For all its military history and patriotic citizenry, Georgia offers its veterans precious few benefits in comparison to other states. Kentucky and Illinois, for example, provide full four-year scholarships to any state school to those who enter active service from that state and return there after a term of honorable service. Texas’ department of labor has an entire program dedicated to veteran job training and workforce integration. This is only a pair of examples from several available.
Georgia, on the other hand, is just starting out in terms of expressing gratitude to its veterans in practical terms. As a veteran who separated from active duty and returned to school myself, I’m familiar with the dearth of benefits available in Georgia — in short, there are none. However, House Bill 484, sponsored in the House by Larry O’Neal (R-146) and in the Senate by Ross Tolleson (R-20), is a step in the right direction for the Peach State and its military population.
If passed, HB 484 would automatically credit the children of active duty military personnel stationed in Georgia with having met the state residency requirement to be eligible for the HOPE scholarship, even if their serving parent was relocated here too recently to have been a resident for the currently-required period of time.
This is a common-sense piece of legislation. The children of military personnel are shipped all over the country — and the world — with their serving parent (as the son of an Air Force pilot and then as a military member myself, I personally lived in over a dozen states growing up and in young adulthood). Denying them access to a benefit afforded the children of state residents because the Department of Defense shipped that parent to Georgia at too close a date to the child’s college start date — something entirely out of all involved parties’ control — is a policy that doesn’t do anybody any good.
HB 484 has already passed the House, 162-0. The Senate should quickly follow suit, as it is, quite simply, the right thing to do.Then, the state legislature should get to work on providing benefits for the actual military personnel who depart Georgia, serve honorably, and return to further their education and add to the Peach State’s work force.
Again, it only makes sense to do so.
{ 16 comments }
I’m sure many of my libertarian friends will agree with me and some might not. And I am pretty sure that my position on the issues has nothing to do with my father giving his life in Viet Nam or my own service which ended with a broken back and permanent disabilities, for I want and expect nothing. However, it is my belief that the benefits that citizens decide to bestow onto veterans should not be grouped into the category of some unearned entitlements. It is my belief that from the moment the volunteer soldier dons the uniform, any and every benefit granted was/is earned and I only wish I could give more to them and their immediate families for their, often times thankless, sacrifices they have given for us.
And this is where my Minarchist tendencies separate me from even LP-Ga leadership.
Quite honestly, government should not be involved in education in any way, shape, or form, including granting scholarships to veterans who have served honorably or otherwise.
Now, if the Federal government wanted to act in its capacity as an employer and offer these types of benefits, to me that is a different issue. It then becomes comparable to any private business who may or may not decide to offer similar benefits, and it is entirely up to the employee and employer to negotiate such a contract.
But for a State government to offer these benefits is unwarranted government intrusion into private decisions/responsibilities.
How about offering this same benefit to the children of gov’t contractors who put their lives on the line serving overseas, too? Often times they are closer to likely dangerous situations than the actual service members. Where are the free bennies for their kids? Neither one deserve it.
DKB,
I was speaking for myself and not for the LP or for LPGa. Your position is the one I would support in an official capacity or abstain due to my obvious conflict of interest.
Daniel,
I didn’t mean to imply your personal opinion was by default the official LP/LP-Ga position. Indeed, I didn’t know exactly where that official position would be, though I know about the official position regarding education in general.
Still, it separates us as individuals.
“Quite honestly, government should not be involved in education in any way, shape, or form, including granting scholarships to veterans who have served honorably or otherwise.”
while that is a position i am probably closer to agreeing to than not–the fact of the matter is reality and “ideality” are not the same thing–and if ga has the hope scholarship, then granting military dependents the right to access it is more than fair considering the sacrifices an entire military family makes that a parent may serve…
Wouldn’t the military personnel be eligible to access the Hope Scholarship anyway once they established the proper residency requirements? But what the hell, there are many states that grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens. I guess since everyone one and his brother is eligible for free federal benefits of one type or another, who am I to recommend not implementing another giveaway?
drjay:
So should we do the same thing for children of private employees whose employers move them around a lot? Such as national retail chain management?
