by Aamer Madhani
The lawmakers and veterans' advocates who gathered behind Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) this afternoon for a Capitol Hill rally to promote an overhaul of educational benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan vets were an A-list lot.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), gushed about the importance of doing right by the current crop of veterans. And Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a Korean War and a World War II veteran, reminded the crowd that it was unlikely that he would have become a senator if it weren't for the fact that the GI Bill paid for his undergraduate and law school tuition.
Even the actor that played the head of NBC on Seinfeld showed up to cast his support for the Webb-Hagel proposal.
Just a few months ago, Webb's and Hagel's call to modernize the bill was hardly registering with their colleagues. They repeatedly pointed out to their colleagues that service members serving in a war time were receiving a GI Bill that had been last updated with a peace time standard, while the administration expressed concern that an overhaul could push active-duty troops to ditch the military for college.
As of today, their proposal now has 58 sponsors in the Senate and 249 in the House.
Despite President Bush again today calling on Congress to send him a $108 billion war spending bill free of extraneous programs, Democratic leaders will likely include the proposal in the upcoming supplemental war spending bill, a senior Democratic aide said.
Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) and John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and a Vietnam veteran, have introduced a competing bill that would place more emphasis on benefits for active service members and would allow unused educational benefits to be transferred to family members. Active-duty vets would receive up to $1,500 per month toward their schooling, an increase from $1,101 under the current Montgomery GI Bill and an additional $500 annually for books.
The McCain-Graham proposal would also increase the benefit for members of the National Guard and Reserves to $1,200 per month, up from $880.
Under the Webb-Hagel proposed overhaul, known as the Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act, benefits for qualified veterans could potentially increase to the cost of the most expensive in-state public school in their home state and include an housing stipend.
The program would cost an additional $2 billion per year compared to the current GI Bill, which backers have noted is a small sum relative to the more than $600 billion that has already been allocated for the war. In addition, veterans would have up to 15 years after leaving active duty to use the entitlement, up from 10 years under the current standard.
The Pentagon has argued that the legislation could undercut retention rates and would be difficult to administer. McCain has also expressed similar concerns.
In a letter responding to McCain's questions about the Webb-Hagel bill, Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated the defense department's opposition to the legislation.
"Any enhancement of the education benefit, whether used in service or after retirement, must serve to enhance recruiting and not undercut retention," Gates wrote in the letter dated April 29.
But Webb has argued a bolstered GI Bill would increase the pool of people interested in serving and lower first-term attrition. Army and Marine Corps statistics show that 70 to 75 percent of soldiers and Marines who enlist return to civilian life at, or before, the end of their first enlistment.
"I honestly believe that if John McCain would sit down and let me talk him through this bill he would co-sponsor it," Webb said. "If you look at the Republicans who are on this bill, their views are the whole spectrum of the Republican party."
On the steps of the Capitol this afternoon, dozens of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans gathered to press for the legislation, telling bleak stories of how little of their tuition and fees are covered under the current system.
Among the crowd of veterans was a 26-year-old former Army sergeant who took part in the invasion and now is working two jobs because the GI Bill covers just covers a small fraction of the cost of books and tuition at Georgia State University.
One Navy Seabee recalled carrying a rifle for six months early in the war. She now fears that she will be carrying college debt for the rest of her life. One former Marine sergeant, Todd Bowers, who saw combat in Fallujah and later dropped out of George Washington University after falling behind on student loan payments.
"The creditors were more ruthless than the insurgents," said Bowers, 28, whose student loan was sent to collections.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Should we honor our soldiers, who are ready to give their LIFE for their country, that's a strange question!!! Maybe they will also consider serious medical care for them as well!!
This time around, the bill will be treated by the Republican minority with kid gloves, they know the nation is watching!!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | April 29, 2008 7:23 PM
Why does John McCain hate veterans?
Posted by: Joe | April 29, 2008 7:28 PM
As a US Army vet, I say yes yes yes.
