Death and Taxes
The families of dead soldiers recieve $12,000 immediatly and tax free. Under debate now is awarding $100,000 on the deaths of soldiers. The money would be applied retroactively to those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, or roughly 1,500 people.
For $150,000,000 its a no brainer that the families of men and women who died defending freedom / oil should be entitled to the money. Most people probably agree and are arguing over whether to include or exclude those military men who die outside of combat zones.
But we're left wondering two things. First, is this retribution for the Bush administration's hasty involvement in a war we didn't belong in? Fahrenheit 9/11 creator Michael Moore made a salient point at the end of his film: sending troops to war should be for an important cause. Paying off the families of dead soldiers might just be an "apology" for sending fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers to die for what is arguably an unrelated battle in the war on terror.
Second, is this one way the military is hoping to increase its numbers without a draft? Recieving only minor coverage is the shortage of troops the military is facing. Recruitment to the military was down even before the war, but afterward it was even harder. But by offering $100,000 [$250,000 including automatic life insurance issued by the pentagon], military families would have less to worry about if their primary bread winner was killed. Sure, the $250,000 is not exactly the Mega Millions, but for a poor family with nothing, it might mean the difference between the subsiding below the poverty line and achieving a middle class lifestyle.
With the cost of the war in Iraq somewhere in the hundreds of billions of dollars, it might actually be better to offer military families $1,000,000. Even applied retroactively, making the families of fallen soldiers self sufficient would be pennies compared to the already escalating costs. Besides, with the President's economic policy, potatoes will soon cost a few Franklins.
For $150,000,000 its a no brainer that the families of men and women who died defending freedom / oil should be entitled to the money. Most people probably agree and are arguing over whether to include or exclude those military men who die outside of combat zones.
But we're left wondering two things. First, is this retribution for the Bush administration's hasty involvement in a war we didn't belong in? Fahrenheit 9/11 creator Michael Moore made a salient point at the end of his film: sending troops to war should be for an important cause. Paying off the families of dead soldiers might just be an "apology" for sending fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers to die for what is arguably an unrelated battle in the war on terror.
Second, is this one way the military is hoping to increase its numbers without a draft? Recieving only minor coverage is the shortage of troops the military is facing. Recruitment to the military was down even before the war, but afterward it was even harder. But by offering $100,000 [$250,000 including automatic life insurance issued by the pentagon], military families would have less to worry about if their primary bread winner was killed. Sure, the $250,000 is not exactly the Mega Millions, but for a poor family with nothing, it might mean the difference between the subsiding below the poverty line and achieving a middle class lifestyle.
With the cost of the war in Iraq somewhere in the hundreds of billions of dollars, it might actually be better to offer military families $1,000,000. Even applied retroactively, making the families of fallen soldiers self sufficient would be pennies compared to the already escalating costs. Besides, with the President's economic policy, potatoes will soon cost a few Franklins.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home