PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul: Salute to Veterans




Kotin
05-27-2008, 10:26 AM
Salute to Veterans

by Ron Paul

Most of my efforts on Capitol Hill are focused on reducing the federal government’s size and scope, but I make an exception for a very important group of people. Our nation’s men and women in uniform commit a selfless act of patriotism when they take up arms in defense of our country. As a veteran myself, I salute all those currently serving, or who have served in our armed forces. Our nation owes them a debt of gratitude for their sacrifices, their courage, their time away from friends and family, and the dangers they undertake. This Memorial Day we honor our soldiers and vets, we remember those who never came home, or who have since passed on. Above all, we acknowledge our respect for all who have served in the military.

Congress has considered several bills this past week that would affect veterans. Many of the measures are very positive. I applaud efforts to shore up health care for veterans, and make sure that veterans know about the services available to them. I strongly support improving educational opportunities for veterans. I also believe a pay raise is well-deserved, and long overdue for our men and women in uniform. These benefits constitute their pay for serving our country.

What I do not support is inserting immoral, unconstitutional provisions into veterans’ bills. For example, HR 6081 the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act, in addition to providing important tax benefits for soldiers, sends the IRS after civilians who move overseas. This method of funding is actually a slap in the face to our soldiers who vow to keep us free. Afterall, how free are we, if we are not really free to leave? Congress should not use the military as an excuse to behave tyrannically.

I was pleased with several of the veterans bills passed this past week, but more needs to be done. There are many other bills that should be passed dealing with veterans health care, how we treat disabled vets, and forgiving debts to the United States of fallen soldiers. We need to keep in mind younger generations who will someday face the choice of whether or not to enlist. They are watching to see how well we keep our promises. As it stands, our military is being rapidly depleted and exhausted by the continued, unconstitutional wars being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan . This problem must be addressed.

This Memorial Day, I thank all our soldiers who have fought so bravely for our country. I will continue to work hard in Congress to ensure they are treated with dignity, and receive the compensations they have been promised and deserve. They have given their best for this nation, and we should respond in kind.


http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst052508.htm

SLSteven
05-27-2008, 11:57 AM
Ron Paul supports veterans and veterans support Ron Paul

qh4dotcom
05-27-2008, 04:49 PM
I have to respectfully disagree with RP on this one....what happened to his strict adherence to the Constitution? Such extravagant military expenses like the bills he was advocating are not authorized by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers never had troops in 130+ countries...the last thing they would do is steal from the taxpayers, print money or borrow from China to pay such extravagant military expenses.

Troops that disrespect the Constitution and fight in unconstitutional wars without a Declaration of war from Congress as required by the Constitution don't deserve a penny.

MusoSpuso
05-27-2008, 05:52 PM
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

Ron Paul is, I imagine, following the above power given to congress. The key term being "and support".

True, the two years part and the general intent of the passage is being twisted a bit but I think it's a little disengenuous to accuse Ron Paul of being contradictory. He has clearly stated in the past that he does not support us being in 130 countries and over extending our military.

Ron Paul does not continue to fund the war under false arguments such as those used by Obama: "they're already there, we have to keep them well armed". We both know that argument is weak. But Ron Paul is merely proposing to take care of our VETERANS once they come home.

I will agree with you that Ron is stretching the war powers of congress a bit much with the subsidized education but not the health benefits. If a soldier is wounded in battle in a war (even a blatantly unconstitutional one) we are still morally obligated to fix the health that was ruined. I know you'll probably disagree but I do understand where you're coming from. I'm not 100% comfortable with it either. I'm very close in the belief that if you volunteer for the military you are still bound by an oath to the constitution which means disobeying a direct order if necessary if you are being asked to fight an unconstitutional war. But that's probably a bit of wishful thinking.