GI Bill Sparks Senate War
Politico:
From Annapolis to Vietnam and back to the Pentagon, John McCain and Jim Webb trod the same paths before coming to the Senate. Iraq divides them today, but there’s also the new kinship of being anxious fathers watching their sons come and go with Marine units in the war.
So what does it say about Washington that two such men, with so much in common, are locked in an increasingly intense debate over a shared value: education benefits for veterans?
“It’s very odd,” said former Nebraska Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey, a mutual friend. And that oddness gets greater by the day as the two headstrong senators barrel down colliding tracks.
An Arizona Republican, McCain has all but locked up the Republican presidential nomination and is preparing for a fall campaign in which his support of the Iraq war is sure to be a major issue. Yet the former Navy pilot and Vietnam POW makes himself a target by refusing to endorse Webb’s new GI education bill and instead signing on to a Republican alternative that focuses more on career soldiers than on the great majority who leave after their first four years.
Undaunted, Webb, who was a Marine infantry officer in Vietnam, is closing in on the bipartisan support needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate, where the cost of his package — estimated now at about $52 billion over 10 years — is sure to be an issue. But McCain’s support would seal the deal like nothing else, and the new Republican bill, together with a letter of opposition Tuesday from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, threatens to peel off support before the Democrat gets to the crucial threshold of 60 votes.
“There are fundamental differences,” McCain told Politico. “He creates a new bureaucracy and new rules. His bill offers the same benefits whether you stay three years or longer. We want to have a sliding scale to increase retention. I haven’t been in Washington, but my staff there said that his has not been eager to negotiate.”
“He’s so full of it,” Webb said in response. “I have personally talked to John three times. I made a personal call to [McCain aide] Mark Salter months ago asking that they look at this.”
“Hell, no,” Webb bristled when asked if there had been an implicit message that he would attack McCain if he didn’t come on board.
“John McCain has been a longtime friend of mine, and I think if John sat down and examined what was in this bill, he would co-sponsor it,” Webb said. “I don’t want this to become a political issue. I want to get a bill done.”
The debate will soon come to a head when Congress takes up the administration’s request for new emergency funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The current plan is for the House to take up a 2008 military construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations measure, strike its content and then layer in a series of three amendments that would include not only war funding but also very likely the Webb bill.
Mindful of this, the Gates letter represents a first shot by the Bush administration. Even as it went out Tuesday morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) attended a noon rally on the Capitol steps to support the Webb package.
McCain’s name never came up directly, but his old pal Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) joined with Webb. McCain’s absence fed into ongoing efforts by the Democratic National Committee to drive a wedge between the Republican and his supporters among veterans. “It’s two birds with one stone,” said a Democratic aide.
“We have a lot of issues to debate in the campaign this year, but this really should not be one of them,” Webb told the Senate last week, in a warning to McCain.
“I don’t think Jim Webb is seeking political advantage,” McCain said. “He’s sincerely dedicated to improving education benefits.”
ut McCain’s camp has its back up and complains of being bullied by what it says are Webb’s demands to “sign on” to the bill without being given the needed time — and, some would say, due deference — to make changes. The Gates letter, sent to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), echoes many of McCain’s arguments, and beyond politics, the fight underscores a real policy divide over how the nation views its professional military.
Iraq has been the most prolonged conflict for that military since the all-volunteer force was created after Vietnam. And while Gates, like McCain, focuses first on those willing to re-enlist for longer service, Webb believes the nation owes a debt to those who rotate out after one enlistment, which can often include multiple tours in Iraq.
“I’ve been doing veterans law for 30 years. The GI bill is designed as a readjustment benefit for people who leave the military,” Webb said. For the Marines and the Army — which account for the brunt of the fighting — he estimates as many as 70 percent to 75 percent rotate out after a single four-year enlistment.
Webb’s new GI education benefits would apply, then, to anyone who has served up to 36 months of qualified active duty beginning at the same time as or after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. “These are the people who answered the call,” Webb said at the rally Tuesday. “These are the people who moved willingly forward toward the sound of the guns.”
In private life, Webb is known as an officer who kept in touch with the enlisted Marines who served under him in Vietnam. And his rhetoric is a throwback to another era, when military service was seen less as an ongoing career than something undertaken for a shorter period, whether defined by the draft or enlistment during a war.
By contrast, Gates wrote in his letter that “our first objective is to strengthen the All-Volunteer Force” and “re-enlistments (and longer service) are critical to the success of the All-Volunteer Force.” From this vantage point, a too-generous GI Bill is counterproductive, and the defense secretary warns that “serious retention issues could arise” if the benefit were extended above the average costs for a public four-year college.
The Webb bill shoots higher, promising payments up to the cost of more expensive state schools plus a monthly housing stipend equivalent to costs in the same area. The government could even match, dollar for dollar, any contribution a private college might make, if its tuition is more than that of the state schools.