-
I am sick of those country club conservatives talking tuff from the golf cart, like Bush did. (Hey, up armor that piece of junk, Commander! Go 'get some'!))
-
Go ahead and veto it, Prez. Simpleton. Sc#$@ you and Supreme Court decision you rode in on.
(Take that downtown and print it!)
Posted by: C.Morris | April 29, 2008 7:50 PM
Why do the Republicans hate and John McCain hate our troops?
This is a great video, it shows what a flip-flopping hypocrite John McBush really is:
http://therealmccain.com/gibill/
Posted by: John E | April 29, 2008 8:23 PM
John McCain is Dr. Death himself. This man is macabre. He tries to project the image of humility and compassion, but is a rot gut, mean, s.o.b who wants to follow people to the gates of hell. He is the quintessential conservative, who would deny to others something that will do them a lot of good and that they have earned. He is all for throwing money down the rat hole that is Iraq, but in helping out veterans and their families he comes up short.
The men and women who serve in the military deserve more than the cursory thanks for your service that politicians give them. Many of the men and women who go into the military are from backgrounds where economic sturggle is a reality and they need us to step up and support them as much as we need them to do the job that we ask them to do.
Posted by: GW | April 29, 2008 8:53 PM
GW,
I am starting to agree with you re McBush; He is a passive aggressive on 'roids. Too many torture issues. I can just hear it;
'My friends, we must go back into Vietnam and create democracy. But first we must make inoperative any group or groups that oppose us. Thank you my fellow Americans.'
Posted by: C.Morris | April 29, 2008 9:05 PM
I can't believe this post only has 5 comments, this just goes to show what a bunch of dumbarses we've become in this country, when it becomes more important to look at whether a certain candidate (Obama) wears a damn flag-pin or whether his pastor may or may not have said something rather than looking at a candidate (McCain) who likes to portray himself as a Straight-Talking War Hero but in reality and just like Bush, he doesn't give a damn about anything but getting elected!
Posted by: John E | April 29, 2008 10:00 PM
Damn right it should. Besides, $2 billion is nothing in Iraq. Our exalted leadership misplaced more than $10 billion that they have no accounting for. KBR and Custer Battle cheated the army out of way more than that. It'd be nice to see some of the money we waste over there go to the people who deserve it.
Posted by: Tom O | April 30, 2008 1:06 AM
It seems so funny that there are no posts from the "great" Americans. Jeff has posted about 6 posts on the Wright thread...and not one on helping vets....mmmm! They prefer the red meat over helping Americans I guess.
Posted by: bill r. | April 30, 2008 6:55 AM
"I honestly believe that if John McCain would sit down and let me talk him through this bill he would co-sponsor it," Webb said.
I think that is the problem. The people in the House and Senate are only voting the party line. It does not matter what is really in a bill, they either don't read it or don't have time to read it. McCain is not in DC to talk to anyone; he's too busy running for president to do the job he's being paid for right now.
Go Webb!
Posted by: lochnessmonster | April 30, 2008 7:05 AM
Why should ANY benefits for veterans be questioned?
Anyone having a problem with this should be sent to a combat zone for six months and then see what they think!
Forget foreign aid and - TAKE CARE OF THOSE THAT THAT TAKE CARE OF US!!!!
Posted by: Independent | April 30, 2008 7:38 AM
"Any enhancement of the education benefit, whether used in service or after retirement, must serve to enhance recruiting and not undercut retention," Gates wrote in the letter dated April 29."
Translation: "We'd prefer dumb soldiers who don't understand the immoral war and can't question us, as opposed to smart ones who will wise up and get out."
Posted by: syj | April 30, 2008 7:57 AM
I don't consider an updated GI bill to be an "extraneous program." Benefits to our soldiers are equally important as funding the mission they serve. I am constantly astounded that a majority of vets, especially the older vets, vote mostly republican when it is clear that republicans oppose these benefits.
