The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1931-02-05
Veterans and Veterans

We oppose the reported plan of the politicians to
block the cash bonus bills until the end Of the con-
gressional session, and then to pass a compromise
which in turn be pocketvetoed by the President
That is a grand plan for political face saving all
round but it is grossly unfair to the veterans They
have a right to a clean-cut decision, one way or
the other.
We see no reason why the administration or any
member of congress or any newspaper should need
to save face in opposing to the end bond issue OF
S34oO 100000 for immediate cash payment to all vet
Grams of double the amount of the present value OF
the bonus certificates.
AS we together with many business leaders and
government experts, have pointed out such oono
issue would shake the federal financial system and
orolong business depression. The veterans would
suffer in the end, because they dependent on
return OF national prosperity.
But of course, we agree that the veteran IN need
saould be helped And we believe that way can
be found.
In the first place, most Of the veterans are not
in need; most of them have jobs and thus have no
incentive to sacrifice the maturing insurance value
of their bonus certificates as proposed by the blanket
s3,40O,OOOOOO plan.
That brings us down to the unemployed veterans
On the basis of general unemployment figures, that
means from 10 to is per cent of the veterans.
We have seen no good reason advanced against
the proposal to increase for this goup-to double or
nore-the loan value of the bonus certificates and
nerhaps to lower the interest rate on such loans
In addition we have urged the necessity Of a di-
rect federal appropriation for unemployment relief
in cases where local and private relief funds are
proved inadequate In other words the unemployed
veteran today is in dire need not because he Is vet
eran but because he is unemployed
Because it is essentially unemployment prob
len, il can not be met fairly effectively by han
ding it as special veterans problem covering the
majority of veterans who are employed.
Immediately after the war, when hundreds OF
thousands of men returned from the army to civilian
life. there was specific soldiers unemployment.
The bulk of them got $50 month in wages with
mart deducted for war risk insurance, All were given
4 "bonus" of 500 when discharged, which at that
tnoe wouldn't buy good suit of civilian clothes Most
Of them came out of the army broke
4 unemployment in the days Immediately following
she war was due to this surplus of man-power
durned on a market which rapidly was needing
less n1an-power anyhow, because of machinery and
women workers
unemployment directly after the war affected al
most entirely the former soldier
unemployment today has nothing to do with the
mar T. affects men who were too young for war Serv-
Soc &c well as men who too old for war service
rho former soldier has lost his identity in this I'M
smnlovnent crisis 1t is not an unemployment OF war
Veterans but universal unemployment, affecting all
ages and types of men and women.
The blanket cash bonus proposal is bad from the
Veterans, own point of view because most OF the
money would go to men with jobs who do not need
\ Certainly no person can object to any reasonable
relief for unemployed veterans