The GI Bill and McCain-Bush

[flamin lib]

Following is the exchange between Barack Obama and John McCain on the passage of the updated GI Bill:

“I respect Sen. John McCain’s service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can’t understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill. I can’t believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue,” Barack Obama on the Senate Floor after the vote.

“I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did…If that is how he would behave as president, the country would regret his election,” John McCain at a fund raiser (he couldn’t take time off to actually vote on the bill).

Well, I did serve in uniform and I call B*ll Sh*t on John McCain.

This bill would increase Veteran’s benefits to include a four-year education at a state supported college after three years of service. How awful. I got a double Master’s Degree on the GI Bill and only served two years. It’s about time we updated vet’s benefits to adjust for inflation and correct the cuts made by past Republican administrations. By the way, the House version of the bill is fully paid for with a .05% tax increase on individuals making more than $500,000 and couples making more than $1,000,000 a year in taxable (after all deductions) income. So if a married couple takes home $83,333 a month they’d only take home $82,916. What a hardship. Besides, the increased earning power of a four-year degree would more than pay for the cost of the program in increased income taxes; it’s a net gain in tax revenue.

Of course, McCain did spend 5 years in a VC prison and was tortured. Perhaps no one who hasn’t been a POW and tortured should be able to comment on water boarding or being beaten unless they can match his experience. Funny how he worked so hard to have torture outlawed by statute and then praised Bush for signing the bill AFTER adding a signing statement specifically canceling that provision. Bush to McCain, “Thanks for all the hard work, John, now screw ya’!”

The NY Times published an Op-Ed piece criticizing Bush for threatening to Veto the Bill. The White House immediately ripped them for it. You know they’re scraping bottom when they start criticizing someone for having an opinion. Dana Perino (who didn’t know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was) said, ”This editorial could not be farther from the truth about the president’s record of leadership on this issue.” Yep, bush lead by giving the VA $35 billion when they asked for $76 billion in the 2007 budget and then cutting the funding another 2% each year through 2010. Some kinda’ leadership, huh?

We will fix this when our candidate is elected and we add to our majority in Congress but the Republicans will call it “tax and spend welfare”.



http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/05/22/mccain-obama-spar-over-veterans-benefits/ McCain/Obama exchange.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1808161,00.html Time mag—McCain & vet problem

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-rips-nyt-for-misleading-editorial-2008-05-26.html Bush outrage at truth in editorial.

[wmbrew0206]

1. McCain supports a different GI Bill

Webb's Bill gives out such a high benefit package that the military is worried about retention.

If you have served than you know how important NCO's are. They run the military. The worry is that Webb's bill will pay out to anyone who has served two to four years (lets assume they made it to E-4) the same amount of money to go to college that they would make in the military. This will hurt your retention rate of arguably the most important group the military has.

McCain supported Graham's bill that also increases benefits but the benefits increase the longer you stay in. I think it caps at either 6 or 8 years.

Graham's bill originally was the only one to allow the benefits to be used by a spouse, but there was amendment put on Webb's that allowed this to happen.

I am hoping that Webb's bill is veto proof because I'm applying to MBA programs soon, but I do think it will have long term consequences in regard to retention.

[flamin lib]

2. There are two types of people in the military, always have been.

Career military and short timers. Career military are there for a whole different set of "benefits" than short timers. Things like career advancement, public service and long term retirement.

Short timers tend to the benefits of education, health care and the like.

Any short timer lost to the increased benefits will be replaced by a new one signing on to take advantage of the benefits. Not my surmise, from a military think tank that I can't quote or cite--just memory, sorry.

The experience of the all volunteer army after 'Nam was that retention wasn't an issue with the existing very generous GI bill.

History proves McCain (and the Pentagon) wrong.