By snoadmin
Benefits for honorable service in the U.S. military should not be limited to those veterans who were wounded in a combat zone. That, however, is the main argument for opponents, or apparently in this case “opponent,” of Proposition 12, the California Veteran’s Bond Act of 2008 on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Proposition 12 is an extension of the Cal-Vet program that helps veterans purchase homes, farms, or mobile homes with low-interest, state-backed loans.
The proposition, if passed, would allow the state to issue $900 million in general obligation bonds to provide loans to vets, no matter where or when they served our country. This money, as well as the approximately $102 million currently remaining in the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program, would enable 3,600 California vets to borrow money to buy homes.
One of the key words in the Cal-Vet program is “borrow.” Veterans who borrow the money are required to pay it back with 5 percent interest. This money is for loans, not handouts and vets have 30 years to pay them off.
Since its 1921 inception, California voters have consistently shown their support for this loan program 26 out of 26 times. More than 420,000 California veterans who served in the military during times of war have been able to realize their dreams of home ownership as a result of the Cal-Vet program.
The current version of the program rightfully has the unanimous support of the full California Legislature, with the state Assembly voting 75-0 in favor and the Senate giving it a 39-0 nod.
The only audible dissent to the proposition, Northern California attorney Gary Wesley, doesn’t even argue that the Cal-Vet program is wrong. His major beef, it seems, is about which veterans should be eligible.
His main argument in the Official Voter Information Guide reads, “There is no requirement for the veteran to have served in combat or even in a combat zone. A veteran who served in Germany or never even left the United States can apply for a loan.”
Serving in the military is a sacrifice whether in time of war or peace. Veterans, regardless of whether they volunteered or were drafted, have to spend extensive periods of time away from their families and communities. They, literally, are property of the U.S. government and give up individual freedoms while in uniform.
Whether in combat, or in stateside support services, those in military service must be ready to be shipped out to a war zone at a moment’s notice — and we’ve had plenty of those moments in our history.
Wesley would exclude, for instance, any military personnel who served during most of the Cold War. While the U.S. was not actually engaged in combat through most of that era, service people had to be at the constant ready. By opposing the Cal-Vet program, none of those vets would qualify.
Supporters in the voter’s guide rebut Wesley’s miserly opposition with, “All veterans have served our country and have been given the responsibility to defend our nation no matter the circumstances … Others who served our nation in peacetime also protected us and were willing to do so at any cost.”
Wesley’s other dispute is that California taxpayers will be on the hook for vets who renege on paying the loans back.
This seems to be an insignificant concern, considering the Cal-Vet program has an aggressive support and counseling system. Very few loans in its history have gone into default and taxpayers have not been cheated into covering them. It’s highly unlikely that will change with Proposition 12, even during tough economic times.
Proposition 12 is neither an endorsement for war, nor an inducement to serve in the military. It is simply paying back those who have forfeited their time honorably by making low-interest loans available for them to buy homes.
This initiative is one of the few real no-brainers on the upcoming ballot. Californians should help repay this debt to its veterans by making the voting record for the Cal-Vet program a perfect 27-for-27.
