General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ron Paul wants to build more bases in the U.S. [View all]Saving Hawaii
(441 posts)"Give them first preference for federal employment... that we already do... do not need to implement what we already have."
They don't have first preference. They have veteran's preference which is quite different. First preference, as I suggested, was basically an "if you're qualified you've got a job" and I suggested a bunch of new jobs with easy qualifications so that they're easily met by anybody coming out of the military. Veteran's preference simply makes you eligible for jobs that you wouldn't otherwise be eligible for. It can come in handy and a lot of government employers like ex-military, but they're pretty much allowed to hire whoever they think would do best out of the eligible list regardless of military background.
"We are in an environment where our government is thinking austerity baby."
I know. It sucks.
"I just said in theory how I could see what Paul was thinking in a very different way..."
No, Paul didn't mean McNeil AFB in every district. He meant "Crap, I said I'm bringing all these troops to the US but I also said I'm not reducing manpower. Guess that means I need to build new bases." He didn't really think it through any further than that. But Paul wouldn't support your idea under any circumstances. It's antithetical to libertarian political philosophy.
"And I know what the lit says. Why I would prefer a WPA... but that is not going to happen either."
More likely than your proposal I think... not that that says much. A WPA is gonna meet the veto of every Rush Limbaugh listener in this country (kick out the Kenyan!). A WPA-via-the-military is gonna meet the veto of every economist and military strategist in this country and is gonna die just as quickly. I don't think Paul Krugman would like the idea and I know that nobody in the Pentagon would.