You might look the other way if veterans were facing huge unemployment in a time of prosperity. But the entire country is facing unemployment.
As most of grasp hearing Barack repeatedly lie about the military service of his grandfather (the White one), he's really sensitive to the fact that he didn't serve in the military. So he overcompensates and exaggerates. And that's fine in his own remarks but he can't do that with policy.
A) It's not fair. B) It's not smart.
Let's deal with the second one because we all know Barack wants to be re-elected. Young veterans of today's wars is a small sample of the overall population. That's why we're repeatedly told that most people don't even know anyone that's served in Iraq or Afghanistan. So a policy that will anger the largest pool of voters isn't a smart policy if you're trying to shore up votes.
Now the fairness issue, why is a subclass of male veterans getting this? African-American males over the age of 20 have an unemployment rate of 17.0% (seasonally adjusted, June 2011). Where is the program for that classification?
For today's veterans, the Congress has proposed post-service training programs and licensing and certification programs to give veterans the paperwork they need to market the skills they learned on the job. There's no problem with that. It should be done.
But when you're offering tax breaks to hire one group of people at a time of massive unemployment across the country, you better be able to justify it and you damn well better be sure it doesn't end up pissing off most people. When the unemployment lines across America are so massive, you're offering a tax incentive to hire one group means every other group of unemployed Americans are now at a disadvantage when it comes to finding a job.
That's reality. In a struggling economy with massive unemployment, jobs become a zero sum game and Blaine getting a job due to being a veteran means non-veteran Alex isn't getting that job
because there's no tax incentive to hire Alex.
In a prosperous time when jobs abounded, you could argue employment wasn't a zero sum game. But that's not the realities the US currently faces. But the reality is that Barack has not created jobs and that more jobs have been lost and continue to be lost. His approval ratings continue to drop because excuses aren't cutting it. And now with an increasingly angry electorate, worried about food and housing and facing the inflation that is going on (but no one wants to talk about), he's presenting a plan that will help very few people but provides every American who can't find a job with an excuse as to why?
This was a stupid move politically. Jobs are his weakest issue. Jobs are what he's failed to provide. Jobs are what Americans count on to pay the bills. It was a stupid move.
And it will portray him as further out of touch with Americans.
Training centers or any number of things he could have proposed for veterans and Americans wouldn't have been taken aback. But when you tell citizen A that they're going into a job interview opposite citizen B and that the government will provide the company a tax break for hiring citizen B, you're creating an unequal playing field and you're creating ill will. Not really good to do with an angry electorate which feels that government -- at all levels -- is no longer responsive to their needs.