As Scott Jenkins is my State Senator in West Haven, I open a public letter to him.
Dear Senator Jenkins,
I am writing to you to comment about your rave in the State Legislative Session on February 16 against SB 116, a bill that would give a property tax exemption to Active Duty Soldiers who serve outside the state for 200 days or longer.
As a fiscal conservative, I agree that we should be careful about what we do for anyone with state tax dollars. As a former Active Duty Airman, I can tell you from experience that it is difficult to get over the sense of entitlement that serving in the military can give a person. But I take issue with your response to this bill on two fronts.
First, it is not your opposition to the bill that is most unfortunate, but the manner in which you came across in railing against it. Let's begin by setting the record straight.
First of all, you said, "we pay for their clothing." Military men and women have a clothing allowance to help pay for the purchase and maintenance of their uniforms. Taxpayers do not pay for all of their clothing. Often, this allowance does not pay the full cost of uniform purchase and maintenance, it only pays for a large portion of it. Military people have to cover the balance of this cost with their own money. This is not much different than working at McDonald's or other such establishments where a common dress code is required. The uniforms may be provided by the employer, but the employee is responsible for the cleaning and repair of that clothing.
Military men and women will get assistance with food. Those with families to support, who will not primary eat for free in the mess hall will receive a little extra on their paycheck to cover the cost of food. For those in the lower ranks, this allowance is not enough and many supplement the cost of their food with food stamps.
You mention that well allow them to shop at an exchange. This is usually a lower-cost place to shop. But the exchange often does not carry the item that is needed. Often the needed item is found at a lower costs with one of the discount retailers off-base. There is also a commissary on base which usually provides food for active duty members and retirees at a lower cost.
Military men and women are provided housing on base, where it is available. In a perfect world, all Active Duty Personnel will have housing on-base. But usually, there is not enough housing for everyone at a duty station and many have to live off base. The Federal Government will provide a housing allowance, but it is usually not enough to cover the cost of renting acceptable housing off base. Many of those whose tour of duty will last beyond 3 years will chose to purchase property in the community where they are stationed.
Many of these benefits are provided to our National Guard members as well. But not all of them, unless the military member is activated.
When a military person is deployed, some of those benefits are lost. The housing and food allowances are lost because when a person is deployed, his housing and food are provided by the military. This adds a financial burden to the family that has to do without their father or mother during the deployment. This makes making a mortgage payment more difficult. The allowances for housing and food are only applied when the military member is at his or her home base.
I understand that as a fiscal conservative you want to spend as little as possible on a group of people that already receive a considerable amount of financial assistance from all levels of government. Let me state that most military people earn considerably less than their civilian counterparts. But the real problem is not what you said, but how you said it.
You came across as no better than miserly Scrooge turning away a common beggar. But instead your comments were directed at the heroes who protect the freedom that we all enjoy. This is a critical time for Utah and our economy. It may be improving, but it won't take much to put our economy in the tank again. One of the many items that the BRAC commission may consider in determining which military bases to keep open and close is how well the Airmen serving at Hill Air Force Base are welcomed by the community as a whole. This is something that Utah could improve upon. Forgiving the property tax of an airman on a remote assignment may seem like a large expense, but it is something worth considering to show BRAC and the airmen stationed at Hill AFB that Utah cares about them and wants the base to remain open.
As a fiscal conservative, you do not have to vote for this bill if you feel that the burden on the rest of the tax payers will be too great. But simply state that the burden on the rest of the tax payers will be too high, and leave it at that.
I encourage you to issue a public apology to the state and to the Airmen stationed at Hill Air Force Base. Your comments were insensitive to them, many of whom have taken residence in your district and are my neighbors.
Ben Hunt,
West Haven Utah
Posts
