john mccain on the new GI bill: dead wrong
by Tom Carey
Published: May 28, 2008
Currently, the Senate is considering Senator Jim Webb’s bill, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007, which seeks to pay for the college degree of any returning serviceman or woman, irrespective of their length of tour. This debate pits the two presidential candidates, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, against each other on the issue of education benefits for those who’ve served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their positions: Obama is in favor, while McCain is against and has proposed a different bill. I have the utmost respect for John McCain and do consider him a great man and a genuine hero, but in this instance his formerly strong credentials of supporting all our troops are in question.
This bill allows the tuition of GIs to be paid in full at any state university (of course, it must be the state in which they reside). In addition, it provides $1,000 for books and supplies per diem. GIs have fifteen years to take advantage of the benefits of this bill and as we know from the record of the original GI Bill, many soldiers will seize this opportunity.
What makes me question Senator McCain is a statement made by him in an article from the Huffington Post: “The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times.” In sum, McCain says that soldiers who serve longer should get more educational benefits, rather than giving all soldiers the same level of high-quality benefits.
In a display on the floor of the Senate that surely is not worthy of its occupants, McCain used this bill as a vehicle to attack Senator Obama. He stated, “It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for president is different than serving as president,” again from the Huffington Post. Really, John, is that what’s going on here? Maybe it’s just that Senator Obama thinks that all those who serve their country, regardless of how long they served, are entitled to the same respect, admiration and chance to attend college. Is that too much to ask?
Later in his remarks, the senior senator from Arizona hit back even harder saying, “I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.” For McCain to charge that somehow Obama, by supporting this bill, is insensitive or dismissive of the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform is truly ludicrous and frankly something I would not have expected from him. Was it not good enough for the veterans of the second World War, all the veterans of that conflict regardless of how long they served, to go to college? Why is it that the rules must now be changed and the amount of benefits should be dictated by time served? Does the risk of losing life and limb somehow become more valuable when it is done through multiple tours? The logic here from Senator McCain is twisted, ridiculous and in the end not deserving of the veterans he claims to so strongly support.
Senator, I know you served your country honorably and sacrificed greatly, but in this instance I can say it no other way: all our veterans deserve the same chance at college, no matter the length of their service. You sir, are wrong.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
(11)
May 28th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I don’t know, as an Obama supporter I’d have to say this is one of very few things I might agree with McCain on. If you serve one term in the military, and you get your college tuition all paid for, what is your motivation for serving another term?
You have to have some kind of good incentive for people to reinlist. If nothing else I’d say give them their full tuition for one tour, and come up with another big incentive for the second.
May 30th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Not only is McCain’s stance on this issue insensitive and cruel (If we treat the troops fairly, how can we continue to exploit them?), but kind of simple-minded in the respect of thinking this will hurt recruitment. The number of people who choose not to reenlist will be offset by the number of first-time enlistees looking for a realistic way to pay for education.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Insensitive and cruel? Come on. Why offer a benefit that incentivizes recruits to leave after just one term? That’s just stupid, especially when recruitment is down.
McCain is right. Let the reward increase according to one’s length of service. The experience of those who reenlist can not be easily replaced by new recruits. The McCain bill would serve as an incentive for recruitment and for reenlistment.
People behave the way you pay them to behave. The McCain bill pays to reenlist.