McCain's Dishonesty On GI Bill

[NATO AIR]

First and foremost,
Why has it taken nearly seven years for the GI Bill to be updated to reflect (a) the increased cost of tuition and cost of living for the veteran student and (b) the far greater demands placed upon members of the military in a wartime environment (meaning less time to take advantage of in-service opportunities for education)? Why did so many veteran senators from both parties do jack for vets until James Webb was elected last year and started raising hell on vet issues?

Now we have John McCain, who certainly cares about veterans and has done a good deal for them, who is utilizing a dishonest argument lifted straight from the DOD talking points.

The Congressional Budget Office says the new GI bill proposed by Jim Webb would reduce retention by 16%, yet it also says it would boost recruitment by 16%.

John McCain's dishonest argument is as follows:

And he predicted that Webb's bill would reduce the military's retention rate by 16 percent.

"Encouraging people to choose to not become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly," he said."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/26/mccain_slams_webb_on_gi_bill_i.html

Where is his acknowledgment that it would also boost recruitment by 16%?

For the life of me, I cannot understand why McCain would piss on vets by accepting the DOD argument wholeheartedly without variation and reject Webb's GI Bill. He could have at least played the role of a middleman by paring down Webb's benefits while retaining them above the DOD demands.

[avatar4321]

i have a hard time believing McCain would piss on vets as well. Which makes me think that he knows something that isnt involved in this thread & blog.

Which tells me, withhold my judgment till i know what.

[Yurt]

In his remarks Monday, McCain made no direct mention of Obama but seemed to poke at him nonetheless. McCain said his was the right position rather than the politically expedient one, suggesting Obama was on the wrong side of the measure sponsored by Democratic Sen. Jim Webb.

...

I am running for the office of commander in chief. That is the highest privilege in this country, and it imposes the greatest responsibilities. And this is why I am committed to our bill, despite the support Senator Webb's bill has received," McCain, a Navy veteran and Vietnam prisoner of war, said at the New Mexico Veterans Memorial Monday. "It would be easier, much easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation."

However, McCain said he opposed Webb's measure because it would give the same benefit to everyone regardless of how many times he or she has enlisted. He said he feared that would depress reenlistments by those wanting to attend college after only a few years in uniform. McCain said the bill he favored would have increased scholarships based on length of service.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/381692.aspx

leave it to obama to be a political whore

[Pale Rider]

Mccain was an officer. I was enlisted, and even though I made rank fast, I would have had to sew on my Msgt stripe with eight years TIS to see the money a butter bar lieutenant made with one year TIS. Had I not had the medical problems that thwarted my career, I had plans to become an officer, since I had plans to life it anyway. Telling military personal that they should stay non-commissioned is just bull. It must be a way for the military cut their budget.

BUT... it does take an ACT OF CONGRESS to bust a stripe off either an E-8 or an E-9. That's a lot of pull. I had a line number to sew on E-7, (Msgt), when I got out, but never sewed it on. I got out an E-6, Tsgt. I was 32 years old.

[NATO AIR]

i have a hard time believing McCain would piss on vets as well. Which makes me think that he knows something that isnt involved in this thread & blog.

Which tells me, withhold my judgment till i know what.

I thought the same. Considering John Warner, Chuck Hagel, and Elizabeth Dole were leading figures in helping Webb finally bring it out of committee and into the broader legislative process, I no longer think so.

As a veteran, I personally feel it is a tad excessive. I would only provide E-5 married housing allowance (which is probably going to average 700-1100 a month) to veterans who are going to go back into the service or into the employ of DOD, State or Homeland Security. Everyone else would get E-3 married housing allowance which would be about 500-800, enough to cover an apartment of reasonable size anywhere in the country except NYC, San Fran and a few other major cities where exceptions could be made.

Nevertheless, McCain's position is not brave. If he had defied both DOD and the veteran senators like Webb and Warner, I would say it was because he pleased no one and did what he claims to do best, be the man in the middle forcing people to be reasonable. Instead, he adopted the DOD position immediately. You do piss on vets when you take DOD's side on such an important issue. Its not DOD's job to take care of vets, it is the VA's. DOD is there to fight wars and defend the country. Their say on such benefits is important but should not be the only one.

To pretend otherwise is to put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

[Yurt]

I thought the same. Considering John Warner, Chuck Hagel, and Elizabeth Dole were leading figures in helping Webb finally bring it out of committee and into the broader legislative process, I no longer think so.

As a veteran, I personally feel it is a tad excessive. I would only provide E-5 married housing allowance (which is probably going to average 700-1100 a month) to veterans who are going to go back into the service or into the employ of DOD, State or Homeland Security. Everyone else would get E-3 married housing allowance which would be about 500-800, enough to cover an apartment of reasonable size anywhere in the country except NYC, San Fran and a few other major cities where exceptions could be made.