Posted by: Grandblvd03 | April 30, 2008 8:15 AM
Why does my father hate his fellow veterans?
Posted by: Scott McCain | April 30, 2008 8:59 AM
war is NOT hell when somebodyelse's kids are fighting and dying in it.
Posted by: jack hussein | April 30, 2008 10:45 AM
What does McCain's pastor think about the bill? That's the really important thing to find out.
Posted by: Psators08 | April 30, 2008 1:12 PM
All right....dig a little....
From abc on 4/14... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4652517&page=1
"But the bill, which would dramatically increase educational compensation for American troops, has run into some unexpected resistance, both at the Pentagon and now from McCain, who has remained silent on the issue, saying he had not studied the bill close enough."
So evidently he studied it and now...from the article posted above...
"Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) and John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and a Vietnam veteran, have introduced a competing bill that would place more emphasis on benefits for active service members and would allow unused educational benefits to be transferred to family members. Active-duty vets would receive up to $1,500 per month toward their schooling, an increase from $1,101 under the current Montgomery GI Bill and an additional $500 annually for books.
The McCain-Graham proposal would also increase the benefit for members of the National Guard and Reserves to $1,200 per month, up from $880. "
That's up to $18,500 a year, with the option to transfer unused benefits to family members. Maybe not a free ride, but certainly enough to cover tuition, room and board at many state colleges.
While everyone was hot to heap praise on the Webb-Hagel bill did anyone else wonder who exactly are defined as the "qualified veterans" in the Webb-Hagel bill? Sounds like a weasel word to me, just as the "up to" clause in the McCain bill seems a similar loophole. Can't anyone provide a simple chart of who gets what benefits under each bill? Guess details and critical analysis are too much to ask for in a sound-bite obsessed news environment. BTW the Webb-Hagel bill doesn't include provisions to transfer benefits to family.
Come on everyone....dig a little. Question everything you read or hear. I'd like to compare the two bills side by side, but the "easy" searches turn up summary articles that leave me with plenty of questions about each. I'll keep on digging, will anyone else? Or has everyone else just made up your minds, facts be damned?
From what I've found so far, the one thing that seems clear is that McCain was not against vets nor against expanding GI Bill benefits. He was against committing to backing a bill he didn't fully understand, and frankly I can't fault anyone for that. Maybe his campaign has diverted attention from actually reading the legislation he's supposed to be voting on. Maybe his competing bill is purely a political response spurred by all the press questioning his lack of support and commitment to vets. Maybe though, he simply learned to actually read and understand what he puts his name to after all the flack that Hillary and other Dems get for voting for the use of force in Iraq, then trying to dodge responsibility by claiming they didn't have all the details or understand what they were approving.
I can just imagine the fallout if the Webb-Hagel bill passed, and then turned out to be a dud once implemented...actually reducing benefits. Would Webb-Hagel get the blame? Nope. Whatever administration was in office would get the lionshare of blame whether or not they were in office when the bill was passed. That's just how we roll in the good of US of ADD.
I don't know, but I get tired of all the knee-jerks on both sides quick to slam the opposition for the slightest sign of inconsistency. We live in a world of gray...very little is simple black and white...no matter what Huffington, Move-On, Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh would have us believe.
Posted by: NotSoAverage | April 30, 2008 11:44 PM
The McCain-Graham approach is a disservice to members of the Armed Services. Their proposal requires using the funds while on active duty. What soldier, sailor, or airman can attend college and focus on thier studies while being deployed to the war zone for over a year. They should drop their hollow, "window dressing" approach and support the Webb-Hagel approach that lets vets use the benefits when they can best focus on their education - after they serve their country.
This approach helped a whole generation of WW2 vets, as Warner points out. Are the brave young men and women serving today deserving of less? I think not, but apparently McCain and Graham believe they do deserve less.
Posted by: A. Vet | May 8, 2008 8:10 AM