Michigan House Bill HB5819

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/13/24
• Refer: 6/13/24

Caption

Veterans: trust fund; veterans trust fund act; modify, and remove period of war service requirement. Amends secs. 2, 3b & 4b of 1946 (1st Ex Sess) PA 9 (MCL 35.602 et seq.) & repeals sec. 4a of 1946 (1st Ex Sess) PA 9 (MCL 35.604a).

Impact

The implications of HB 5819 extend to the administration of the trust fund itself. By modifying the criteria under which veterans can claim benefits, it aims to facilitate access for a larger pool of military service individuals. This change is likely to increase the disbursement of funds to veterans and their families, which could have positive financial implications for the veterans' community in Michigan. Additionally, the bill emphasizes the need for effective management by establishing a board of trustees composed solely of veterans, ensuring that those with firsthand experience oversee the trust fund.

Summary

House Bill 5819 seeks to amend existing legislation related to the Michigan veterans' trust fund, originally established in 1946. The bill proposes modifications to the definitions and eligibility criteria for veterans who may receive assistance from this fund. One significant change is the reinstatement of financial eligibility criteria by repealing a previous requirement for 'period of war' service, which previously limited eligibility to certain combat-related service members. This amendment is aimed at providing broader access to funds for veterans who may not have served during designated wartime but have still honorably served in the military.

Contention

Noteworthy points of contention surrounding HB 5819 include concerns about the potential financial strain on the veterans' trust fund due to an increased number of eligible applicants. Some stakeholders worry that expanding access could jeopardize the fund's sustainability, particularly in times of economic downturn. Furthermore, veterans' organizations may have differing opinions on the implications of removing the wartime service requirement, with some supporting increased inclusivity while others caution against diluting the intended purpose of the fund.