The New York Times editorial, however, notes that George Bush and John McCain opposed the bill:
President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. He worries that if the traditional path to college for service members since World War II is improved and expanded for the post-9/11 generation, too many people will take it.
He is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.
So lavish with other people’s sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.
Thankfully, the new G.I. Bill has strong bipartisan support in Congress. The House passed it by a veto-proof margin this month, and last week the Senate followed suit, approving it as part of a military financing bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Senate version was drafted by two Vietnam veterans, Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska. They argue that benefits paid under the existing G.I. Bill have fallen far behind the rising costs of college.
Their bill would pay full tuition and other expenses at a four-year public university for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11.
McCain, according to Matthew Yglesias, also has a long history of opposing increased spending on veterans.
I am wondering if Democrats leadership and Bush’s stinginess will affect/or are affecting how military members and their families view politics and the American political parties. Will it have a long-term impact on American politics?
How does this bill deal with this situation? I agree, though, that George W. Bush treats soldiers not like heros who deserve thanks, gratitude and the best of care – but with contempt, as cannon fodder.
A dollar saved is a dollar saved.
It seems this money just goes to the colleges. Can a GI get it just to get the “other expenses”, without having to also enroll in a college? I hope this money isn’t all going to end up in the pockets of all the professors and graduate students that just need people to teach. A way to ensure that the money benefits GI’s and not colleges is to say that colleges will lose their gov’t funding if they don’t give free classes to GI’s.
I don’t know all the answers to these questions, but a summary of the bill can be found here.
<
p>The money would be paid by service members to the college in the case of tuition and housing (and separate support would be provided for each). Forcing colleges to accept free tuition for recent vets seems like a bizarre idea, and not consistent with the success of the first GI bill.
If the university isn’t going to get reimbursement for the student, they have far less incentive for admissions to accept that student. You can’t eliminate the admissions office, or we’d have a serious problem of veterans dropping/failing out of school by their third year.
to defend some pretty unpalatable positions.
<
p>McCain’s recent bitter comments about Obama having not served in the military as in some way making him disqualified (or less qualified) to weigh in on these questions is unfortunate and a tendency that can be exploited going forward.
<
p>Obama is always careful to recognize McCain’s service and courage before he takes on McCain’s positions. He will need to continue to take that line. But, he should never let McCain off the hook on these questions just because of McCain’s distinguised record.
<
p>If McCain continues to press Obama’s lack of service, Obama should come back at him like so:
<
p>– John McCain is an American hero, but his distinguished military record cannot hide his poor judgment on military matters, from Iraq to how we treat the brave men and women who return from Iraq. It is on those questions that he should be judged, on his support for a war without end, for diatribes instead of dialogue, for charges instead of change.
<
p>- He says I have no right to speak out for veterans because I never served in the military. And yet, even though he served, he seems blind to the conditions our current veterans face. You would think as a veteran he would do everything he can for these people and yet instead of acting for their interests he accuses me of ignorance in supporting them.
<
p>- John McCain is a hero, but his position on how to treat our veterans today is far from heroic.
<
p>Maybe a bit harsh but McCain seems to enjoy questioning Obama’s manhood (he wouldn’t be saying Hillary can’t speak out on veterans issues would he?), so I think Obama has to strike back on that kind of crap.
Good to point out how the contemporary GOP loves sending kids to war but not paying the bill when they come home.
…that they see the people of the United States in an adversarial light. The don’t see themselves as working for the people but as using citizens as pawns for their own gain. Certainly the Republicans don’t have a monopoly on this viewpoint, but are the most blatant example.
<
p>I can’t find it now, but I read that with what the government pays for recruitment advertising they could send any soldier to any college that would accept them and pay full tuition. We forget the the WW2 GI Bill not only helped the veterans, but also helped the country develop a college trained society that advanced business, engineering, medicine, science, art. (I can think of a HBS MBA that it would have been wasted on.)
<
p>Should we have celebrated the sacrifice of America’s Commander in Chief that selflessly gave up golf to honor his service people? (What a guy! Golf!?!? -You really can’t make this stuff up!)
There was an editorial cartoon published many years ago that showed Reagan speaking to an antiabortion group when a baby crawls up and tugs on his leg and he says “Buzz off, kid. Once you’re born, you’re on your own.”
<
p>Different issue. Same GOP.
I wonder how long current and former military members are going to vote GOP. I think they have been voting this way lately because the GOP has had a “muscular” foreign policy, more willing than the Democrats to use force to settle differences.
<
p>However, if a Democratic candidate really hammers this point about how poorly the GOP does treat the military, it should be possible to sway this block to the Dems, at least to some degree. This would be sort of like the way the GOP gained among evangelicals by emphasizing the abortion issue.
<
p>The bottom line is that our troops are doing us a great service. We should not send them to war unless absolutely necessary, and we should take care of them back home. These positions are far more closely aligned with the current Dems than the GOP.
Thanks for this post! Debate on the new GI bill demonstrates the difference between supporting the troops and supporting the war.
<
p>Here’s how stingy the current benefits are: Troops have to pay a nonrefundable contribution of $1200 out of their first paychecks to even qualify. The benefits would pay less than half the cost of public college, and less than a year at most local colleges. And a lot of returning National Guard and Reservists come back from multiple tours to find that they don’t even get that much. The benefit is so meager that, of the soldiers who pay the initial contribution, almost a third never sign up for the benefits.
<
p>That’s the system the president and McCain are defending because it “encourages” re-enlistment by making outside prospects so hard.
<
p>By comparison, the 1944 GI bill paid tuition, fees, books, and living expenses. It provided low-interest mortgages and help starting businesses.
<
p>It didn’t just help veterans. It doubled enrollment in higher education and expanded America’s educated workforce. It created a building boom that helped fuel American prosperity.
<
p>Here’s a good site about the new GI bill:
http://www.gibill2008.org/abou…
It reports that all the opponents in the Senate were Republicans. It would be instructive to compare the votes on this bill and on attempts to end the war.
I served 4 years in the Navy a looooong time ago. 1974-78. Due to the fact the Vietnam War was still going on I have status as a Vietnam Era veteran. At one point timing made a difference with “war time” and “peacetime” vets getting different benefits. At any rate I got $360 per month while attending school as a married individual with no children. I was free to use the money as I saw fit. At the same time Massachusetts offered free tuition to any state school so I went that route. GI bill had time limits both in how many years worth of benefits you could get, 5 years, and how many years you had to use it, around 10. The state benefits do not end and I have used them as recently as a few years ago. As far as tuition versus fees for state schools tuition goes into/comes out of the general fund and fees stay at the school. That’s why fees are so high. Harvard has high tuition and low fees.