Jump to content

Statewide: Issue 1 - Money for Veterans

Guest Loretto
Guest Loretto
in Ohio Politics

Featured Replies

Posted

http://www.mountvernonnews.com/blog/2009/10/10/ohio-state-election-issue-1/

Issue 1

TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE TO ISSUE BONDS TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO VETERANS OF THE PERSIAN GULF, AFGHANISTAN, AND IRAQ CONFLICTS

Proposed by Joint Resolution of the General Assembly

 

To adopt Section 2r of Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of Ohio

 

This proposed amendment would:

 

1. Authorize the state to issue up to two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) of bonds to provide compensation to veterans of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq conflicts, and to pay for the administration of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts Compensation Bond Retirement Fund and the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts Compensation Fund.

 

2. Authorize the Ohio Department of Veterans Services to provide compensation to persons who have served in active duty in the United States armed forces at any time during the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq conflicts and who were Ohio residents at the start of active duty services and are currently Ohio residents.

 

3. Allow certain survivors to receive the same compensation as the person who served in the armed forces would have received, if that person dies or is designated as missing in action or held in enemy captivity.

 

4. Authorize the state to issue bonds only for the time period from the effective date of this amendment until December 31, 2013.

 

If adopted, this amendment shall take effect immediately.

 

I'm personally voting no on this issue because we just got done gutting the budget, and it wasn't so we could put hundreds of millions of dollars in more liabilities on the books.  It also sounds like the kind of legislation put out there to dare legislators to vote against it.  "Did you know your state representative doesn't want you to be able to vote to support the troops! *waves flag*"

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

I have a problem with selling bonds to fund this program.  Bonds should be used for construction projects, long-term investments, etc., not payments like this.

Agreed. I think I told you Travis Saturday that I was unsure on Issue 1; after reviewing it, and the fact they want bonds for this expenditure, I am going with a solid "no."

Anybody voting yes?  If so, I would be interested in your arguments.  I get the points made above, but being a military brat for part of my life... I have some hesitation voting no on this issue.

I'm voting no. I'd rather put more bond money into Third Frontier or Clean Ohio. This seems more like a hand-out, pure and simple.

Whenever something dealing with funding the military or paying veterans bonuses comes up I typically vote 'yes'.  No change this time around.  I voted 'yes' without much deliberation.  Good or bad it's something I've been trained to do...

 

It is a handout, but it's going to deserving veterans that risked their lives to protect mine.

Yes, not a big decision here.  Anything to support the troops.

Yes, not a big decision here. Anything to support the troops.

 

Voting this down does not mean we are not supporting the troops.

Yes, not a big decision here. Anything to support the troops.

 

Voting this down does not mean we are not supporting the troops.

You are unAmerican.

 

Sincerely,

2001-200?

Touche.  I think I am going to vote yes.

 

Yes, not a big decision here. Anything to support the troops.

 

I sure wish people holding your political school of thought would say the same thing about "the kids" when school levys are on the ballot.

I have never voted against a school levy.

I didn't say you did, but conservatives often do.

I disagree.  Conservatives understand how a good school system affects their property values. 

I have never voted against a school levy.

 

Have you ever voted for a school levy?

Every one since 1971.

While I would really like to receive a handout from the state, I think it is bad fiscal policy. I intend to vote no.

I think the money is well deserved by our servicemen and women, but passing bonds to pay out money to them is just a bad way to run our state finances.

While I would really like to receive a handout from the state, I think it is bad fiscal policy. I intend to vote no.

 

Have you done something to deserve one, like risking your life for the rest of us?

Guys, please be civil in your discourse. It is approperiate to vote "no" and "yes" on any subject without being haggled or hassled about it.

While I would really like to receive a handout from the state, I think it is bad fiscal policy. I intend to vote no.

 

Have you done something to deserve one, like risking your life for the rest of us?

 

Not all vets risked their lives while in service.  One of my best friends was in the Navy for four years.  His job - barber.  There is a lot more to being in the military than holding a gun.  Just saying....

....but when you go in, you never know where you'll end up.

The bill is for veterans of the specific conflicts right? Every single person who served there risked their lives regardless of their jobs.

The bill is for veterans of the specific conflicts right? Every single person who served there risked their lives regardless of their jobs.

 

Enlisting in the military is a "choice" correct?

 

As with many, I am torn with voting "no" because I don't want to seem unpatriotic and unappreciative.  On the other side of the aisle, from a business and financial standpoint, I don't think this is properly structured.

While I would really like to receive a handout from the state, I think it is bad fiscal policy. I intend to vote no.

 

Have you done something to deserve one, like risking your life for the rest of us?

Yes.

The bill is for veterans of the specific conflicts right? Every single person who served there risked their lives regardless of their jobs.

 

Enlisting in the military is a "choice" correct?

 

As with many, I am torn with voting "no" because I don't want to seem unpatriotic and unappreciative. On the other side of the aisle, from a business and financial standpoint, I don't think this is properly structured.

 

You have a point but I was replying to Hts44121's post when he said not all vets risked their lives. In the case of this issue, all did. I'm neutral on the issue itself.

Then thank you Grumpy!

 

This issue is the equivalent of a yellow ribbon magnet. I'd vote yes if the funds were being allocated to bolster health care for veterans. This? It's a hand out. Which is to say, an insult. Our veterans deserve much, much better.

Why isn't the Fed paying this money to the vets, anyway?  I could see if this was for the Ohio's National Guard units.

Why isn't the Fed paying this money to the vets, anyway? I could see if this was for the Ohio's National Guard units.

 

That's what I've been trying to figure out.

To my understanding and while the Fed gov't does pay the vets, it is common practice for the states to supplement the $ to their vets and Ohio is near the bottom (I think 2nd worst) in terms of financial support.

