TNR BLOGS

August 19, 2008 | 11:10 PM
August 19, 2008 | 9:13 PM
August 19, 2008 | 5:53 PM

August 19, 2008 | 5:17 PM
August 19, 2008 | 5:12 PM
August 19, 2008 | 11:32 AM

August 19, 2008 | 6:06 PM
August 19, 2008 | 3:49 PM
August 17, 2008 | 9:21 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

August 19, 2008 | 1:59 PM
August 19, 2008 | 12:43 PM
August 18, 2008 | 6:20 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
14.05.2008
McCain and the G.I. Bill

In a speech in West Virginia earlier this week, Barack Obama attacked John McCain for opposing Jim Webb's "21st Century G.I. Bill," the original 1946 version of which paid full tuition and living costs for veterans enrolling in college. As this helpful Boston Globe piece explains, the original bill was curtailed during the relative peace of the 1980s, capping benefits at just under $10,000 per year. The new bill, which Webb introduced with Chuck Hagel and Frank Lautenberg and which John Warner has cosponsored, would raise the cap on the benefit to match the cost of the most expensive public university or college in any given state.

 

Such a measure may seem relatively uncontroversial, but McCain has joined the White House and Pentagon in opposing it because he fears it could lure soldiers out of the armed forces. Says McCain: "[Webb's] bill offers the same benefits whether you stay three years or longer. We want to have a sliding scale to increase retention." McCain has signed onto a counterproposal by Lindsey Graham, which would increase the monthly education benefit and allow career military personnel to transfer their benefits to their children, but is nowhere near as comprehensive as Webb's proposal.

 

The issue seems a good opportunity for Obama to practice his typical, compassionate politics while shoring up on national defense. Look for it to especially become an issue if he chooses as his running mate Webb, who has accused McCain of being "full of it." The dropouts McCain fears are real--the CBO estimates it will cost the military $1.1 billion over four years to offset them--but Webb has wisely described the bill's passage in moral terms, not economic ones (although economics may favor it too: Estimates suggest the original bill returned between five and 13 dollars on every one invested). The original G.I. Bill was more generous than Webb's proposal, covering even private tuitions. That McCain would defend it as "one of the greatest things about the 20th century" while opposing Webb's measure is a hypocrisy that Obama should seize.

 

--Ben Crair  

Posted: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:08 PM with 16 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

liberal reformer said:

I think it likely that Barack Obama will select a Southern, white male. Just not this one. Webb has high negatives and is a reluctant campaigner. Fellow Virginain Tim Kaine would be more palatable to Obama, I believe. Having said that, Webb's bill is a good one. Lastly, why is it that the party of the military is always stinting on armor and benefits for our military men?

May 14, 2008 5:23 PM

stgla said:

Opponents of the Webb bill will have common sense on their side.  I doubt that returns to a college education for veterans today are anywhere near as high as they were for draft-era GIs in the mid-20th century.  Also, the military is so hollowed out that we cannot afford even a small military retention disincentive.  Of course, as an Iraq war supporter, McCain cannot make that case.

This is an example of where a third party libertarian candidate like Bob Barr, if he weren't a cash-strapped buffoon, could hurt Obama more than McCain.  He could make the unpopular but basically correct arguments against the Webb GI Bill. (I'm sure Webb will be enshrined just like Sonny Montgomery was for his championing of the post-Vietnam era GI Bill).

Obama can protect his flank, though, with a message that says our troops need to COME HOME and not to a BUSH RECESSION, but to economic opportunity, a chance to upgrade their skills for the civilian sector.  You don't need to worry about retention if you are drawing down, but you do if you have a 100-year surge in mind.  Voters want the drawdown, want to support the troops, and they are apt to blame the ailing economy on Republicans.  Win win win.  

May 14, 2008 5:29 PM

propositionjoe said:

Pardon the pedantry, but I believe the original GI Bill was penned in 1944 and was used to propel FDR to his final re-election victory. It was a winner then, and if Obama can use it now, he will benefit. The original GI Bill really helped build the US middle class, pushing people into college who normally would have been able to afford it, subsidizing homeownership for people who might not have entered the "ownership society" (remember that one from 2004)? This is an R&D plan and should be sold that way.