Nevertheless, McCain's position is not brave. If he had defied both DOD and the veteran senators like Webb and Warner, I would say it was because he pleased no one and did what he claims to do best, be the man in the middle forcing people to be reasonable. Instead, he adopted the DOD position immediately. You do piss on vets when you take DOD's side on such an important issue. Its not DOD's job to take care of vets, it is the VA's. DOD is there to fight wars and defend the country. Their say on such benefits is important but should not be the only one.

To pretend otherwise is to put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

so mccain's stance is wrong? i am not in the military nor a vet, so i am interested in why you think his position is wrong since he seems to strongly believe in his position. i posted his defense a couple posts up...

[NATO AIR]

so mccain's stance is wrong? i am not in the military nor a vet, so i am interested in why you think his position is wrong since he seems to strongly believe in his position. i posted his defense a couple posts up...

Again, he's defending it without addressing the benefits to recruitment (16% increase).

As well, I think it needs to be revised, there need to be more incentives for people to return to the service (especially considering how useful a degree in anthropology, sociology, conflict studies, foreign languages, economics, urban planning, geography etc. would be in today and tomorrow's counterinsurgency, expeditionary military.

McCain doesn't talk about this... its take it or leave it, his plan focused on the people currently in the military (promoting transferability to family members) rather than the people getting out of the military, Webb's plan focused on the people leaving after doing their time but not wanting to make it a career.

It could do more for both if it were revised.

The GI Bill is an instrument to empower those leaving the service with education. Its not enough at this point. Were it to be more, the nation would be putting a good bet on the closest thing to a sure bet in today's universities; the highly motivated, mature student-veteran.

Right now, only 10-15% of people leaving the service honorably use the GI Bill at all before their 10 years of eligibility runs out. If this new GI bill could help boost that to 30-35%, it would turn out more graduates, helping the country (and the military) in a variety of ways.

Thus, my biggest issue here is McCain's (and by extension, the DOD) take it or leave it attitude. In comparison, the Webb-Warner GI Bill has extensive support, a veto-proof margin already in the Senate and a widely expected veto-overriding majority in the House (due to pressure from the VFW especially, which is generally known as a Republican-leaning organization) if Bush does try to veto it. Yet Webb has repeatedly shown he is open to suggestions and revisions, which he has done several times already in response to concerns brought up by Warner, Dole, Hagel and others.

We can tell then who is serious about the issue and doing the best for vets. Sadly, on this issue, McCain is off base.

As well, I return to my original point that I think may be part of the problem here. Every vet senator from both parties (McCain, Hagel, Warner, Inoyue, Kerry, Latenberg (the old-timer from NJ) ) has done very little for today's veterans since 9/11. Why all of a sudden all these measures brought forth by Webb and others in the last year taking care of veterans? What caused the difference here?

[WRL]

First and foremost,
Why has it taken nearly seven years for the GI Bill to be updated to reflect (a) the increased cost of tuition and cost of living for the veteran student and (b) the far greater demands placed upon members of the military in a wartime environment (meaning less time to take advantage of in-service opportunities for education)? Why did so many veteran senators from both parties do jack for vets until James Webb was elected last year and started raising hell on vet issues?

Now we have John McCain, who certainly cares about veterans and has done a good deal for them, who is utilizing a dishonest argument lifted straight from the DOD talking points.

The Congressional Budget Office says the new GI bill proposed by Jim Webb would reduce retention by 16%, yet it also says it would boost recruitment by 16%.

John McCain's dishonest argument is as follows:

And he predicted that Webb's bill would reduce the military's retention rate by 16 percent.

"Encouraging people to choose to not become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly," he said."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/26/mccain_slams_webb_on_gi_bill_i.html

Where is his acknowledgment that it would also boost recruitment by 16%?

For the life of me, I cannot understand why McCain would piss on vets by accepting the DOD argument wholeheartedly without variation and reject Webb's GI Bill. He could have at least played the role of a middleman by paring down Webb's benefits while retaining them above the DOD demands.

What are you talking about, Veterans and Veterans groups support McCain's position, you explain to me why a one term private should get the same education compensation as a three term Platoon Sargent, and that be fair, and I'll support Web's bill, which is simply partisan posturing as the democrats refused to allow a vote on McCain's version of the bill. Another part of McCain's bill Vets support is the 'transferability' of benifits to spouses and children.

Webb's bill, while being quickly drafted, poorly parsed, and passed under partisan arm twisting, is better than nothing, but it's real sad the democrats, who control how Congress runs, refused to co-operate with a man the stature of McCain, on veteran's issues.

[WRL]

Again, he's defending it without addressing the benefits to recruitment (16% increase).

As well, I think it needs to be revised, there need to be more incentives for people to return to the service (especially considering how useful a degree in anthropology, sociology, conflict studies, foreign languages, economics, urban planning, geography etc. would be in today and tomorrow's counterinsurgency, expeditionary military.

McCain doesn't talk about this... its take it or leave it, his plan focused on the people currently in the military (promoting transferability to family members) rather than the people getting out of the military, Webb's plan focused on the people leaving after doing their time but not wanting to make it a career.

It could do more for both if it were revised.

