Rep. Mark Ouimet sponsoring forum for veterans with focus on transition from military to civilian life
State Rep. Mark Ouimet, R-Scio Township, is sponsoring a veterans forum in Ann Arbor to address concerns about benefit coverage and the transition from military to civilian life.
Mark Ouimet
Jason Allen, senior deputy for the Michigan Department of Veterans Affairs, is expected to attend and answer questions.
"I encourage all area veterans to attend this important forum to help get their questions answered about benefits and other veterans services," Ouimet said in a statement.
"Veterans have sacrificed so much to protect our country and way of life, and one important way to show our gratitude is by making sure they receive the benefits they deserve."
Veterans who are unable to attend the forum are encouraged to contact Ouimet toll free at 855-627-5052 or markouimet@house.mi.gov with questions or concerns.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's e-mail newsletters.
Comments
Adam Betz
Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 3:10 p.m.
I just want to add one thought in here. I used to be a die hard Republican until I learned first hand how much the Republican politicians (most Republican citizens put their money where their mouth is and support us...not the politicians though) actually care about Soldiers. In 2003, I was held over my contract because of the invasion of Iraq. I was a supporter of the war at that point...until we all realized the American people had been fooled to support an unneeded war with Iraq. We were supposed to be paid "Stop Loss" Pay because the government held us, involuntarily, for the "convenience of the government." This affected many of us personally in that we had job's lined up back home and were setup to begin college immediately after our return. An official memo signed by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld soon filtered down through the ranks which stated that those of us being held beyond our signed contracts would have the extra days of our service kept track of, but all "Stop Loss" payments would be suspended. Under Republican rule, we were never given that money owed to us by the government for this backdoor draft. It wasn't until President Obama became President that a bill was passed that made all Stop Loss payments retroactive to the date of 12 September 2001. Most of us serving were skeptical that the government was trying to do the right thing nearly 10 years later and many of my buddies never filled out the paperwork out of fear that it was another group of scammers attempting to get SSN numbers from Veterans out of the VA system. I finally did receive my back payment but it wasn't the Republican politicians that had anything to do with it. Another example is the new Post 9/11 GI Bill. I personally went to Washington and spoke with members of both parties in Congress. A common response by a large majority of Republicans was "Do you know how much that will cost?" The bill was finally passed on the
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 1:56 p.m.
The bi-partisan "Gang of Six" plan was a response to the faux fiscal crisis foisted upon this nation by the Republicans. If the debt were the threat to the nation's economic health that Republicans claim, if the nation were teetering on the brink of insolvency as the echo chamber on Faux Noise claims, interest rates on US bonds would be skyrocketing, as they are in Greece. Checked bond prices lately? Apparently not. So, yes, the Democrats are to blame for accepting the Republicans' definition of the problem. And this is why the Occupy Wall Street Movement exists. Again, contrary to the Faux Noise echo chamber, these folks have been very clear that they see BOTH parties as being the cause of the problem, and they are correct. GN&GL
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 4:41 p.m.
Thanks for confirming my point. The bond market is healthy, and hence the debt issue is bogus. And, according to John Zandi, McCain's chief economic adviser in 2008, the president's stimulus delivered 3 million jobs, and would have delivered more had half of it not been in the form of tax cuts demanded by Republicans. <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2010/0825/Economist-Zandi-John-Boehner-just-wrong-about-Obama-stimulus" rel='nofollow'>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2010/0825/Economist-Zandi-John-Boehner-just-wrong-about-Obama-stimulus</a> The media hasn't brought up Solyndra? Really? REALLY?? Of course, not certain what any of this has to do with the basic premise upon which all of this started, which is the Republicans love our soldiers and our vets . . . that is until they actually have to spend money on programs that benefit 'em. GN&GL
walker101
Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 3:33 p.m.
Fortunately I do check the bonds, I have 60-40 split, bonds and stock, I've averaged 6.02% over the last 5 years, loss only 1 year. 10 year period it's @6.2%, since inception 1970 @10.15% Maybe you should check this out, apparently not. Never ending cycle repeats ever few years. I've been investing for 35+ years,live very comfortably and never used a financial planner or broker. I guess I am part of the 99%. Vanguard Funds. OWS movement exists due to the fact many of those protesting (800 of the 983 arrested are white) average age 27, many are or have family that work in Wall Street, 300 have homes in excess of $500K and the rest have homes in the $300K. Many are upset because they have to pay back government school loans that average over $60-$120K, they cannot find jobs in arts and crafts that they majored in. If I recall didn't the almighty one GUARANTEE 4-5 million jobs, he sure did, only for the Federal Government, private industry did not benefit form his stimulus packages that failed completely, only his Banking buddies and auto unions that supported him in 2008 were the beneficiaries. As far as am concerned both parties have failed the country. Why does the media never bring up the Bankrupt energy companies (Beacon Power Corp, Solyndra, just a few) that were funded by the stimulus money and failed miserably. They were some of Obamas biggest fund raisers in 2008 and yet the Media wants to discuss Cain's past with allegations and hear say? Why, because the media is and has been a vehicle for the left propaganda just like this media source here and then you wonder why were in such a mess.
walker101
Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 1:35 p.m.
