Some soldiers have been deployed two, three or more times. Here in Oregon, a large number of our fellow citizens will be returning from their latest deployment come April. Over 800 will not have jobs and not much to live on when that happens.
Senator Ron Wyden wants to do something about that by giving them the "soft landing" of 90 days of paychecks upon their return. It could go a long way toward easing the transition while the Fort Oregon effort helps them to find jobs.
Small problem: Sen. Wyden's effort doesn't have a single other sponsor. Not one. Read more about this at: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/02/post_54.html
There are 535 members of Congress. Why doesn't this bill have 535 sponsors? Would this be "wasteful, big government spending", "socialism", "nanny state welfare?" Or the right thing to do?
What else should we call it when only 1 percent of the population bears the burden of wars we have said are essential for our security and survival? Aren't we the welfare recipients, the ones who are letting big government fight wars for us by hiring "volunteers" so that, as our governor says, wars are "just news stories" to the majority of us?
Maybe we shouldn't let things go to the dogs this way. Maybe we should resolve to:
1. Hold nationwide bake sales, rummage sales and car auctions to provide every returning solider with at least 90 days' pay.
2. Put open 55-gallon drums in all our churches, at every grocery store and sporting event, at every Tea Party rally and tell ourselves that we can't go home until the barrel is full with our donations.
3. All stand up, salute the flag and take the Pledge of Sufficiency. That is, we would pledge that all future conflicts in which our military is deployed will be sufficiently funded as we go without borrowing or deficit spending by asking every American to sacrifice each day instead of laying it at the feet of those who are not old enough to vote.
It's a thought.