The GI Bill is an instrument to empower those leaving the service with education. Its not enough at this point. Were it to be more, the nation would be putting a good bet on the closest thing to a sure bet in today's universities; the highly motivated, mature student-veteran.

Right now, only 10-15% of people leaving the service honorably use the GI Bill at all before their 10 years of eligibility runs out. If this new GI bill could help boost that to 30-35%, it would turn out more graduates, helping the country (and the military) in a variety of ways.

Thus, my biggest issue here is McCain's (and by extension, the DOD) take it or leave it attitude. In comparison, the Webb-Warner GI Bill has extensive support, a veto-proof margin already in the Senate and a widely expected veto-overriding majority in the House (due to pressure from the VFW especially, which is generally known as a Republican-leaning organization) if Bush does try to veto it. Yet Webb has repeatedly shown he is open to suggestions and revisions, which he has done several times already in response to concerns brought up by Warner, Dole, Hagel and others.

We can tell then who is serious about the issue and doing the best for vets. Sadly, on this issue, McCain is off base.

As well, I return to my original point that I think may be part of the problem here. Every vet senator from both parties (McCain, Hagel, Warner, Inoyue, Kerry, Latenberg (the old-timer from NJ) ) has done very little for today's veterans since 9/11. Why all of a sudden all these measures brought forth by Webb and others in the last year taking care of veterans? What caused the difference here?

That's a guess at best, 16% isn't worth what you lose in experienced NCO's. What military mind supports gutting the NCO ranks for a 16% increase in privates?

[NATO AIR]

What are you talking about, Veterans and Veterans groups support McCain's position, you explain to me why a one term private should get the same education compensation as a three term Platoon Sargent, and that be fair, and I'll support Web's bill, which is simply partisan posturing as the democrats refused to allow a vote on McCain's version of the bill. Another part of McCain's bill Vets support is the 'transferability' of benifits to spouses and children.

Webb's bill, while being quickly drafted, poorly parsed, and passed under partisan arm twisting, is better than nothing, but it's real sad the democrats, who control how Congress runs, refused to co-operate with a man the stature of McCain, on veteran's issues.

1. Vets groups support McCain's position on this? Who?
The largest groups (including those who lean Republican/conservative and have for years like the VFW and American Legion)

http://www.legion.org/homepage.php

http://www.iava.org/

http://www.vfw.org/

The front page of all three tout the Webb-Warner GI Bill. I won't even count the democrat leaning Votevets.org which is doing the same.

2. The benefits of military service (healthcare, living allowances, decent pay, 30 days annual leave, free college to 12-18 credit hours a year) are more than enough to equal out concerns over a 12 year E-6/E-7 leaving the service versus a one term (3-6 years) member. Our military members on active duty are well taken care of by and large. I will probably never have it as good in the civilian work sector as I did in today's military.
Plus, this is a GI Bill that EVERYONE will benefit from. It boosts the GI Bill after years of dithering over updating it.

3. I do agree specific, generous incentives and avenues should be in the Webb-Warner GI Bill to encourage vet-students to either rejoin the military or work for the federal government to support the war effort and our nation's goals. McCain and co. tried to impose DOD talking points/goals on the bill and 75 senators were not having that. They came to negotiate, DOD & McCain came to demand. I think the Webb-Warner bill does not do enough to attract folks back to the service but then again, the Army has been touting for the last few years the number of people who have rejoined after leaving the service for school. The better educated soldiers, especially in key fields, the better.

4. Webb's bill has been in the works since January 07 when he joined the Senate.. he literally hit the ground running on it, unlike the dozen or more vets in the Senate from both parties who had years to do something like this and did not. I'll hit the Dems doubly hard on this since Kerry and co. could have pushed hard for this in 02 and did not.

[NATO AIR]

That's a guess at best, 16% isn't worth what you lose in experienced NCO's. What military mind supports gutting the NCO ranks for a 16% increase in privates?

That's not exactly a guess from anybody here, not to mention Webb or McCain. The 16% retention rate negative and 16% recruitment rate positive came from a Congressional Budget Office study requested on the issue by the Pentagon.

Besides, its not all experienced NCO's who get out. You have a good number of E-3's in the military who leave, as well as your most junior NCO, your E-4's.

I left as an E-5 in the Navy and we are known as the trendsetters, we either stay in or we get out after our first term. Our senior NCO's and officers always told us to get out and go to school or stay in for a second term if we weren't serious about school. They understand the importance of education both within and out of the service.

The war vets at my American Legion post are hardly fans of Obama but love what Jim Webb has done and ask the same question I ask: where were the other senators from both parties for so many years on this since 9/11?

The GI Bill was & is a program designed for people leaving the service, whether after 1 term or at their retirement. That said, it was and is a hell of an effective recruiting tool. Boosting the GI Bill now will assist in the recruiting effort for the Army and help keep up recruitment once the Marines expand as planned by candidates of both parties next year and in '10-11.

[NATO AIR]

A last note too about incentives. The GI Bill only has a 10-15% participation rate to completion of degree at this point. There are a wide array of factors responsible for that, but a key one is this. Its benefits can't compete right now with the benefit of the jobs market for some veterans.

