The Faribault Daily News said out loud today what more people have been whispering: Veterans shouldn’t be sacred cows in Minnesota.
During floor debate yesterday, the DFL tried to spin the GAMC override vote as a vote for veterans. It didn’t work, of course, but the strategy was sound — nobody wants to appear to be against veterans. And, in fact, nobody is against veterans. But the shielding of veterans’ programs from cuts is raising a question: Are there two Minnesotans — those who are veterans and those who are not?
Here’s a portion of the newspaper’s editorial:
That suggests that the time to “shield” any program or department has long passed. According to a story in Saturday’s Daily News, there is some overlap in some of the money/programs provided by the state, and that state money is only awarded when all other avenues have been exhausted. That’s a good argument for why it should be shielded, but the fact that it’s rarely needed is an argument for why it should be considered for elimination. Most vets are covered by the same type of program at the federal level.
Clearly, veterans have sacrificed. But unlike previous wars, this is an all-volunteer military. Should they sacrifice programs too? Or have they already sacrificed enough?