This creates a new, more complex, multi-tiered system, which critics contend would be an administrative nightmare. By contrast, the Republican alternative backed by McCain seeks to build on the current benefits system dating back to 1985. All levels would be increased but not to the degree of Webb’s bill; the greatest benefits — including the ability of career noncommissioned officers to transfer their benefits to their children — would be extended to those who remained at least six years.
Warner, for one, is skeptical of the retention argument against the Webb bill. “I think this argument that it’s going to hurt retention is very thin and tenuous, very thin and tenuous,” said the former chairman. “The flip side of that is, putting a big piece of cheese out there will induce more qualified people to join just to get this. It should be a tremendous incentive for recruitment.”
“This happens in Washington. You have competing proposals side by side,” said McCain. “We need to increase benefits. We share that same goal completely.”
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
While I hate issues like this being turned into footballs, and I’m not a huge supporter of McCain outside of Iraq policy, I have to support his view point on this issue. Too often, NCOs and Commissioned Officers find their ranks filled with young men and women that while they serve honorably, are there to do the minimum it takes to get free college or whatever their bonus was. Even though they are not bad people for doing this (some of my best soldiers were of this mindset) all branches of the military are in dire need of retaining trained and responsible professionals. I personally feel that the best thing they could do for retainment purposes is increase in-service benefits and create “colleges” for all branches that award transferable credit hours much like the Air Force has done. Too often we veterans find that civilian schools will not give a 1:1 credit ratio for military training/work experience and many just ignore them all together. Even in veteran friendly states like here in Texas.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:14 amThe Dems are just trying to buy the military vote by treating them like any of their other constituency blocks. If they throw more and more money at them, they can’t afford not to vote for the Dems.
Not that I’m disagreeing at all with increases in Educational benefits. I’m in the Ohio ANG and the state of Ohio paid for my college diploma in full. However, I got only a couple hundred bucks a month for the GI Bill, about 1/5 of what the active duty gets.
The major part of this that really annoys me though is that you have Webb bitching about how our soldiers don’t have the proper equipment to go into battle, so they try to spend money to get it at the same time they’re trying to withdrawal troops. Also, they want a major increase in educational benefits when you have Obama saying he wants to “slow the development of future combat systems”. All this logic accomplishes is having a military that perpetually won’t be ready for the next conflict. Or maybe, Webb is hoping that if every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine does go to college, they will all be indocrtinated into the left wing anti war fringe.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:22 am“hoping that if every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine does go to college, they will all be indoctrinated into the left wing anti war fringe.”
That is the hope of every Liberal. Remember what “they” say, Liberals are more HIGHLY (said with a snooty accent) educated while Conservatives are generally the students of experience. Service breeds Conservatives through experience and that is exactly why “they” are trying to short circuit it with this increase in short-term service benefits.
Wasn’t it Kruschev that said something like they may not be able to defeat the US in the short term but that they would eventually topple us through our education system and indoctrinating our youth? (something like that at least)
Also, I’ve been out for 4 years but didn’t they start giving full GI Benefits to NG/Res that served at least 12 mos. on active duty? (If they didn’t, they should!)
April 30th, 2008 at 6:58 amYea, I used the Community College of the Air Force program to get credit for my technical schools and other training. I didn’t get a full degree from there, but was able to transfer the credits to tOSU to pick up extra credits. They didn’t do much from a course load standpoint, but they helped me advance my standing from a sophomore to junior. That was cool cause I was able to schedule earlier.
I believe thats correct about the NG/RES being on orders for a year and getting benefits.
I read a book by pat buchanan called the death of the west. He made some interesting points on how the leftist movements in this country went from only labor unions to relatively mainstream. His assertion was that when Hitler rose to power in germany and then commenced with the blood purges a couple years later, most of the communist party then the socialists within the nazi movement had to escape to the west to avoid being swept up by the brownshirts. These german communists got into the department of education and labor unions in the late 30’s through the 40s. Twenty years later their effect was the college educated antiwar liberal elite bullshit that was the 60s. I thought that chapter was really interesting and filled in quite a few of the blanks on where these fucking hippies suddenly came from back in the 60s.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:03 amYour suggestion that most, or many troops only join for college money is preposterous. The number of active duty persons who use GI Bill benefits after their service is extraordinarily low. It is also a ridiculous claim because it is merely an incentive. Would I chide you for taking a job because they offered you health insurance or 4-week a year vacations, of course not! But I bet you would get mad after when your health insurance didnt cover certain procedures you need or you could only take one week vacations from work at a time.
