There are 1000s of employers ready to hire veterans. Many of those veterans are not capable of sustaining their job/career/service path. They need mental health services. Companies do not need another reason to profit from veterans. Ethical health services are needed.

I feel that we should use any money towards vet programs that actually add value. Companies and businesses can find incentive in hiring vets from something other than a medallion, maybe our senators and representatives should be reaching out to local and big businesses about ways they can help out our local veterans.

Get the government out of business. Instead of this, maybe stop creating so many damn veterans in these useless wars.

The HIRE Vets Act got co-opted by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 - Keep reading below, but be sure and take your blood pressure medication, 'cause you're gonna need it! I AM ABSOLUTELY LIVID ABOUT THIS SPENDING BILL! Text of Bill: https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules.house.gov/files/115/OMNI/CPRT-115-HPRT-RU00-SAHR244-AMNT.pdf This HUGE amount that Congress is wanting to authorize is OUTRAGEOUS! According to the Associated Press, "The 1,665-page bill agreed to on Sunday is the product of weeks of negotiations. It was made public in the predawn hours Monday and is tentatively scheduled for a House vote on Wednesday." Hmmm, that doesn't give lawmakers much time to read and mull over the details of this bill! 1. No defunding of Planned "Parenthood"! 2. No defunding of sanctuaries! 3. $295 million to bail out Puerto Rico! Thank Pelosi for that! 4. Democrats were successful in repelling many conservative policy “riders” that sought to overturn dozens of Obama-issued regulations. 5. Trump’s request for additional immigration agents was denied. 6. Allows the DHS to import at least 20,000 extra foreign blue-collar workers for seasonal jobs in the United States, instead of requiring companies to recruit, train, and pay marginalized Americans. (See: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/01/paul-ryan-expands-h-2b-blue-collar-outsourcing-program-2017/ ) All I can say is, the GOP has thumbed its nose at the people who voted for them too many times! The Establishment RINOs have GOT TO GO! I'm SICK OF BROKEN PROMISES AND DECEPTION! THE FEDERAL BUDGET IS NEVER GOING TO GET BALANCED, AND OUR NATIONAL DEBT IS JUST GOING TO KEEP GROWING UNLESS CONGRESS STARTS SERIOUSLY DOWNSIZING THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY! THAT MEANS SHUTTING DOWN SOME DEPARTMENTS AND/OR HALTING MANY OF THEIR "PROGRAMS". IT WILL ALSO MEAN CUTTING BACK OUR "FEDERAL AID" AND GETTING THE UNITED NATIONS OUT OF OUR POCKETBOOK! THAT'S JUST FOR STARTERS! THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST BE MADE TO GO ON A SERIOUS "DIET" AND LOSE A LOT OF WEIGHT! __________________________________ Lawmakers settle on $1T plan to avoid US gov’t shutdown by The Associated Press, 1 May 2017 WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers on Monday unveiled a huge $1 trillion-plus spending bill that would fund most government operations through September but would deny President Donald Trump money for a border wall and rejects his proposed cuts to popular domestic programs. The 1,665-page bill agreed to on Sunday is the product of weeks of negotiations. It was made public in the predawn hours Monday and is tentatively scheduled for a House vote on Wednesday. The catchall spending bill would be the first major piece of bipartisan legislation to advance during Trump’s short tenure in the White House. While losing on funding for the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, Trump won a $15 billion down payment on his request to strengthen the military, though that too fell short of what he requested. The measure funds the remainder of the 2017 budget year, through Sept. 30, rejecting cuts to popular domestic programs targeted by Trump such as medical research and infrastructure grants. Successful votes later this week would also clear away any remaining threat of a government shutdown — at least until the Oct. 1 start of the 2018 budget year. Trump has submitted a partial 2018 budget promising a whopping $54 billion, 10 percent increase for the Pentagon from current levels, financed by cutting to foreign aid and other nondefense programs by an equal amount. Negotiators on the pending measure, however, rejected a smaller $18 billion package of cuts and instead slightly increased funding for domestic programs. Democrats were quick to praise the deal. “This agreement is a good agreement for the American people, and takes the threat of a government shutdown off the table,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a key force in the talks. “The bill ensures taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective border wall, excludes poison pill riders, and increases investments in programs that the middle class relies on, like medical research, education and infrastructure.” Some Republican conservatives, however, were wary. “I think you’re going to see conservatives have some real concerns with this legislation,” Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio said on CNN, citing domestic spending obtained by Democrats and other issues. “We told (voters) we were going to do a short-term spending bill that was going to come due at the end of April so that we could fight on these very issues, and now it looks like we’re not going to do that.” Trump said at nearly every campaign stop last year that Mexico would pay for the 2,000-mile (3218.54-kilometer) border wall, a claim Mexican leaders have repeatedly rejected. The administration sought some $1.4 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars for the wall and related costs in the spending bill, but Trump later relented and said the issue could wait until September. Trump, however, obtained $1.5 billion for border security measures such as 5,000 additional detention beds, an upgrade in border infrastructure and technologies such as surveillance. The measure is assured of winning bipartisan support in votes this week; the House and Senate have until midnight Friday to pass the measure to avert a government shutdown. It’s unclear, however, how much support the measure will receive from GOP conservatives such as Jordan and how warmly it will be received by the White House. Democrats played a strong hand in the talks since their votes are needed to pass the bill, even though Republicans control both the White House and Congress. As a result, the measure doesn’t look much different than the deal that could have been struck on President Barack Obama’s watch last year. But Republicans are eager to move on to other issues such as overhauling the tax code and reviving their moribund effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s health care law. “The omnibus (spending bill) is in sharp contrast to President Trump’s dangerous plans to steal billions from lifesaving research, instead increasing funding for the NIH (National Institutes of Health) by $2 billion,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said in a statement that nonetheless fell short of endorsing the bill outright. While the measure would peacefully end a battle over the current budget year, the upcoming cycle is sure to be even more difficult. Republicans have yet to reveal their budget plans, and battles between Trump and Congress over annual agency budgets could grind this summer’s round of spending bills to a halt. Among the final issues resolved was a Democratic request to help the cash-strapped government of Puerto Rico with its Medicaid burden, a top Pelosi priority. The California Democrat and others in her party came up short of the $500 million or so they had sought but won $295 million for the island, more than Republicans had initially offered. Democrats were successful in repelling many conservative policy “riders” that sought to overturn dozens of Obama-issued regulations. Such moves carry less urgency for Republicans now that Trump controls the regulatory apparatus. House Republicans succeeded in funding a private school vouchers program for students in Washington, D.C.’s troubled school system through 2019. GOP leaders decided against trying to use the must-do spending bill to “defund” Planned Parenthood. The White House also backed away from language to take away grants from “sanctuary cities” that do not share information about people’s immigration status with federal authorities. Trump’s request for additional immigration agents was denied and the IRS budget would be frozen at $11.6 billion. http://www.breitbart.com/news/lawmakers-settle-on-1t-plan-to-avoid-us-govt-shutdown/