The Gang of Six Plan: The Senate plan would cut $80 Billion in Benefits, unfortuanetly it's equal opportunity for Democrats and Republicans (3 & 3) not just republicans. <a href="http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2011/07/senate-plan-would-cut-80b-in-benefits/" rel='nofollow'>http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2011/07/senate-plan-would-cut-80b-in-benefits/</a>
The_Ghost_is_Demented
Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 12:31 a.m.
Recent VA budgets adjusted for inflation: 1993-2000: $50.3 billion; $51.3 billion; $50.8 billion; $51.0 billion; $51.5 billion; $52.7 billion; $53.5 billion; $53.9 billion 2001-2007: $56.7 billion; $61.4 billion; $66.9 billion; $70.0 billion; $73.7 billion; $75.5 billion; $82.0 billion
walker101
Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 1:46 p.m.
I agree.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 3:09 a.m.
Ooops. Cut and pasted the same link. For the Bush II regime: <a href="http://www.awolbush.com/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.awolbush.com/</a> GN&GL
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 1:35 a.m.
Then there's what the teaparty's favorite candidate for president proposes: <a href="http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/01/military-michele-bachmann-veterans-budget-cuts-012811w/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/01/military-michele-bachmann-veterans-budget-cuts-012811w/</a> Then there's the record of the Bush II regime: <a href="http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/01/military-michele-bachmann-veterans-budget-cuts-012811w/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/01/military-michele-bachmann-veterans-budget-cuts-012811w/</a> And then there are the mandatory CUTS that will happen if the supercommittee fails to reach a deal--a mess that is a result of the Republicans' faux crisis this summer over the deficit. Yeah, Republicans love vets. GN&GL
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 1:22 a.m.
And then there's the guy who wants to do the same things to veterans that he wants to do to the elderly in general: <a href="http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/04/09/1619210/budget-panel-may-cut-va-care-for.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/04/09/1619210/budget-panel-may-cut-va-care-for.html</a> Yeah, Republicans just love our veterans. GN&GL
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 1:10 a.m.
Yes. The budgets have gone up yet benefits and programs have been cut. Gee, ya don't think it's because the VA has been swamped with the physical and mental wreckage of 10 years of war and can't handle the load, do ya? I highly recommend that you visit our local VA hospital and talk to the people there about the level of service they can give as the Vietnam Era soldiers hit their 60s and as Iraq and Afghanistan War vets come home needing services for which no one had remotely prepared when the war began. Good Night and Good Luck
Jim Clarkson
Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 11:32 p.m.
Soooooo would that be Tuesday the 8th of November?
hut hut
Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 7:37 p.m.
Let's see, $30/hr $60k a year. Is that rich? And then pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffet? While working class Republicans and Tea Partiers defend the ultra rich, the ultra rich are laughing all the way to their Swiss bank accounts. Why? Because some people think it's the American Dream to make 60k a year after 30 years even though the ultra wealthy haven't worked a day in their lives and live like royalty. Why won't you address wage disparity? And the fact that your and other working people's wages have stagnated while the ultra rich you defend got the tax breaks and made out like bandits? And they didn't create any jobs.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 5:18 p.m.
Republicans support our soldiers . . . except when they don't. *Cuts to VA programs *Cuts to the GI Bill *Cuts to dependent medical care for active duty soldiers *Cuts to retiree pay and benefits *No program whatsoever aside from a worthless "forum" to provide jobs for these soldiers as they leave the service. Yup, Republicans "support" our troops so long as it doesn't cost any money or require any meaningful effort. Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 1:54 p.m.
"the demos were just as bad." Yup. Due to the faux fiscal crisis foisted upon this nation by the Republicans. If the debt were the threat to the nation's economic health that Republicans claim, if the nation were teetering on the brink of insolvency as the echo chamber on Faux Noise claims, interest rates on US bonds would be skyrocketing, as they are in Greece. Checked bond prices lately? Apparently not. So, yes, the Democrats are to blame for accepting the Republicans' definition of the problem. And this is why the Occupy Wall Street Movement exists. Again, contrary to the Faux Noise echo chamber, these folks have been very clear that they see BOTH parties as being the cause of the problem, and they are correct. GN&GL
walker101
Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 1:43 p.m.
