Detroit Treats Veterans with Disrespect

Do you want to know why the City of Detroit needs an emergency manager? All the broad and general points have been made and debated furiously. Perhaps a single example of a single person might demonstrate the point. Detroit needs an emergency manger because it is so terribly disorganized that the city doesn't even know its own rules.

A veteran who served his country for all of 2007, 2008, and 2009, who was otherwise a lifelong citizen of Detroit, and proud of his citizenship while so very many people who professed belief in Detroit skipped town (and yet somehow feel the right to defend it against the EM), received a letter asking for his Detroit Income Tax payments for 2007 and, interestingly, 2009. The letter explained that the city was trying very hard to maintain fiscal solvency and that it would help if he would pay his taxes. And, you may ask, what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't everyone, even soldiers, pay their fair share?

Although paying their fair share is an important question for anyone, one wonders why such inquiries aren't answered well enough by the statement: because he was serving his country (and, by extension, his hometown) while earning his pay in 2007 and 2009? Might that be enough of a fair share? Yet even such issues are made worse by other salient facts, not the least of which is that Detroit's own income tax regulations exempt the pay of those in the military on active duty from paying the city income tax. It's all there on the city's own Frequently Asked Questions section of their website dealing with the city income tax: http://www.detroitmi.gov/DepartmentsandAgencies/Finance/IncomeTaxDivision/FAQs.aspx Just read the answer to question 11. It might help to mention that such facts are found on the instructions to Detroit Income Tax forms from 2007 and 2009 as well.

All righty then, how was the city to know that said soldier was in the active military? Well, perhaps because the letter knew what he had earned during 2007 and 2009 and thereby knew what he owed in taxes, which was supposedly about $2,000. How might Detroit know such intimacies? Perhaps from his W-2? But from where would it get the information from his W-2? Oh, yes, of course: his employer. The United States Army.

Should we even ask now why there was no demand for income taxes from 2008? Or did the City of Detroit Finance Division somehow realize that that would have been smack in the middle of this veteran's three year service period?

This is a very simple question to get right, and Detroit got it wrong. Did someone not look at his W-2s? Could they not make a phone call or two whilst trying to eliminate confusion? Could they not cross reference the city's own income tax laws and determine why our loyal veteran paid no city income tax for the years in question? Did they, whoever decided that a letter must be sent dunning this soldier for payment, even look over the pertinent documents before authorizing the letter?

Apparently not. And this is why the City of Detroit needs an emergency manager. The right hand doesn't know what the left is doing, nor does it have the sense enough to check. Detroit needs an emergency manager because it is either sick or stupid. Hopefully the former; such would at least offer a better excuse for the poor treatment of one of its nation's finest.

Steady as She Goes, Conservative Republicans

Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) has, like so many Republican House members recently, suggested a basketful of cuts in order to trim the $14 trillion deficit which faces the US these days in light of the excesses of the Obama Administration. Indeed, seeing as we face a $1.5 trillion deficit in the current budget year alone, no sane member of Congress should not be looking at budget cuts somewhere. Yet what has attracted attention to her is the suggestion that benefits to veterans might be pared as well as to any other budget area.

The reaction has been typically, um, protective, to say the least. Richard Eubank, head of Veterans of Foreign Wars, has replied basically that he thinks she no longer wants to care for wounded veterans. It is a knee jerk reaction. No one, and the Congresswoman's office has said so, has called for cutting the benefits of veterans who are in dire need, especially those who have been severely disabled or otherwise injured while serving their country.

But it is asinine to argue that there are areas of the federal budget which are to be treated as sacred cows. They are all, seen by themselves through the eyes of those who have an interest in them, sacred cows. Are there truly no areas of Veterans Affairs which could not stand a bit of paring? Are there in fact no aspects of government, particularly on a national level, which could not spend taxpayer money more wisely?

That support for our veterans should be a high priority in Washington is not being questioned. Yet there is a point where it is fair to ask about the responsibilities of their caregivers towards us. Yes, many veterans - too many - have had to voluntarily risk their lives for the well being of the rest of us, and they have done so valiantly and without regard to personal well being. Too many have fought, been wounded, and died for us. It is a reflection of an imperfect world; that their actions are heroic is beyond argument. Seeing to the necessities of these warriors who need long term care is an obligation for which we would not be human if we did not honor. But that is not to say that their representatives spend all their money in the best manner either.

If we are to tame this beast we must do it as comprehensively as possible. That must mean no sacred cows. Responsibility is not borne of idol worship.