Of the 6 people who worked for me over the past 3 years who left the Navy, 4 have exceedingly excellent jobs paying extremely well and only 1 of those 4 is able to balance full-time work with full-time school (something I do that is difficult but not impossible, ask any single mom).

1 is a drunk and the other was injured on the job his first year and collects disability.

Many vets try going to school and take up a part-time job that is either incredibly easy (like working in the service sector, particularly retail) and hence boring or go part-time in a technical position, a decision that is especially vulnerable to downturns and cost-cutting. Often, they'll outperform civilian workers simply by (a) showing up to work on time every day and (b) actually taking pride and initiative in their work and responsibilities. Before long, they're offered management or supervisory roles and then progress even further. When you're making $50-60k at UPS or Home Depot as a 23-27 year old, the idea of college starts to be less appealing, at least for the moment. Only later on once they've hit an area where they need a college degree (usually years down the line) or more advanced education do they wish they had gone ahead and gotten it before their GI Bill education benefits expired at 10 years.

You need to make going to school more financially acceptable at this point than working full-time. It won't work for most people but again, getting GI Bill participation up to 30-40% would be huge for this country, the economy, the government and veterans themselves.

[ranger]

A last note too about incentives. The GI Bill only has a 10-15% participation rate to completion of degree at this point. There are a wide array of factors responsible for that, but a key one is this. Its benefits can't compete right now with the benefit of the jobs market for some veterans.

Of the 6 people who worked for me over the past 3 years who left the Navy, 4 have exceedingly excellent jobs paying extremely well and only 1 of those 4 is able to balance full-time work with full-time school (something I do that is difficult but not impossible, ask any single mom).

1 is a drunk and the other was injured on the job his first year and collects disability.

Many vets try going to school and take up a part-time job that is either incredibly easy (like working in the service sector, particularly retail) and hence boring or go part-time in a technical position, a decision that is especially vulnerable to downturns and cost-cutting. Often, they'll outperform civilian workers simply by (a) showing up to work on time every day and (b) actually taking pride and initiative in their work and responsibilities. Before long, they're offered management or supervisory roles and then progress even further. When you're making $50-60k at UPS or Home Depot as a 23-27 year old, the idea of college starts to be less appealing, at least for the moment. Only later on once they've hit an area where they need a college degree (usually years down the line) or more advanced education do they wish they had gone ahead and gotten it before their GI Bill education benefits expired at 10 years.

You need to make going to school more financially acceptable at this point than working full-time. It won't work for most people but again, getting GI Bill participation up to 30-40% would be huge for this country, the economy, the government and veterans themselves.

There's your problem. Should have got some Army guys.

[bullypulpit]

What are you talking about, Veterans and Veterans groups support McCain's position, you explain to me why a one term private should get the same education compensation as a three term Platoon Sargent, and that be fair, and I'll support Web's bill, which is simply partisan posturing as the democrats refused to allow a vote on McCain's version of the bill. Another part of McCain's bill Vets support is the 'transferability' of benifits to spouses and children.

Webb's bill, while being quickly drafted, poorly parsed, and passed under partisan arm twisting, is better than nothing, but it's real sad the democrats, who control how Congress runs, refused to co-operate with a man the stature of McCain, on veteran's issues.

Care to give us a specific example? Which veterans groups...? Just what is McCain's plan...? Please...Do tell.

But more to the point, the stance taken by Bush and his groom of stool, McCain, is little different from the GOP stance on abortion...Love the fetus, but once they're born, they're on their own. Same with the military...love the soldiers, marines sailors and airmen while they're serving, but once they're out, fuck 'em...they're on their own.

The current GI bill, which I benefited from was wholly suitable and adequate for a peace time military. But with the increased operational demands, those who serve deserve better. Bush keeps calling our forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq "The next greatest generation", so why not give them the same opportunities to become that generation that the veterans returning from WW II had?

[Kathianne]

Care to give us a specific example? Which veterans groups...? Just what is McCain's plan...? Please...Do tell.

But more to the point, the stance taken by Bush and his groom of stool, McCain, is little different from the GOP stance on abortion...Love the fetus, but once they're born, they're on their own. Same with the military...love the soldiers, marines sailors and airmen while they're serving, but once they're out, fuck 'em...they're on their own.

The current GI bill, which I benefited from was wholly suitable and adequate for a peace time military. But with the increased operational demands, those who serve deserve better. Bush keeps calling our forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq "The next greatest generation", so why not give them the same opportunities to become that generation that the veterans returning from WW II had?

I'm for giving the vets all the benefits possible within our means. Common sense though says that benefits post service, increase with service time volunteered.

Volunteered is the key difference between those from WWII and today. The draft in WWII literally ripped young men from their families, today the young men and women volunteer. I believe that is why so much political posturing from some of those on the Democrat side, play with resuming it.

The transferability aspect of the McCain plan is such a good idea, one wonders why it wasn't brought up before.