For example, I have an aunt who when she was married to her sons’ father moved to Memphis TN one year and Boston MA a couple of yrs later. Had her older son been a senior in HS and MA had something similar to HOPE, should he have automatically been eligible?
The US Military is a completely voluntary organization, at least as far as joining it goes. Same as any other employer. If the State is going to do something for one employer, it should do so for all. Of course, the better option 99% of the time is to not do the action for ANY…
Bingo, Dark! Now lets apply that principle to all vote-buying federal legislation. Prescription drug benefit? Get rid of it. Isn’t the government’s job to buy granny’s meds. Medicare/medicaid? Bye-bye! Of course these things will never end, because the entire process has been bastardized. Everyone would love to have something for nothing. It’s simple human nature. But if you get enough fleas on the dog, they will with 100% certainty, kill their host. We’re toast.
David:
I completely concur, but I am an open Minarchist…
Minarchism is something that a pol-sci student might be able to argue in class, or over multiple adult beverages, but has virtually zero relevancy in the context of our current society. Just short of complete revolution, we won’t see this ever happening BECAUSE: Who controls the Night Watchman?
h/t Wiki:
A central tenet of minarchism consists of the idea that the minarchist government must initiate violence to prevent the development of competing governments. Robert Nozick, a libertarian philosopher who has gained popularity for his work Anarchy, State and Utopia, theorized that, in under anarchy, a dominant private defense agency (PDA) will eventually outcompete all other PDAs, then turn into an ultra-minimal state, and finally into a minimal state. If the minimal state decides not to suppress newly arising PDAs, Nozick predicted that the newly competing government will wage war against each other. Nozick, therefore, advocates the right for the minimal state to violently prohibit the formation of competing jurisdictions.[7] However, if the government allows individuals to freely unsubscribe from the current jurisdiction to join a competing jurisdiction, then it does not by definition constitute as a state, but as an anarchistic private defense agency.[8]
Thanks, Dark, for clearing up your political motivations.
BBalz:
Actually, to get the best picture possible of my political motivations, you have to look at each of the three words I use to describe them: Conservative. Minarchist. Libertarian.
Overall, the shortest definition I can think of off the top of my head is that I believe that the government should be absolutely as small as possible and that individuals should be free to do absolutely anything they want that does not physically harm another person or another person’s property. For me personally, my actions in such a society would tend to run in the same vein of beliefs as many Conservatives, but I would do whatever necessary to maintain the maximal freedom for all, even those who do things I find abhorrent.
In other words, I personally believe that belief in Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior is the only way to Heaven. I hold a very literal view of the Bible, though I also subscribe to much of Ted Dekker’s school of thought as it relates to the ideas he explored in his Circle Trilogy.
I believe that abortion is murder, but that absent conclusive scientific proof of exactly when life begins, I can accept that people should be free to do as their own beliefs on the issue dictates and that until such evidence is found one way or the other, government should remain neutral on the issue.
I believe that government has no right to regulate relationships in any way, form, or fashion, including but not limited to regulating marraige/providing ‘civil unions’, providing tax benefits to certain forms of relationships, limiting consensual relationships between adults, nor even (and this goes to actions I personally find abhorrent) banning an adult from having sex with an animal, if the adult so chooses.
I believe that an individual should pay for all services received, and should be paid for all services rendered, and that the individual’s money is his to do with as he sees fit. If he receives any assistance, it should be completely voluntary and not in any way from the government.
Hmmm… this is sounding like a good introductory post for a new personal blog I’ve been considering creating. Any other topics I should address here? Shoot them to me at [email protected], I don’t want to get our Fearless Leaders to mad at me over thread jacking!
So you’re a creationist?
grift:
I’ll allow for more of an Intelligent Design approach – which is NOT creationism – but yes, I believe that SOMETHING designed everything, and I personally believe that SOMETHING was God.
Also, btw, Jeremy Robinson has some interesting ideas on the story of Jonah in his new book, Kronos
Where is the money going to come from?
I figured when HOPE passed that it would be expanded to the hilt and that lottery revenues would fall short of paying the freight for everyone with a ‘B’ average.
Expansion of government spending has always worn the mask of a worthy cause.
Thieves wear masks for good reason.
Comments on this entry are closed.