April 30, 2008
McCain's Support Remains Elusive for Backers of GI Bill
Sen. James H. Webb Jr., a Virginia Democrat, has secured 58 co-sponsors for his legislative effort to expand education benefits for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, only two votes shy of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. But there’s one crucial sponsor he hasn’t been able to get: fellow Vietnam veteran John McCain.
Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has come under intense pressure from veterans groups to endorse Mr. Webb’s bill, which would cover up to the full cost of a four-year education at a public college. Supporters see Mr. McCain’s backing as key to the bill’s prospects.
But the senator, who often touts his military credentials on the campaign trail, has so far refused to sign on, and last week said he will co-sponsor a less costly Republican alternative. That bill, which has far fewer co-sponsors than Mr. Webb’s bill, would provide a smaller initial benefit but raise the award after 12 years of service to encourage re-enlistment. The Defense Department has warned that providing too generous an educational benefit could harm retention rates.
In an interview with the Capitol Hill publication Politico Mr. McCain said that “there are fundamental differences” between Mr. Webb’s bill and the proposed alternative.
“He creates a new bureaucracy and new rules,” he said. “His bill offers the same benefits whether you stay three years or longer. We want to have a sliding scale to increase retention.”
But supporters of Senator Webb’s measure aren’t giving up. Their bill is likely to be attached to a war spending measure that Congress is expected to take up soon, and Mr. Webb is closing in on the crucial 60 votes.
Kelly Field | Posted on Wednesday April 30, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Obama 'Out of His League' With Tar Heel Basketball Players
Next: Obama, UNC Dribble Around NCAA Rules
I don’t have a problem with Webb’s bill, but McCain’s bill seems much more responsible to me. It’s less expensive, and it gives the service member who commits 12 years a bigger benefit than the one who commits only three years. What’s not to like?
— Tracy G. Apr 30, 04:42 PM #
If the sliding scale gains traction, I hope it provides extra credit for combat duty. Three years in Iraq is worth a free ride at a public university.
— Patrick Gorman Apr 30, 05:35 PM #
I see good arguments on both sides, but the time frame McCain proposes for his bill leaves little doubt about how long he believes we’ll be in Iraq. I agree with Patrick that 3 years in combat is MORE than enough to justify a full ride at a public university.
— Al Apr 30, 07:00 PM #
I think a more important issue is Secretary Gate’s response that giving our military good benefits is a bad thing. It shows a fundamental philosophy that he sees the Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine not as a citizen that has sacrificed himself and his family for our freedom, but as a purchased resource.
A good G.I. Bill will attract new recruits. Even if they leave after one tour, they become ambassadors for the military to attract more to serve. Our WWII veterans used their college benefit and created the middle class in our country, and revitalized us into a economic superpower. There are no downsides to a fully funded G.I. Bill, unless they just want bodies to be fodder for the fire.
If they truly believe that the G.I. Bill will hurt retention in the military, then what are the programs they are proposing to boost benefits for those currently serving? How about allowing spouses to use a fully funded education bill, or giving a comprehensive dental plan for their family (currently family only gets two check ups and one cavity a year).
— Joshua Hudson May 1, 08:04 AM #
After spending 15 or more months in Iraq or Afghanistan, the least the country can do is to allow the service member the chance for an advanced education.
Even with the GI bill and even if the service member gets the full enhanced $200 extra kicker per month the reality is that there is not enough in the monthly allotment to pay for tuition and living expenses.
In addition in many cases the service member who is in the national guard or a reservist does not get the full Montgomery GI bill benefits. Also as the Montgomery GI bill is an enlistment tool if the service member does not sign up for it at enlistment than that person is not eligible for the Montgomery GI bill or for the supplemental kicker.
— warrren May 1, 09:16 AM #
The National Mantra —- Support the Troops, sure rings hollow in the corridors of power. True Support would entail benefits starting upon joining —- increasing at 33% per year —- and reaching full 100% at the end of three years. After three years additional incentives/benefits (such as spousal/children’s education) can accrue to help retention.
Do we actually support the troops or is it merely lip service?
Providing educational benefits also is in the interest of the nation per se. —— And, the payback in terms of an educated workforce (which generally provides higher tax revenues) would offset the costs (it might even do more than that).
Additionally —- Regarding the cost issues —- there are areas in which savings can be found —- one aspect of particular interest would be the activation of President Kennedy’s Executive Order Number 11110 (Google 11110 —- and check it out for yourself) which could save hundreds of billions in interest costs being paid on the national debt.
— zahid May 2, 08:25 AM #
Troops do get educational benefits while they are serving, apart from the GI Bill. While I was in the Army, I got 75% of my undergraduate tuition paid for under a tuition assistance program. I didn’t pay a dime while earning my master’s degree. Everything (tuition, books, fees) was covered by the Army under a different program. Different services have different rules regarding tuition assistance, but they are pretty generous, I think.
Regarding your broader point about supporting the troops, though, I agree. The actions of politicians often don’t match their words. The Bush administration (among others) has been good at talking the talk but not at walking the walk.
— Tracy G. May 2, 05:46 PM #