The fact is troops used their education benefits post-world war II went to Ivy league schools fully paid for (today the GI bill only covers around 30% - 40% of the costs of state colleges and 10% - 20 of the cost for most private institutions). They used that education and leg up to create the great nation we live in now. It only benefits the nation to enhance the potential of people who stood up for civic virtue put their life on the line and defended the nation; I cant see how anyone would argue it wouldnt. Do you want stupid emo, love me generation kids, who worship themselves and how pretty they are, the only people with degrees, thus making them the future leaders of america? or do you want vets?
Many of the people on this site complain about liberal colleges and liberal indoctrination. It is a fact that the military is generally conservative. Are you suggesting that when student vets like myself, go to college we are just going to become dumb liberals suddenly? When the teacher says the iraq war is stupid are we just going to nod - or will we cite anecdotal evidence? Maybe we can talk other people into thinking outside the box of the ivory tower? Maybe an influx of vets who served this fine nation into colleges could cause a sea change in the politics of education.
I myself served in combat in two seperate tours. I get no money because I was a reservist- one of the provisions in this bill would cover me (reservists cant use any benefits after their service ends, unlike active duty personnel). I’m for it and hope after listening to my arguments you would think about your position some more.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:59 amOk, first things first, I never said that “most” troops join the military for college money. I DID say that many do. This is a statement of fact yet not a speculation on ratio. I too am a veteran, served 8 yrs. (1996-2004) and was also a platoon sergeant for a COLT platoon. Out of the 30 or so men that I got the honor to lead for one time or another, 2 informed me during their initial counseling that the reason they had enlisted was for the college/bonus money. Of these 2, both re-enlisted because they came to believe that service was more important than money. This is why I stated that, “some of my best soldiers were of this mindset”. And both of them did not re-up “just because”, they did it to fulfill orders to Korea and Drum (I was at Fort Carson at the time). So, please read my comments more carefully next time.
Second, in-service benefits should be increased. I stated this before and I stand by it now and this would PROMOTE educated veterans and service-members as opposed to coddling the pacifier hippies that smoke pot all day and don’t attend even a 1/4 of their classes. I do not propose a condition on type of service (NG/RES vs. Active) just that it should be done.
Third, I agree with you that NG/Res soldiers that have served on active duty should be able to have access to their benefits following their ETS but that these should be at the full, active-duty GI Bill rate and not a reduced rate.
Fourth, as far as covering tuition costs at Ivy League schools, I do not agree. Every time financial assistance and pell grant maximums are raised, what happens? Schools raise their tuition rates. I am a veteran who has and is using his GI benefits. To cover the gap I took the Army College Fund when I enlisted instead of a $10,000 bonus in ‘96 and I have also used various other grants and scholarships from time to time. Doing this has allowed me to actually pocket money for each semester attended that has helped pay for living costs, etc. Sometimes, soldiers need to look to more than a cash bonus for enlisting. And enlistment counseling needs to be improved to better help them choose.
And I agree that an educated veteran can be nothing but a positive force within our nation and education system.
But I say again, Webb and the DNC should not be using this as a political football as they have. This should be put to committee and the floor where all aspects of it can be debated and hashed out outside of political, back door politics where Webb goes to “rallies” and journalists so as to pressure individuals into acquiescence.
P.S. I too have had to debate classrooms full of mushy brains about Iraq (although I had only 1 tour to your 2) and fully understand your frustration. We don’t disagree on the substance, just the fine details.
Godspeed and thank you for your service!
April 30th, 2008 at 9:56 amErik, thanks for your comments. I did say “most” OR “many” in my initial reply to your comments btw. I know you are vet(i did read your comments and recall from memory things you say to know this) and I too appreciate you and your service as a fellow veteran.
For your fourth point, I only raised the dynamics of ivy league schools to prove a point. The “new GI Bill” is not meant to cover the costs of Ivy league or really high up private institutions. What it will do is cover as much of the tuition for a private school at the cost of the most expensive public university in the state the private school is located within.
I am sure you, like myself dont want things handed to either us. The new GI Bill as I think you agree is an investment in the future of the nation.
Later bro.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:11 amI agree, it IS an investment. One, as you pointed out, too few take advantage of. While I do agree on raising the maximum pay out benefit similar to what you highlighted with your post-WW2 Ivy League reference, I just can’t get behind the idea of raising it to equal the tuition at the most expensive state institution for whichever state you live in. Not being able to speak for where you live, here in Texas there are problems where certain institutions that although they are state funded and ran, have tuition rates that out pace others because they are “in” schools to go to. An example would be UT in Austin where they have even implemented admission policies that rival many a private institution. From speaking with people Michigan, Tennessee, Colorado (Boulder), among many others I’m sure, have this same issue. A compromise? State average plus 2 to 5 percent maybe? I could see that as workable but just not an auto-increase to the most expensive. Then maybe an increase to the Army College Fund (meaning if you don’t get it at enlistment you can get it at re-enlistment) and an expansion of who it is offered to based on time in service/grade (regardless active/non-active).