[bullypulpit]

I'm for giving the vets all the benefits possible within our means. Common sense though says that benefits post service, increase with service time volunteered.

Volunteered is the key difference between those from WWII and today. The draft in WWII literally ripped young men from their families, today the young men and women volunteer. I believe that is why so much political posturing from some of those on the Democrat side, play with resuming it.

The transferability aspect of the McCain plan is such a good idea, one wonders why it wasn't brought up before.

And they aren't being ripped away from their families with extended deployments, multiple deployments and stop loss orders under this administration...during this war? Please, dear lady, such sophistry is beneath you.

I'm certain WRL can defend his/her stance...or not.

[Psychoblues]

McCain pisses on the troops but more especially the veterans. So, what's new in the Republican Party?

[Kathianne]

And they aren't being ripped away from their families with extended deployments, multiple deployments and stop loss orders under this administration...during this war? Please, dear lady, such sophistry is beneath you.

I'm certain WRL can defend his/her stance...or not.ripped away? No, they choose their route. You don't understand the difference? You really think someone serving 4 years should get the same benefits as someone serving 16?

[Psychoblues]

I once volunteered to ba a plumbers helper. I had no idea the extent of the exploitation of my willingness.

[Psychoblues]

You weren't the first to be section 8'ed, pr.




Mccain was an officer. I was enlisted, and even though I made rank fast, I would have had to sew on my Msgt stripe with eight years TIS to see the money a butter bar lieutenant made with one year TIS. Had I not had the medical problems that thwarted my career, I had plans to become an officer, since I had plans to life it anyway. Telling military personal that they should stay non-commissioned is just bull. It must be a way for the military cut their budget.

BUT... it does take an ACT OF CONGRESS to bust a stripe off either an E-8 or an E-9. That's a lot of pull. I had a line number to sew on E-7, (Msgt), when I got out, but never sewed it on. I got out an E-6, Tsgt. I was 32 years old.

There are lots of nuts other than you, can you dig it?

[NATO AIR]

ripped away? No, they choose their route. You don't understand the difference? You really think someone serving 4 years should get the same benefits as someone serving 16?

The key you are missing is the extensive benefits you get on active duty.

Proviso 1: You won't spend your whole career in Iraq or overseas, you'll eventually get what we in the Navy call "shore duty", but what is essentially duty with less of an op tempo. Also, most of the military has not deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan, but remains in the US or abroad in a place like Germany or Japan where life is far less hectic.

Right now, the bare minimum (and that's the Navy, because they're a-holes like that) is that on a yearly basis your service will pay for at least 12-18 credit hours of class with TA (Tuition Assistance). All kinds of waivers and hookups exist where servicemembers can exceed that, have books paid for and receive extra time off now and then to help out with school.

This alone has gotten better in the past 10 years. I worked for a lot of senior NCO's who were well on their way to their bachelors and met a lot of officers who had their masters already. All of this on the military's dime. The junior NCO's like myself are increasingly required to take college courses substantially to be considered for certain promotions and the pressure from above to make this a firm requirement for advancement to senior NCO status is building up.

So on education, the active duty servicemember is well taken care of. When they get out of the service after 12 years or so (which is rare, most people stay the full 20 years now for the full retirement unless they just get tired of Iraq deployments or have something better for them in the civilian world), they've already experienced substantial education benefits if they kept their eyes and ears open and had the motivation to do it in their free time.

Transfer of benefits is huge but that is a reform that can be done by DOD in-house. Enshrining it in law is nice but moves have already been afoot within DOD to change regulations on this. That's why Webb and Republican John Warner (who is the real expert on GI Bill and veterans benefits remaining in the Senate) didn't make it a priority because the services were and could take care of it themselves.

Now, as the CBO report notes, there would be a 16% increase in recruitment. I would estimate this to actually be significantly higher if this GI Bill gets passed because that understates the talent of the recruiters and the effect of increasing college costs will have on families in the coming decade.

Also, the cost to retention is natural anyway and is probably overstated because the military is going to be growing under either McCain or Obama and will attract more short-termers. People leave after 3-6 years all the time, and that's good for the military's bottom line years down the road (no responsibility for the type of retirement benefits that will be a HUGE problem for the VA and military budgets in the future, especially with so many combat casualties surviving). Plus these folks can still be activated and used in the event of an emergency.

Now, as I said before, the Webb-Warner GI Bill is missing incentives to encourage people to return to the military as officers or NCO's. That needs to be addressed and would also help retention efforts as well as strengthening the force with smarter and more expert soldiers, Marines & airmen. Especially when you consider the growth in the Army & Marines is going to come primarily in the civil affairs and counterinsurgency areas, roles where college education is a big force multiplier.

Honestly, McCain is running for President and can't focus on the details like he'd like to probably. As well, he probably feels he can't be the middleman he often is on subjects like this. So he listened to the talking points DOD gave him and decided they made more sense than Webb's at the moment.