a medallion? Let's put that money to actual good use, shall we. Fund Vet centers, Vet continuing education, VA Hospitals and care. There are plenty of holes that money could fill.

They're already benefiting from vets! Put $ into assisting vets by learning how to transfer back into civilian life(I.e. Mental/physical fitness) help them get better housing; no vet should be homeless!!

Free Market economy. If the vet isn't the best person for the job then he shouldn't get it. The freer Americas market is, the higher the standard of living around the world is. I love our vets. They are noble people, but the free market economy is also a noble idea that I believe hurts some in the short run like our vets but makes everybody better off in the long run.

We need a lot more funding toward vets, but the money should be used for programs that help vets access their benefits, attain quality mental health services, and be aided in matriculating back into civilian life. We already have tax incentives for companies that hire vets; they don't need gold stars, too.

Money should go to the VA instead or equivalency certifications that allow vets to use their training in applicable settings without red tape getting in the way. For example, medics should not have to retrain to work as nurses or emts if they already have the training.

Medals?! Their idea is to give out medals? Time to put your money where mouth is, if you support vets, fund VA, stop sending them to war, give them mental health support once the return and training so they can compete with people that spent their twenties in school & training for the workforce. Medallions?!? Are we serious?!?

Veterans should never be used as political props.

A medallion does not sound like a viable economic incentive for hiring veterans. If it is I would like to see the studies showing so. Hiring veterans is not like driving a taxi, where there is a limited amount of medallions to provide a high demand service. The veteran demand for jobs is higher than business demand for hiring veterans. We need legislation that will ensure benefits to a business for hiring vets. Creating a medallion market to hire vets just sounds misaligned with reality.