Supporting our troops?

I wrote a post yesterday, about Dr. Dean's email asking me to support our troops. As I say, I really do support those who serve their country, even if I don't agree with that country's policies.

But I can't help thinking how so many others in America also need support this time of year and never get it. Much more so than soldiers who are already getting food, shelter, health care and other goodies. And I wonder if it's really such a good idea to give them so much more than others get. Does it really benefit us, or even them, in the long run?

Because we already do an enormous amount for those who serve in the military. They get a enormous range of benefits, both short-term, and long-term. Benefits that people such as teachers, police officers, firemen, and many others, who run just as many risks and who work, in point of fact, much harder, don't get. And who are, at the moment, struggling desperately to keep what little they do get.

For instance soldiers get the following:

(1) Health care benefits while they are serving, along with a guarantee of such care for the remainder of their lives. Police officers, who also risk their very lives, don't get anything close to the benefits the military provides. Old teachers, many of them women, are left to hang out to dry.

(2) Low interest loans and special tax deductions to purchase homes. And even second and third homes if they're clever enough to manipulate the system correctly. This is a very major benefit, one that costs the taxpayers billions of dollars a year. And since it helps encourage speculation in real estate, directly results in higher housing costs for the rest of us.

(3) The right to retire at an early age, often in their 40s or 50s, and spend the rest of their lives sitting on their asses. If they've served for a long enough time, they should certainly get pensions, but I don't see why those can't wait until the reach the usual retirement age. And unlike senior citizens, those on social security, they get to continue to collect their pensions even if they have additional income from other sources. I've never understood this one.

This wouldn't apply to those who are disabled or injured or something while serving, which is only right. But to those who are perfectly healthy, and who often spend only spend a year or two of their 20 years in the service under actual combat conditions. If that. And even to those who have spent most of their time has been spent doing clerical, mechanical or other non-combat related duties behind the lines.

(4) Special educational benefits of all sorts, including many grants and inexpensive loans. Much more so than teachers get for instance, which doesn't make any sense at all.

Poorer people should not have to go into the army just to get money for education, something which is becoming more and more common. Many of the soldiers are not there because they support the war, but just because they're desperate. And more and more these are people of color, people fighting to preseve the rights and priviliges of the mostly white rich.

There are many other benefits as well. So many I can't even keep track of them.

I'm not suggesting NOT supporting those who serve in the military, both while they're on active duty and afterwards. Just suggesting that there are many others who also deserve just as much credit and support. If not more so. And given the ever-increasing demands for more and more support for them, perhaps it's time to ask just how much is enough?

For instance, Dr. Dean mentions the program for people to donate unused air miles to soldiers so that they fly home for visits. www.heromiles.com. Which is a good idea. But why isn't there a similar program to help police officers and teachers? I'll bet many of them can't afford to fly home to visit their families during the holidays.

Slowly but surely, we are creating a separate caste of military people. People who get much more than the rest of us, in perpetuity. And it relates to many other issues. As long, for instance, as people in the government and the military get health care, they're not going to be much concerned with seeing that everybody else gets it.

Universal health care would help soldiers as much as everyone else. It would cover their families as well. It would save all of the money we now spend on separate veteran care. It would make it much easier for veterans to get health care, since they could go to their local doctor and hospitals, instead of having to make long and expensive trips to the special VA hospitals, which are often not located in their community.

And by giving so many benefits, to the extent that people and communities become dependent on them, we are creating a culture of war. Giving politicians and others reasons to promote war that have nothing to do with reasons of national security. And making the economy dependent on their continuance.

And if Dr. Dean wants to help support Americans, and get elected in the bargain, why doesn't he go visit the grocery workers in Los Angeles who are striking for health care. Or at least send out an email about them. That would seem to be right up his alley. LA is the largest city in the state with the most electoral votes. In fact, why haven't ANY of the Democratic candidates gone there?

---