No matter what he thinks though, even as President, he's not going to win against the VFW, American Legion, IAVA and the millions of directly angry voters (and tens of millions of pissed citizens who get energized by these types of issues) they're going to bring to the table on this issue over the next 2-3 years. Veteran groups are getting muscular and mobilized like we haven't seen since WW2 and the politicians and active duty leaders are going to get used to losing a lot more arguments about vet benefits than before.

[WRL]

Care to give us a specific example? Which veterans groups...? Just what is McCain's plan...? Please...Do tell.

But more to the point, the stance taken by Bush and his groom of stool, McCain, is little different from the GOP stance on abortion...Love the fetus, but once they're born, they're on their own. Same with the military...love the soldiers, marines sailors and airmen while they're serving, but once they're out, fuck 'em...they're on their own.

The current GI bill, which I benefited from was wholly suitable and adequate for a peace time military. But with the increased operational demands, those who serve deserve better. Bush keeps calling our forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq "The next greatest generation", so why not give them the same opportunities to become that generation that the veterans returning from WW II had?

groom of stool, give me a break. McCain's plan has a sliding scale, the longer you serve, the more in benefits you receive, as retaining NCO's, should always be a top priority for an all volunteer Army. Which is the supreme difference between today, and WWII era. To modernize the GI bill, we need to address that serving two years, gets you the same benefits as serving ten, which is profoundly unfair. Also McCain's bill adds the option to transfer your benefits to your spouse, or children, which I've wanted for awhile.

[Kathianne]

The key you are missing is the extensive benefits you get on active duty.

...

As usual, I'll defer to your direct knowledge. At the same time, there are many that were serving prior to 9/11. Many joined and are still in today. There are always the newbies, whatever the forum. ;)

If all are 'active duty' or have some time as, some not, should they receive the same benefits? If someone didn't serve 'active duty', because their service was more valuable here, rather than there, should they or their family be penalized?

I'm probably missing something, just not sure what.

[WRL]

And they aren't being ripped away from their families with extended deployments, multiple deployments and stop loss orders under this administration...during this war? Please, dear lady, such sophistry is beneath you.

I'm certain WRL can defend his/her stance...or not.

The only one's who don't understand 'stop loss' are those who never served, I knew about stop loss, way before today's war on terror, it's not a Bush administration policy, it's in your contract. You should also know, it's a mandatory 8 year enlistment regardless of active years requirement, you go to the IRR's to finish out the 8 years, which is an inactive component, still available for call up.

[NATO AIR]

As usual, I'll defer to your direct knowledge. At the same time, there are many that were serving prior to 9/11. Many joined and are still in today. There are always the newbies, whatever the forum. ;)

If all are 'active duty' or have some time as, some not, should they receive the same benefits? If someone didn't serve 'active duty', because their service was more valuable here, rather than there, should they or their family be penalized?

I'm probably missing something, just not sure what.

We have it so good on active duty compared to the folks in the Guard & Reserve!

Sliding scale isn't a bad idea, but you need to take care of the bottom of that scale amply because if you don't, people will get the impression that (a) your service is underappreciated as a one-termer and (b) the gov't doesn't understand your needs getting out.

The real issue w/ GI Bill money is this... you should go to a public school for free as a veteran, whether you served 3 or 20 years. I'm sorry, but it should just be that way. That's the least this country can do for people who served. Empower them (and remember, only 10-15% now even are able to take advantage of the GI Bill when they get out for whatever reasons) with education that enables them to translate that military discipline and experience (and leadership) into civilian success.

The housing stipend (what the military calls BAH) would be the real sliding scale benefit, as well as perhaps a living stipend. Say you spend 3 years in the Army. In addition to going to school no cost, you'd get $500 dollars a month to pay for your housing (similar to the amount a married non-NCO might receive if base housing was not available) and $250 dollars living stipend.

If you spent 10 years in the Marines, you'd get $1200 for housing and $600 dollars for a stipend.

You can mix and match the variants, but I find this to be a more effective way to do it, in addition to loads of incentives to get people to rejoin after getting a college degree, and smaller incentives to get people to join DOD, State, DHS or some other federal government entity related to defense or national service of another kind.

[Kathianne]

We have it so good on active duty compared to the folks in the Guard & Reserve!

Sliding scale isn't a bad idea, but you need to take care of the bottom of that scale amply because if you don't, people will get the impression that (a) your service is underappreciated as a one-termer and (b) the gov't doesn't understand your needs getting out.

The real issue w/ GI Bill money is this... you should go to a public school for free as a veteran, whether you served 3 or 20 years. I'm sorry, but it should just be that way. That's the least this country can do for people who served. Empower them (and remember, only 10-15% now even are able to take advantage of the GI Bill when they get out for whatever reasons) with education that enables them to translate that military discipline and experience (and leadership) into civilian success.

The housing stipend (what the military calls BAH) would be the real sliding scale benefit, as well as perhaps a living stipend. Say you spend 3 years in the Army. In addition to going to school no cost, you'd get $500 dollars a month to pay for your housing (similar to the amount a married non-NCO might receive if base housing was not available) and $250 dollars living stipend.

