If there is a solid truism in the Kansas Legislature, it's that you never go wrong by doing something nice for soldiers, even if it is a dab trivial and borders on pandering.

They're soldiers. They actively sought out that job that puts them in harm's way for the good of the nation, to protect us all. There is ample reason to respect soldiers for the job they do -- especially since they volunteer for the job. They risk their lives because they feel the patriotic duty.

Passing legislation to provide them free hunting and fishing licenses, special license plates for their cars and trucks, that sort of thing is pretty standard, nobody minds it and presumably soldiers or veterans are happy that their service to the country has been noted officially. That's nice.

But there is a chance that this session trying to think up something nice to do for soldiers in an election year has taken the wrong and a vaguely insulting turn.

One bill would increase penalties for scam artists who violate consumer protection laws in trying to make a buck from soldiers and their families. We already have provisions in Kansas law that offer up similar stiff penalties for scammers who prey on the elderly on the presumption that the elderly are generally infirm, slow-of-wit and more easily confused and tricked than, well, virtually everyone else. That's a relatively ugly and condescending presumption for most older Kansans.

Do soldiers need the same provisions? Do soldiers want the same after-the-fact protection? Or, is it just a dab insulting for the sake of a bullet point on a campaign palm card? We haven't seen similar bills to enhance penalties for scamming, say, schoolteachers or osteopaths or legislators, have we?

Another bill is even more questionable. It would specifically allow a judge to reduce the sentence of a veteran who has been convicted of a crime if the veteran can prove that he/she suffers post traumatic stress syndrome, or served in a war zone. Is this something most veterans are interested in?

If the brutal psychological stress of serving in increasingly dangerous war zones triggers a later criminal act as a civilian, such as robbing a liquor store or engaging in a bar fight, isn't that something that should be considered before a trial -- whether the accused is competent to stand trial?

You have to wonder whether veterans want that stigma, that the criminals among them get special treatment from the judiciary that stressed firemen or police or family preservation case workers don't get.

Practically, where the politics of this goes, we don't know. It's one thing to vote for free hunting licenses or distinctive auto license plates.

But the inferences about veterans from the anti-scam bill and the special sentencing options for some veterans who commit crimes? It comes close to creating a new protected class of Kansans that we're not sure veterans and active-duty soldiers -- and the rest of Kansans -- feel good about if they even know that such legislation is being considered.

But we're not sure anyone checked with them.

Syndicated by Hawver News Co. of Topeka,; Martin Hawver is publisher of Hawver's Capitol Report. To learn more about this statewide political news service, visit www.hawvernews.com.