It ain't the rich who are providing their sons to fill boots on the ground, it ain't the rich who are battling to deal with dead or maimed husbands and sons.

I think it only right that the rich contribute to rehabilitation, which is what a GI bill is. They should also kick in for VA costs.

Now Phil, it would help to note that McCain is a strong proponent of his own "new GI Bill," which the Democrats have prevented from being considered in the debate over the war supplemental.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-blocks-mccain-backed-gi-bill-2008-05-14.html

As Politico reported, McCain has been pushing for a compromise bill, reaching out to Webb.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10331.html

McCain was all for Webb's bill before he was against it. He was even an original co-signer. Yet another flip-flop from a hypocritical old man screaming at clouds.

His version is another watered-down attempt to protect the rich, complete with lies about "comprimise".

Adam,

The McCain-Graham GI Bill is garbage. I know, I actually attended grad school on the current GI Bill (2002-06) and still walked away with about $80K in loans (from a state university). The "new and improved" McCain Bill would have given me a whopping ~$350 over the $1154 a month I netted in the '05-'06 academic year. An increase to be sure, but hardly the improvement necessary to reflect the sacrifice and risk borne by those serving on active duty from, say, 2003-07 compared to my four years of service from 1998-02.

The key aspect of the Webb bill is that it provides a living/housing allowance to the GI Bill that would actually afford an married person or single parent with kids to focus on their studies and get a bachelors degree without worrying about health care, life support and the family starving. The McCain Bill does nothing to address the reality that so many reenlist out of a fear of losing these benefits rather than any great desire to serve multiple future tours in combat.

It doesn't surprise me that someone of Adam's legal/social pedigree would be so obtuse to this. How do I say this nicely? Adam you have no credibility on this issue and your opinions are meaningless. That said, they still have the power to enrage. You succeeded. Happy Sunday.

"IRR Soldier," pardon me if I respond to the substance of your point and decline to engage your silly name-calling.

The McCain bill is an attempt to achieve the twin aims of appropriately rewarding military service while not escalating post-service benefits so greatly that servicemen race to exit service during the current phase of the Iraq War.

Any GI Bill ultimately passed has to balance competing priorities, including care for veterans and prosecution of the current war effort, among other things.

Webb's proposal is no exception: After all, if there was only one priority at stake -- veteran's benefits -- then why wouldn't Webb offer veterans free health care for life, or benefits in the amount of twice the dollar value currently offered in Webb's proposal? Should we all start complaining that Webb doesn't care enough for the troops?

Adam,

I don't know if questioning your personal experience to judge these matters is "silly name calling." Last I checked, the Law School-Clerkship-Big Law career track doesn't afford many interactions with junior enlisted or any substantive appreciation the Army's reenlistment system. If I recall you haven't spent a day getting educated on the GI Bill.

YOUR QUOTE:

"The McCain bill is an attempt to achieve the twin aims of appropriately rewarding military service while not escalating post-service benefits so greatly that servicemen race to exit service during the current phase of the Iraq War."

You are unqualified to speak substantively on these matters. Period. This is a Heritage Foundation/DoD/Lindsay Graham talking point that has no data to support it.

You have a current reenlistment regime that makes it difficult/nearly impossible for married servicemembers or those with children to leave service and use their GI Bill benefits. Unlike other military pay/allowances and veterans compensation, the MGIB pay out is identical for the single 22 year old and the 26 year old married father father of 3. Guess who the Reup NCO is going to target and spend his time/effort convincing that he CAN'T succeed on the outside, that he CAN'T afford to get his degree and that He CAN'T expect to do better than reenlisting for another 2-3 combat tours.

Adam, that's the way the game currently works. I've seen it. Your antiseptic talk of "not escalating post-service benefits so greatly that servicemen race to exit service" really means a desire to limit benefits and ultimately opportunity so servicemembers feel compelled to reenlist as a means of family support/security.

The Webb bill fixes this by providing a housing tax free housing allowance that is tied to the veterans family status ... just like the active duty basic allowance for housing (BAH). This ensures an equal opportunity for single and married veterans alike to partake in this most worthy program.

Adam,

Kinda makes one wonder how we, the nation, afforded the GI bill benefits post WWII? Hell of lot more soldiers getting out then. I got the benefits when I got out of the Corps in 1970.

Today? Today, we are told, we have to concern ourselves with 'balancing' the benefits to prevent people from "rac[ing]to "exit [the]service". Which, in my day, was simply called having put your time in. Not "racing for anything"...simple walking away having done, in theory, your job in an honorable fashion.

Somehow, I have to guess that if there was still a draft, this would be an issue. People would get out in 2 years AND they get benefits.

God, I would LOVE for McCain to be on the wrong side of this. As he appears to be doing his best to do. And I would love the GOP, and, particular, the neocons, to be saddled with this issue. Oh, would I love it. So, keep it up Adam....keep pushing your perspective.

Webb originally had 300+ supporters of this bill in the house before the Bush arm-twisting began. But it still passed with 32 republicans voting for it and 8 more taking the NoVote route.

In the Senate, John Warner, former chairman of the Armed Services Committee is for Webb's bill. Senator Specter, former chairman of the Veterans committee is for it. Chuck Hagel, the only senator to have served as a senior official in the Veterans Administration is for it. All Republicans and all well versed in the military and veteran's affairs. These guys are not going to vote for a bill that would start a race for servicemen to exit the military. The whole Bush baloney that this bill would gut the military is political posturing. McCain's bill was only submitted to give GOP congressmen an excuse not to vote for Webb's bill and give them some phony political cover.

A Bush veto may hold up in the Senate, but he would do so at the peril of the GOP in November.

"The McCain bill is an attempt to achieve the twin aims of appropriately rewarding military service while not escalating post-service benefits so greatly that servicemen race to exit service during the current phase of the Iraq War."

I understand McCain's bill is for those with 12 years of service as compared to Webb's which IIRC is good after 2 years. As Webb has stated, some 70%+ would not qualify under McCain's terms.

Sounds like the McCain bill would certainly not cause a "race to exit the military." The extra benefit only kicks in after 12 years?

IRR's point is a good one. The current GI Bill is a joke. I got my undergrad degree using the GI Bill and the Army College Fund, which nearly doubled the benefit, and still incurred a good amount of debt (which, sadly, is now increasing to pay for grad school). It would be nearly impossible for a soldier with dependents to leave the service and rely on the MGIB as it currently stands in order to get an education.

After WWII, millions of GIs went to college on the GI Bill. It was incredibly successful and benefited not just the soldiers as a reward for their service, but it also benefitted society greatly. After that, we had the most educated population we had had in our history.

But the fact is that many married soldiers won't leave the service, not because of any devotion to duty, but simply because they can't afford to. Do we want a military whose enlisted ranks are filled with what are essentially mercenaries, who might not be serving but for the lack of any other opportunity? Yeah, we want to retain the experience, but at what cost? Sounds a bit like a twist on the draft, in a way.

DM Inf,

Outstanding points. Thanks for sharing your excperiences. So many who never served in the AVF fail to appreciate the "how" in reenlistment tactics and the "why" in the demographic that reups.

Let's put it this way ... the prime reup targets are not those with easily transportable "options" and the reason married guys reup is often not "patriotism" or the "love" of the military.