I'm not saying i voted one way or the other, (armed services personnel are underpaid and underserved), why are the states supplementing their veterans?  Anyone have a history on this?

 

The pro-side of this debate has said that this has been common practice after past wars.  Why? and who does it go to?  All vets?  does it go to the national guardsmen that have been called up?  is it only people that have seen combat?

 

I have a friend that spent 15 months or so in Baghdad with his national guard unit...will he get money? he lives here in Cincinnati but his unit is based out of Michigan (he moved here as soon as he got back to be with his fiance).

I'm not saying i voted one way or the other, (armed services personnel are underpaid and underserved), why are the states supplementing their veterans?  Anyone have a history on this?

 

The pro-side of this debate has said that this has been common practice after past wars.  Why? and who does it go to?  All vets?  does it go to the national guardsmen that have been called up?  is it only people that have seen combat?

 

I have a friend that spent 15 months or so in Baghdad with his national guard unit...will he get money? he lives here in Cincinnati but his unit is based out of Michigan (he moved here as soon as he got back to be with his fiance).

 

Aren't they aware of this going in?  also, some folks who enlist, the pay is MUCH higher and better than what they were previously doing.

 

Those are excellent questions.  Is there documentation about this common practice?

It looks like my friend will be ineligible for this as you have to be an ohio resident at the beginning of your deployment.

 

According to the smartvoter information on this, one of the aims is to help transition these individuals back into civilian life.  Well, maybe we could spend this money on services that would help them?

 

Hell, you come back from active duty you've got a pretty big bank account full of tax free money waiting for you...i'm not sure $5k is going to help transition you back to civilian life.

armed services personnel are underpaid and underserved

What are you basing this statement on?

 

While a new recruit in the military makes very little in regular salary, it doesn't seem so bad when you consider that housing and meals are paid for on top of that salary. On top of that, the vast majority of servicemen and women move up in rank pretty quickly, so that within a couple years a soldier with a high school diploma is earning close to what the average college grad is making. While I would like to have made more money during my time in the Army, I can't say I was underpaid. While service members aren't ever going to get rich off of a military salary, and I think they deserve a descent salary, I think it's untrue to constantly call them underpaid.

I'm basing it on years old generalizations and attitudes.

I'm basing it on years old generalizations and attitudes.

 

Ooooh.....  Not a good thing to do.

 

Also, those enlisted have very good medical benefits.

Well, this passes overwhelmingly and my Marine friends will be picking up the bar tabs for the next year.

 

Still don't agree with it financially, or in the context of the modern professional military, or that we should be compensating for the failure of the in state portion of the VA bureaucracy.

Issue 1 (Veteran Funding) = Yes

Good. This issue hasn't generated as much drama as Issue 9 or the casino issue, but it's good to see this pass.

Voted yes on this one, and I'm glad that it passed.

So how much is each person going to get? I've heard several different things.

So how much is each person going to get? I've heard several different things.

It depends on whether they spent any time in a combat zone, and how much time. Check out the last paragraph of this article.
  • 10 months later...

http://clevelandfilm.blogspot.com/

 

G.I. Pictures is a side company that was started two years ago by Nehst with the approval of current and former members of the U.S. military.  It was pitched as a complete production operation and a way for creative members of the military to submit their film and television ideas in hopes of getting made.

 

Three individuals with ties to the military were involved at the outset: Richard H. Breen, Jr., APR, Retired U.S. Army Major Benjamin C. Frazier and Gary Bishop, in addition to retired marine Cary Abbott.  Since service men and women are being CHARGED MONEY to submit projects to Larry Meistrich, Breen, Frazier and Bishop have disassociated themselves from G.I. Pictures.  They are still featured prominently on Larry's website even though they no longer participate. 

 

This is a method for Nehst to make some additional money from the unsuspecting public, similar to Screentest and Pitchnehst.  G.I. Pictures is basically inactive, although it is still accepting money.  There have been submissions in the past, and no refunds have been sent out.  Nehst has kept this money, even though it had no film funding to actually produce these projects. 

 

Meistrich keeps implying that he has a $250 million film fund which does not actually exist.  G.I. Pictures is a way for Nehst to make a little extra money on the side.  Jeff Silverstein is the President of Access & Development for Nehst who worked to get this project off the ground.

 

An article from Reuters first published on May 29, 2009:

 

GI Pictures isn't Meistrich's first effort to discover and groom talent. Nehst seems constantly to be seeking out amateurs through contests and such.  GI Pictures, in fact, is modeled after Pitch Nehst, whereby budding filmmakers make pitches for $10 apiece (just enough to weed out the unserious). Meistrich said 40 projects have been acquired and are in various stages of development through Pitch Nehst. Two have been released already, and two documentary films are headed for theaters this summer: "Article 32" and "The Mayor of Strawberry Fields."

 

"The Mayor of Strawberry Fields," 38 minute short film documentary, and "Article 32," a 64 minute documentary, have never received a theatrical release by Nehst except for the ocassional screenings organized by Nehst.

 

^Ok, first you're just quoting a blog and second you're off topic. If you'd like to discuss what Nehst is doing, I'm guessing there's a more appropriate thread in which to do so. 

 

But since I'm in this thread already, I suppose I should put up a link...

 

https://veteransbonus.ohio.gov/odvs_web/

 

The site listed has the online application for the veterans bonus that voters approved last year. I filled out my application last week, but haven't gotten around to sending in my DD-214 and proof of residency.

 

By the way, I still think that it's poor fiscal policy to give a bonus to veterans, but I'm not so opposed that I'll turn down some free cash. (I should tell this to Kasich in regard to the 3C.)

Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.