Bush's GI Bill war: 'Squandered Lives?'

[JDawg1536]

Interesting battle going on with the new proposal of the GI Bill. McCain and Bush are both opposed to the new bill, a reward that would greatly benefit many veterans.


http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...andered_l.html


by Mark Silva

This certainly was a good day to be debating the generous new GI Bill that the Senate wants to attach to the tens of billions of dollars in new war funding that the White House is demanding.

But, if you burned the backyard chicken, or overdid those burgers -- not a bad idea these days, in the era of the dice-rolling USDA -- you may have missed an extraordinary exchange between The New York Times and the White House.

Bush opposes the new educational benefits which the Senate wants to offer those who have served since Sept. 11, 2001. Heck of a stance, the Times says, for a president who has committed hundreds of thousands of men and women to five years of war.

"Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers' lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform,'' the Times opined today. "He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.

"So lavish with other people's sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq,'' the Times continued, "Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home. ''

Ouch. And you know the White House felt it.

Because early today, before we saw any disaster declarations about the plight of storm victims, we saw this e-missive from the press secretary's office:

"Once again, the New York Times Editorial Board doesn't let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions - no matter how misleading they may be,'' Dana Perino said in a written statement. "In today's editorial, 'Mr. Bush and the GI Bill,' the New York Times irresponsibly distorts President Bush's strong commitment to strengthening and expanding support for America's service members and their families.

"This editorial could not be farther from the truth about the President's record of leadership on this issue.''

Read on, when the dishes are done, for more of the White House's Memorial Day duel with the Times:

In her statement, the White House press secretary added:

"In his January 2008 State of the Union Address, while proposing a series of initiatives to support our military families, President Bush specifically called upon Congress to answer service members' request that they be able to transfer their GI Bill benefits to their spouses and children.

"In April, he sent a legislative package to the Hill that would expand access to childcare, create new authorities to appoint qualified spouses into civil service jobs, provide education opportunities and job training for military spouses, and allow our troops to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or children.

"As Congress debates the best way to expand the existing GI Bill, Secretary Gates has laid out important guidelines to ensure that legislation meets our service members' needs and rewards military service. First, since our servicemen and women have regularly requested the ability to transfer their GI bill benefits to their family members, legislation should include transferability. Second, legislation should provide greater rewards for continued military service in the all volunteer force.

"There are several GI bill proposals under consideration in both the House and Senate. The Department of Defense has specific concerns about legislation sponsored by Senator Webb because it lacks transferability and could negatively impact military retention.

"The president specifically supports the GI Bill legislation expansion proposed by Senators Graham, Burr, and McCain because it allows for the transferability of education benefits and calibrates an increase in education benefits to time in the service.

"Though readers of the New York Times editorial page wouldn't know it, President Bush looks forward to signing a GI bill that supports our troops and their families, and preserves the experience and skill of our forces.''

This is what the Times had to say in its editorial, "Mr. Bush and the G.I. Bill:''

:President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. He worries that if the traditional path to college for service members since World War II is improved and expanded for the post-9/11 generation, too many people will take it.

He is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers' lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.

So lavish with other people's sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.

Thankfully, the new G.I. Bill has strong bipartisan support in Congress. The House passed it by a veto-proof margin this month, and last week the Senate followed suit, approving it as part of a military financing bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Senate version was drafted by two Vietnam veterans, Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska. They argue that benefits paid under the existing G.I. Bill have fallen far behind the rising costs of college.

Their bill would pay full tuition and other expenses at a four-year public university for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11.

At that level, the new G.I. Bill would be as generous as the one enacted for the veterans of World War II, which soon became known as one of the most successful benefits programs -- one of the soundest investments in human potential -- in the nation's history.

Mr. Bush -- and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain -- have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.

They have seized on a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office that new, better benefits would decrease re-enlistments by 16 percent, which sounds ominous if you are trying -- as Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are -- to defend a never-ending war at a time when extended tours of duty have sapped morale and strained recruiting to the breaking point.

Their reasoning is flawed since the C.B.O. has also predicted that the bill would offset the re-enlistment decline by increasing new recruits -- by 16 percent. The chance of a real shot at a college education turns out to be as strong a lure as ever. This is good news for our punishingly overburdened volunteer army, which needs all the smart, ambitious strivers it can get.

This page strongly supports a larger, sturdier military. It opposes throwing ever more money at the Pentagon for defense programs that are wasteful and poorly conceived. But as a long-term investment in human capital, in education and job training, there is no good argument against an expanded, generous G.I. Bill.

By threatening to veto it, Mr. Bush is showing great consistency of misjudgment. Congress should forcefully show how wrong he is by overriding his opposition and spending the money -- an estimated $52 billion over 10 years, a tiniest fraction of the ongoing cost of Mr. Bush's Iraq misadventure.

As partial repayment for the sacrifice of soldiers in a time of war, a new, improved