said that both corporations and governments have ends that are not necessarily benevolent–and in this case you might say malevolent on both sides. (You might also take a look at what James Madison said about governments and angels unless that’s too libertarian for you.)
I don’t think you can make a serious case that “the people ARE the state,” at least if you ever read the Constitution, wherein it says that the people delegate limited powers TO the state, and wherein we have a Bill of Rights specifically forbidding the state to take actions against the people. But hey, if you can, then you can keep a better straight face than I can.
Choose government over corporations? OK–but tell me why we have to (A) choose either or (B) limit the choices to only those.
I can thank liberals for every social innovation in American history, can I? I suppose that depends upon what you mean by liberals and WHEN you define them.
Any time one political group decides it has been the sole source of all that is good and benevolent in society, and then tells me that its government IS the people, pardon me if I start recalling parallels to great authoritarian leaders of history.
As for comparing Sinclair to Rand, I’d largely agree with you–but actually take a look sometime at Sinclair’s platform when he ran for Governor of California, as well as the American Social Credit movement of the 1930s. Sure, greedy corporate interests sabotaged his campaing (seriously) but I don’t think his plan would have worked either.
If this is the best of liberal thought in Delaware, matched up against the best in conservative thought in Delaware in other places, I’l fall back on my original premise: in terms of wanting bigger and bigger government to pursue your own social objectives without real dissent (which means labeling anybody who disagrees with any part of your benevolent platform), I’ll fall back on my original premise: there’s not a dimes’ worth of difference between you.
I do know a bit about Sinclair bid at CA Governor and I agree that socialist platform has quite a few “problems”. I’ll cling to our agreement on the Rand/Sinclair point and call it a draw. (I also agree that if this is the best liberal though in Delaware, we’re doomed!)
I just take real umbrage with the consevative pricipals of starve the beast, tax is unconstitutional, etc. (I think the fact the Norquist’s first name is Grover is poetic justice, by the way.)
It’s very offense to me when someone agrees that corporate profits should supersede all. That may be how it works. That just means it’s broken.
(Steve – I read your post today about Christina and atheism. I appreciate it, as an atheist. And I loved Denett’s “Breaking the Spell”, but I loathe the moniker Bright too. Hideous!)
There is an eerie similarity between this and the problem with “freed” slaves fighting in the civil war who if they were injured were forced to pay compensation to the government for their “lack of service.”
For all of you who think that there is a basic gaurentee of freedom under the constitution or the bill of rights or the declaration or any other document going back to the Magna Carta in 1215, I want you to take the time to read all of the new laws passed since 9/11 and maybe Andrew Napalitano’s books. Just look them up online.
The most fascinating point for me in this whole thread is that everyone apparently thought I was stooging for corporations in my initial post. Please go back and read it again. I was trying to make the point that both the Wal-Mart story and the Army story showcased exactly the same horrible behavior. I find little to ethically distinguish the government from the corporation in these two stories.
I supposed it could (and I have seen it elsewhere) be argued that the Army story is a story of Bush/Republican/Neo-con insensitivity, consider: I worked throughout the Clinton 1990s in the military among other things helping to process military discharges to transition wounded or sick soldiers back to civilian life. The policy has not changed: soldiers wounded too badly to return to service in Somalia received exactly the same dunning letters from the government demanding the return of their bonuses. And in that time, as I recall, most of the letters were sent out by DoD because of requirements from the GAO.
The good news (if there is any here) is that it only requires a waiver by a two-star general officer (“second general officer in chain”) to squash such an action, and I have never actually seen a similar case wherein a waiver was not signed. That doesn’t. however, let the system off the hook.
Being a Libertarian, by the way, doesn’t mean one is arguing that taxes are unconstitutional or “the beast should be starved.” Taxes are plainly constitutional (including the income tax) and Grover Norquist is an ass. On the other hand, the Patriot Act IS clearly unconstitutional.
However, I start from a different fundamental perspective than most of the adherents of this blog: I place a higher value on individual freedom and limited government. In Madison’s terms, I prefer a government limited in its ability to DO EVIL to a government empowered to DO GOOD. That should still leave us with a lot of common ground if people can get over their knee-jerk Ayn Rand spasm reactions.
As for Dorian Gray’s post: “Feel free to thank a liberal for every initiative that has ever made air cleaner, products safer, food uncontaminated, and everything less dangerous – when every corporate giant said is costs too much.”
Dorian, read some history rather than listen to soundbites.
The first president to open civil service appointments to African Americans was Warren G. Harding, in the wake of the overtly racist administration of Woodrow Wilson.
The man who pushed strongly behind the scenes for the integration of the US military in 1948 was Dwight Eisenhower.
The man who created the EPA, OSHA, DEA, Office of Minority Business Enterprise, NOAA, and established the first significant Federal Affirmative Action Plan (the Philadelphia Plan) was that famous liberal, Richard Nixon.
The President who supported the Equal Rights Amendment and signed Special Education into law was Gerald Ford.
The President who most significantly increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and signed into law the first major immigration bill with amnesty for undocumented workers was Ronald Reagan. Reagan also authorized reparation payments for Japanese-American internees from World War 2.
Point being: don’t hand out this idea that only adherents of your particular political persuasion actually care about the American people, or that all positive accomplishments can be traced to a specific ideology, unless you are only planning on arguing with the illiterate.
Sorry about calling you a freak and saying that your poltics were based on being starved of maternal affection as a young’un.
Grover Norquist is an ass. On the other hand, the Patriot Act IS clearly unconstitutional.
That clears up a lot.
One correction. I don’t think we have adherents around here – just fellow travelers and fifth columnists.
Anyone with the least bit of sense knew that this was a bureaucratic snafu: while our political leaders are politicians, who weigh such questions in the crucible of political advantage, bureaucrats can be officious little twits, who simply apply the letter of the regulations, without any concern for its impacts.
And so it is in this case: once the political leaders learned about this crap, they put a stop to it:
Bureaucratic snafu’s do not exist in the thousands. Wait for a little bit Dana as more stories come out. If they ever do.
a mistake is misplacing a box of pens Dana, this isn’t some little box of pens. It is a pattern. Visit Walter Reed Lately?
spare me dana
If you are a liberal, I suggest watching this while we wait for the vet’s stories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ
Donviti asked if I had visited Walter Reed Army Medical center recently. No, I haven’t, bus, as it happens, one of the co-writers on our poor site is an amputee and he recently visited the new amputee center there.
Brian, think about it: the regulations are such that the request for the money back was justifiable under the regulations, but it’s lunacy to think that anyone with any particular political authority said, “Yup, it’s their fault they got hurt, screw ’em,” and did it deliberately. Now that the political leadership knows about this, they’ll all be reversed.
It’ll probably take a letter from each affected soldier back to the bureaucracy to say that he falls in whatever number they assign to the exception (that’s how bureaucracies work), but it’ll get done.
I hope so. I know there are more then a few injured vets having serious problems with the system.