This time around it was equal opportunity with your current administration, the demos were just as bad. See the Gang of 6.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 10:10 p.m.
Oh, and one other thing, Roadman. The BRAC process (Base Realignment and Closure) began under Reagan. Every president since Reagan has presided over BRAC commissions' recommendations and the resultant closure of bases. The BRAC process was designed to be an all or nothing--accept the entire proposal or accept none of it--as a way to eliminate the politics from the question of base closure. Source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure" rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure</a> Try reading the above article. You might learn something. GN&GL
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 9:59 p.m.
Yes. Reagan bought equipment. Soldiers, however, remained poorly paid (e.g., 20% of the soldiers in my battery in the mid-1980s were on food stamps). Bush I sharply cut the defense budget and he and his SecDef (a guy named Cheney) proposed even deeper cuts in the Bush I second term. While Clinton and the REPUBLICAN Congress cut the defense from 1994 to 2000, those cuts were not nearly what had been proposed by Bush I/Cheney. <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/cutting_the_defense_budget.html" rel='nofollow'>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/cutting_the_defense_budget.html</a> Other than that--a wonderfully factual post, roadman! GN&GL Clinton reversed the cuts in defense spending and defense spending
hut hut
Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 9:14 p.m.
Supporting military bases is not the same as supporting troops. Supporting (paying to keep open) unnecessary military bases is usually political pork, for both parties. Closing unnecessary military bases should make perfect sense in the budget cutting conservative world. It took a Democrat to do it because Reagan drove us into debt with military extravagances to eliminate the Red Threat that was already on its knees.
Roadman
Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 8:52 p.m.
It was Reagan who gave the military everything they wanted - and then some. It was Bill Clinton who authorized closings of many naval, air, and army bases throughout the world. The GOP believes in a strong America militarily.
cinnabar7071
Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 5:07 p.m.
Hut you will never walk into a $30 an hour job, you have to start at the bottom and prove you want it thru education, hard work, and time. Took me 30 years of bettering myself, funny thing is I'm tired now and looking foward to retiring. I hope! One more thing I'm not making up, you asked Ouimet where the jobs are, when I was looking for a job the question I was asking was "Will you hire me? I promise to do the best I can for you, I learn fast and theres nothing I wont do." It works when you are sincere.
hut hut
Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 4:53 p.m.
Please tell the soldiers where those $30 an hour jobs are. I'm sure their anxious to get one. Minimum wage in Reagan's era was $3.25. Today it's 7.25 That's a far cry from $30. Once again you're making stuff up. Typical Republican response to make up stuff about people who sit around all day and that's why they can't find work. Like Reagan's unfounded "welfare queens". That's insuting to everyone who's out looking and not finding. But Republican's don't mind insulting people as long as their not their rich base.
cinnabar7071
Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 4:40 p.m.
One more thing hut hut, mby wages were $3.35 an hour back when Reagon was pres, they are now pennies away from $30 an hour, of course I've spent countless hours and evening over the years keeping my skills up. I think Cantor might be right cause if I had sat around watching dancing with the stars, or getting a degree in womans studies all those years I'd be crying unfair right now too.
David Briegel
Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 4:37 p.m.
Will he tell us how less is more? Will he tell us how to do more with less? Will he tell them to stop walking around with their hands out? Will Veterans have to continue their sacrifice? Good post hut hut!
cinnabar7071
Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 4:32 p.m.
hut hut if you're asking Ouimet where the jobs are you'll never find one, Ouimet and anyone else in govt only care about one job and thats their own. Nobody but you will find you a job.
hut hut
Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 4:28 p.m.
I hope he gets and earful about why after decades of Republicans telling everyone that lower taxes, particularly on the so called job creators, the 1%, create jobs that there are no jobs. Tell us Mr Ouimet, where are the jobs? The jobs that pay a decent wage and have a few benefits, maybe enough for a family of four to survive and go to the doctor. Then tell us Mr Ouimet, why for the last 30 years, since the great Conservative savior, Ronald Reagan, wages have stagnated for a majority of Americans while the 1% incomes rose, incredibly so. Tell us, Mr Oumiet, why your party, particularly people like Eric Cantor, blame working people for their poverty? And then cry "class warfare". Tell us Mr Ouimet, please tell us.