May 14, 2008 6:41 PM

dmalato2 said:

I don't understand why McCain can't just put all the money he's not spending on green energy toward college for veterans.  He probably could throw in some daily massages with happy endings too if he wanted.

May 14, 2008 8:39 PM

WaltB said:

This is a topic that is exceptionally dear to me as a 20+ year retired Master Sergent, so forgive me if I rant for a bit.

I seriously doubt that any person worrying about the cost of this bill has ever served in the military.  While I respect McCain and his service, he's basically touting the Rep. party line on a Dem. bill.  He's now spent over twenty years in a Hill bubble, and I wish he'd think back to his early days as a Navy pilot before dissing it.  

I had a GI bill that I took advantage of, as did almost all my peers back in the 60's and 70's.  Today's equivalent is not at all equal.  It's a product of the continual military downsizing that has occurred since the cold war ended - not a bad thing, but none of our leaders seems to remember it happening.  Our military today is nowhere near as combat ready, as large, as capable (given who we faced then vs. now) as back then, but we're in Iraq because Bush and many other politicians thought we were invincible.  

Today's soldiers have been sent to war with the threat of being wounded or killed, with a paper thin logistics backup - as evidenced in the lack of body armor, vehicle armor, parts, and every thing else.  Viet Nam wasn't this bad for 'the troops' (I hated being called that), and it wasn't as amoral a conflict as Iraq.  To top it off, far too many of those in combat today are reserves and National Guard - because of all that downsizing, that's all the soldiers we've left.

So, those of you thinking this bill costs too much, how much do you think you pay a grunt GI on the field in Iraq today?  Try looking up the pay scale for any enlisted E-2 (E-1's are basic trainees) here: www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp  They're getting a whopping $1,502 per month, or a bit over $18k a year.  Now, room and board are included, but they've also got a 24/7 requirement to be ready and able to move and get shot at whenever they're ordered.  

So, are they deserving of something like Webb's bill?  If not, what is the alternative?  How about taking all those illegal aliens and impressing them into service - that's what Rome basically did (oh, wait, we know what happened to them!).  Well, why don't we just do away with our military.  Anyone up to that?

Bottom line, if you want an all volunteer military, it's got to have appropriate incentives.  If you don't want to pay for it, reenact the draft and EVERYONE should spend some time serving.

As a last comment I'll paraphrase something I posted a bit ago - if you claim you know what patriotism is all about, you'd have better spent some time protecting this country (and that doesn't mean wearing some stupid flag pin or sticking a vinyl ribbon on your imported car).

May 14, 2008 9:59 PM

liberal reformer said:

Proposition Joe and WaltB : Your posts are eloquent and informative.

May 14, 2008 10:14 PM

ryanmacd said:

Yes, this type of program will draw people out of active duty and into college.

McCain et al. are wary because it will be impossible to prosecute a Hundred Years War (Part Deux) without a bloated military. We don't need to calculate how much it would cost to replace these kids. We need to shut down the operations that, in McCain's World, demands that we keep them in foreign countries, in order to satisfy his pathological quest for the mirage that is "Victory in the Middle East."

May 14, 2008 10:50 PM

kindlight said:

God Bless you, Walt B. Amazing presentation of little known facts. I hope you are an Obama supporter.

May 14, 2008 11:17 PM

WaltB said:

Well shuckie darn, kindlight, you've found me out!  I've been supporting him since before he announced.

May 15, 2008 6:26 AM

PeteBeck said:

McCain overlooks the fact that an expanded GI Bill will probably help recruitment.  Serve for three or so years and get a free college education.

But beyond the narrow calculation, it is simply the right thing to do.  We need more educated adults, and the GI Bill is a way to accomplish that.  College today is simply too expensive.  My room, board and tuition at a high prestige college, back in the day, cost $2,000 a year, and I was able to earn a big chunk of that in summer and part time jobs.