See man, this is the crap THEY should be working out and not us while we stand here screaming at them to get SOMETHING done.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:35 amI’m on board for the in-service benefits if the Corps wants to retain bodies. I know it sounds stupid, but one of the biggest reasons I got out after 4 years was because I was tired of living with other dudes! I mean, I was a Cpl and I had to share a room with another guy - compared to some Pvt that was married, got to live off base and got paid twice as much!
April 30th, 2008 at 11:37 amAs one who used GI Bill benefits to earn my BA (8 years of night school as an NCO) and later got a commission and a MS before retirement I feel a need to weigh in here.
1. Any soldier, sailor, marine, or airman that signs on for an initial period of enlistment and tells you they are going to a full 20+ year career is probably pretty naive. It takes a while before you learn if the service is right for you and vice versa. That these folks separate after 4 years doesn’t mean they should be denied educational benefits of some kind. History has shown that the dollars spent on these educational subsidies are really an investment in the future — a higher education leads to a higher wages and a higher taxes … Sam gets his money back!
2. The educational benefits (of the Viet Nam era GI bill) were structured so as to set a dollar cap on the benefits such that xx dollars = yy months of entitlement. The entitlement was linked to the length of service. The maximum entitlement was 48 months (IIRC). So if you went to a state university your entitlement would get you more bang for your buck. If you wanted to use 9 months of entitlement for one semester at an Ivy League school that meant you would run out of benefits before you graduated.
3. Service run programs that provide credit for technical training and other service schools should absolutely be a part of every service — not just the Air Force. My Community College of the AF credits and my CLEP tests allowed me to bypass a bunch of the Freshman and Sophomore “survey” courses and go straight to my major. This route (as well as on-line courses) should be offered and promoted for every service man and woman.
4. Sending a Vet to a college classroom is the surest way to “call” the liberal faculty on their simplistic/socialistic views and propaganda. Just imagine a Berkly prof of sociology trying to convince some Iraq vet that we should tolerate the islamo-fascists and make nice with them
Sorry to rant .. but this is one is close to home … spend the bucks .. give the GI’s their due. It will make us a stronger nation in the end (and besides it’s a hell of a recruitment tool!!!). I say this as someone who entered the service as a 17 year old with no career plans and found a home! Not everyone will … but that doesn’t mean they should leave empty handed either.
Capt. DS USAF Ret.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:55 amI spent 12 years in the Navy, most of that in foreign rathole countries. For reasons I still cannot explain, I bought in to the GI Bill while still in boot camp and later discovered it was the best investment I’d ever made.
While I still graduated in debt, (from my local state college) the GI Bill saved my butt dozens of times when I might otherwise have had to drop out. However, tuition costs were going up every year along with parking, books….etc. The military folks headed to college now are going to pay a whole lot more than I did.
I wish the politicians would stop bickering, at least where this issue is concerned. Education is always a good thing and if the GI Bill gets a face lift, I’m all for it.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:53 am“as far as covering tuition costs at Ivy League schools, I do not agree. Every time financial assistance and pell grant maximums are raised, what happens? Schools raise their tuition rates.”
Don’t be fooled… Almost all schools raise their tuition every year. Cost of doing business. NOT because the government raises their allowances. The government just recently raised Stafford loan and Pell rates (couple of years ago), after at least 10 years of not raising the limit at all, but that never stopped schools from raising their tuition. One does not beget the other…
But in agreement to your statement about Ivy League schools… Don’t forget that Ivy Leagues have endowments that are donated from Alumni far beyond their need for super-high tuition.
Harvard has 4 BILLION in the bank in their endowment and they still collect 50K per year in tuition from their students (not counting fees, food and housing, and every kid in a Harvard hoodie paying for it at the bookstore) .
Yale is building a multi-million dollar dorm because they got told to “use it or loose it” or face major taxes on their endowment.
Those are just TWO if the Ivy League big-names that could afford to send the entire US military to school for free out of their endowment if they chose to.
But that will never happen because having a major “brand-name” college education is just a reason for the school to continue to charge stupid-high prices and stay wealthy (and make political contributions…).
On a side note (speaking of all of those liberal schools out there) Ashford University is a VERY PRO-troop school. If you are USA, USN, USAF, USMC & USCG Active Duty, Reserves, AD spouse, DOD/USCG civilian, or retired/veterans with the GI Bill they will pay for all of your books, waive about $1000 worth of fees (application and technology fees) and cap your tuition at $750 per course. So basically, as long as your AD TA or GI Bill lasts you can go to school practically for free.
I know this because I work there as a Military and Veteran specialist helping my fellow brothers and sisters in arms get their education. If you guys are interested, go to the website (www.ashford.edu) call the 866 number and ask for extension 3077 and tell me you saw this on Dollard.
May 1st, 2008 at 6:12 am