If you spent 10 years in the Marines, you'd get $1200 for housing and $600 dollars for a stipend.

You can mix and match the variants, but I find this to be a more effective way to do it, in addition to loads of incentives to get people to rejoin after getting a college degree, and smaller incentives to get people to join DOD, State, DHS or some other federal government entity related to defense or national service of another kind.

Eddie, YOU may have had it 'so good', though I know the cost to a degree. I think anyone from the guard or reserve called up, which is sizeable, would have same benefits as enlisted, no?

IF, and I don't know that it's happened, perhaps you may be able to help, someone from guard/reserve is NOT sent out of country, but is forced full time to serve here, for whatever reason, they should be treated via benefits as if they were enlisted. I'd agree with that.

On the other hand, serve 4 years/serve 20, there should be a difference in benefits. IMHO.

[NATO AIR]

Eddie, YOU may have had it 'so good', though I know the cost to a degree. I think anyone from the guard or reserve called up, which is sizeable, would have same benefits as enlisted, no?

IF, and I don't know that it's happened, perhaps you may be able to help, someone from guard/reserve is NOT sent out of country, but is forced full time to serve here, for whatever reason, they should be treated via benefits as if they were enlisted. I'd agree with that.

On the other hand, serve 4 years/serve 20, there should be a difference in benefits. IMHO.

There is and always has been a difference in everything but the GI Bill.

The GI Bill is and always will be mostly a recruiting tool in today's day and age but also an attempt since WW2 for the country to take care of its veterans leaving the service and reintegrating into the civilian world.

McCain is dishonest in acting like this bill doesn't take care of everybody. Everybody gets the same shake from the GI Bill because the lifers are taken very well care of by the military.

Their kids are paid for, their wives taken care of. Health care, housing, education, professional training, etc. Not to mention retirement benefits out the Yin Yang when they retire.

The people getting out after 3-6 years get the GI Bill (expires after 10 years) and a potential VA home loan. That's great but that's it. Do we need to mention once again that the GI Bill only covers half to 60% of the cost of college and even less in some places? And again, only 10-15% of current vets utilize the GI Bill. I bet its not because 85% don't want to go to college.

The lifers are well taken care of. Its the short-termers who are right now in need. You can justify doing less for them by saying they only served a few years but so did the vets in WW2 and they were well taken care of for their service. So should the post 9/11 generation. The lifers are well taken care of, despite McCain & co's dishonest prattling about them.

This country will be stupidly not placing a safe bet on its hardest working young people if it doesn't do more for its young people.

[NATO AIR]

Eddie, YOU may have had it 'so good', though I know the cost to a degree. I think anyone from the guard or reserve called up, which is sizeable, would have same benefits as enlisted, no?

IF, and I don't know that it's happened, perhaps you may be able to help, someone from guard/reserve is NOT sent out of country, but is forced full time to serve here, for whatever reason, they should be treated via benefits as if they were enlisted. I'd agree with that.

On the other hand, serve 4 years/serve 20, there should be a difference in benefits. IMHO.

The benefits for the reserve and guard are not up to par. Warner, McCain, Webb, Hagel and others have not done enough for them considering they've been the real backbone of the war effort. They still are not doing enough for them. That is a disgrace to me, though I respect Webb far more than any of them because he's only been in the Senate for 18 months and has gotten a lot done already and is pushing for even more.

[WRL]

There is and always has been a difference in everything but the GI Bill.

The GI Bill is and always will be mostly a recruiting tool in today's day and age but also an attempt since WW2 for the country to take care of its veterans leaving the service and reintegrating into the civilian world.

McCain is dishonest in acting like this bill doesn't take care of everybody. Everybody gets the same shake from the GI Bill because the lifers are taken very well care of by the military.

Their kids are paid for, their wives taken care of. Health care, housing, education, professional training, etc. Not to mention retirement benefits out the Yin Yang when they retire.

The people getting out after 3-6 years get the GI Bill (expires after 10 years) and a potential VA home loan. That's great but that's it. Do we need to mention once again that the GI Bill only covers half to 60% of the cost of college and even less in some places? And again, only 10-15% of current vets utilize the GI Bill. I bet its not because 85% don't want to go to college.

The lifers are well taken care of. Its the short-termers who are right now in need. You can justify doing less for them by saying they only served a few years but so did the vets in WW2 and they were well taken care of for their service. So should the post 9/11 generation. The lifers are well taken care of, despite McCain & co's dishonest prattling about them.

This country will be stupidly not placing a safe bet on its hardest working young people if it doesn't do more for its young people.

I've served on active duty and this just isn't accurate. First of all you list active duty benefits while serving, and compared them to a bare bones list of all the assistance available to enlistees who only serve one term, and have gotten out, and then you call someone else out on being dishonest.

also...


Forty percent of all veterans are eligible for GI Bill and other veteran’s benefits but they do not use them.

http://www.usmilitary.com/1056/go-beyond-veterans-gi-bill-benefits/

And while I agree possible research into why the high number could be called for, however I'm not dishonest in my debate, and exaggerate the number from 40% to 85%, more than doubling the accurate answer.