And a young person coming out of three years in the military is probably more mature and directed than someone straight out of high school.

Hopefully ithe program will include training for trades as well -- we also need plumbers and electricians and computer technicians.

Also, hopefully, it will include the possibility of pre-college catch up work.  The Naval Academy has a one year program for candidates they think have merit but don't have a strong enouch academic background.  It's called the Naval Academy Prep School.  Check out: http://www.usna.edu/NAPS.  It is a superb way to bring people from "disadvantaged" backgrounds into the mainstream.

May 15, 2008 7:04 AM

DDovenbarger said:

Thank you WaltB for your comments, but more importantly for your service.  This topic displays another example of where McCain and the Republican party in general has switched or lost their moral compass.  The moral imperative of treating the men and women who have served us correctly--with proper compensation as well as tools and armour seems to have escaped a party that thinks moral judgent only occurs for things like who my neighbor or cousin wants to marry.  Rejecting this bill solely on the basis of a (faulty) economic argument is probably easy for those who think of our soliders as only fodder, not as men and women whose volunteer acts are and should be sacred for the risks they bear.

May 15, 2008 9:16 AM

psantillana said:

Propjoe, I think Obama IS pushing it as an R&D plan - he talks about how his grandfather took advantage of it, and how he, Obama, was a pretty direct beneficiary of that. As was his mother. The Dunhams didn't have that much, but they had more than they would have had were it not for the G.I. Bill, and when you don't have much, free college can really make a difference. There are a lot of people for whom a little difference makes all the difference, which is why health care is so important the other way - one stroke of bad luck and poof, all gone.

May 15, 2008 10:16 AM

RichardDuBois said:

Way to go WaltB. We've had it pounded into our heads to "support the troops" so long as supporting them means keeping them stuck in this sand pit civil war.  The moment anybody talks about actually rewarding the men and women who served by increasing their health benefits or education assistance then the tone changes.

Enough with the barstool patriots who demand ever greater sacrifice except when it comes to them or their children.

Obama 08 and let's sweep both houses of Congress with fighting Progressive Democrats and put Reid, Pelosi, Lieberman out to pasture.

May 15, 2008 10:19 AM

AlanSP said:

Regarding McCain's claim about Webb's bill being a disincentive for retaining soldiers, isn't he ignoring the incentive that it would create for new soldiers to join?  The promise of an education is a major recruitment tool for the army.  I understand it's not simply an issue of manpower; new recruits don't have experience and need training.  Still, I don't know if we can retain a viable army comprised entirely of career soldiers.  If people want to serve for three years and then move on with their lives, we should encourage that.

I agree that it's hypocritical to praise the original G.I. Bill and not support updating it for the today's environment.  The cost of college tuition has risen dramatically since the 1980's, when the benefits of the bill were capped at a static $9600.  The current bill is not doing what it was designed to do.  As to the cost, not only is the cost of the bill a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend in Iraq, but it's money that is being invested in our country, and that investment will pay off down the road.

May 15, 2008 10:54 AM

sighthnd said:

Some intellectual honesty: the Pentagon's objection (and like that of its supporters on the Hill like McCain) to Webb's enhanced GI Bill is over giving the benefits to those who serve three years as opposed to the current requirement to serve six.  There is no major objection to any of the terms for those who serve six.  I do not know whether there are no objections at all or minor quibbles to those enhanced benefits.

Based on that, we can have a reasonable debate as to whether three or six years should be adequate to get the GI Bill benefits (I suspect most people would have much less interest in that argument than in the one that is portrayed).  However, to claim that the Webb bill opponents oppose paying the actual cost of tuition is dishonest, or at best ignorant.

May 15, 2008 11:41 AM

waynejm said:

This Administration has no problem hiring mercenaries like those who work for Blackwater at multiple times the salary of a commissioned officer, never mind the meager pay of a G.I.  No one worries that this privatization of the war effort might serve as an incentive for troops to leave the service in order to cash in.  Second thought, maybe that's because so few of our current troops are actually allowed to leave the service.

McCain has truly abandoned his principles.

May 15, 2008 4:06 PM