[WRL]

The benefits for the reserve and guard are not up to par. Warner, McCain, Webb, Hagel and others have not done enough for them considering they've been the real backbone of the war effort. They still are not doing enough for them. That is a disgrace to me, though I respect Webb far more than any of them because he's only been in the Senate for 18 months and has gotten a lot done already and is pushing for even more.

Ok, once more I have to take offense, as I said earlier I'm a veteran myself, USRA 25Q, MCTSOM, :salute: I have all the respect in the world for anyone who wears the uniform, always have, but to call the reserve and guard the backbone of the war effort, it's just not accurate. I'm sorry, but those who get called up, they are support units, and then get to go home, to school, or whatever, and to say they are the backbone, when the active/ RA component spends 24/7 365 maintaining war ready status, be they FTX's, maintenance, repair, and keeping a Chain of Command who has more than a few weeks a year practice on their equipment, they are the backbone or the Army. Not to disparage any-one's service. Some components fit others better than others, however, the backbone of the Army is not it's mandatory 2 weeks a year, component. It's the active component, I mean, most reserve units are set up as support units, so you're logic really escapes me.

And as far as Webb, all I've seen is someone playing politics with our troops, as they, the Democrats refused to even allow a vote on McCain's version, nor compromise the two bills, in other words they where playing politics, political maneuvers to block floor votes and such, with our troops once more.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, it's foolish to give the same education benefits to Private as a Sargent First Class. It's how you get some many people in the service, who had no idea they might get sent to war by joining the Military, yeah go figure. And those people throughout the ranks are a liability more than an asset.

[Classact]

First and foremost,
Why has it taken nearly seven years for the GI Bill to be updated to reflect (a) the increased cost of tuition and cost of living for the veteran student and (b) the far greater demands placed upon members of the military in a wartime environment (meaning less time to take advantage of in-service opportunities for education)? Why did so many veteran senators from both parties do jack for vets until James Webb was elected last year and started raising hell on vet issues?

Now we have John McCain, who certainly cares about veterans and has done a good deal for them, who is utilizing a dishonest argument lifted straight from the DOD talking points.

The Congressional Budget Office says the new GI bill proposed by Jim Webb would reduce retention by 16%, yet it also says it would boost recruitment by 16%.

John McCain's dishonest argument is as follows:

And he predicted that Webb's bill would reduce the military's retention rate by 16 percent.

"Encouraging people to choose to not become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly," he said."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/26/mccain_slams_webb_on_gi_bill_i.html

Where is his acknowledgment that it would also boost recruitment by 16%?

For the life of me, I cannot understand why McCain would piss on vets by accepting the DOD argument wholeheartedly without variation and reject Webb's GI Bill. He could have at least played the role of a middleman by paring down Webb's benefits while retaining them above the DOD demands.McCain supports a new GI bill. For your argument of 16% loss v. 16% gain... If you had a company that had progressively commanding jobs and you offered a similar employment initiative what do you think would happen? All of the new employees "with initiative" would take the education package and leave, and those that find more school as a burden would stay with your firm adding to their longevity leaving you with less motivated employees to choose supervisors from.

The basic Webb bill was a political ploy that will never become law. It will die next week in the House of Representatives, the Democrats will almost all vote against it killing the bill.

The reason the bill will fail is because it is not a product of the congress but a product of a half dozen individuals... there were no committee meetings, no amendments by Republicans or Democrats. Leadership closed down debate on the trillions over decades bill to the point that you vote against "it" or for "it" and "it" is a political package produced by maybe 6 lawmakers that shut out all the rest unless they vote no to be put in political ad's in their home states. Politics at its ugliest!

[Psychoblues]

Appears to be unanimous!!!!!!! I think you all despise McCain's pissing on the troops and Veterans as much as I do!!!!!!!!!!!

[Classact]

Appears to be unanimous!!!!!!! I think you all despise McCain's pissing on the troops and Veterans as much as I do!!!!!!!!!!!Guess you missed my post or just put it on ignore. By Tuesday the Democrats will vote against the Webb GI Bill killing it dead.

[Psychoblues]

I caught it, unclassy. Did you catch the rest of the story? Don't blame the disrespect of McCain for our troops on anyone other than McCain. He can speak for himself. Are you speaking for Democrats? I doubt it.

[Classact]

I caught it, unclassy. Did you catch the rest of the story? Don't blame the disrespect of McCain for our troops on anyone other than McCain. He can speak for himself. Are you speaking for Democrats? I doubt it.Turn on C=SPAN today and see Nancy Pelosi squirm as the Democrats kill the GI Bill, the fun starts at 2:00 PM Eastern.

[Classact]

I caught it, unclassy. Did you catch the rest of the story? Don't blame the disrespect of McCain for our troops on anyone other than McCain. He can speak for himself. Are you speaking for Democrats? I doubt it.The Democrats saying they care for the troops is like your girlfriend telling you she's taking blow job classes because she loves you!