Contributors

Thursday, May 29, 2008

GI Bills A Go Go

Andy Tannenbaum, over at electoral-vote.com, had a nice take on the whole McCain versus Webb GI Bill brouhaha.

John McCain celebrated Memorial Day by attacking the new G.I. bill that passed the Senate last week 75 to 22. The bill offers tuition payments and other benefits to veterans after one enlistment. McCain wants the benefits to depend on how long you serve--the longer you serve the more benefits you get. While this position is certainly defensible, it may come back to haunt him. One of the key sponsors of the bill is Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), himself a Vietnam veteran and an oft-mentioned possible Veep for Obama. If the Democratic ticket ends up being Obama/Webb, Webb is going to spend months saying: "I proposed benefits to help our men and women who fought bravely in Iraq and curmudgeon McCain opposes it." That position will be tough to defend.

I agree. What kind of sense does it make to attack a bill that give more benefits to vets in a time when there is a war that most of the people in this country don't support? As we move into the general election, I think we are going to see more of this tone deafness on the part of John McCain and other conservatives.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

What kind of sense does it make? Politically speaking - none. From a principle standpoint, however, it makes a great deal of sense. Which is part of the reason why I believe McCain is standing on principle on this issue. For sake of argument, if he were willing to abandon principle for the sake of scoring an easy political win, can he really be so stupid as to not understand the opportunity to score points afforded by the Webb bill? I find that hard to believe. That would mean he opposes the Webb bill either because he's too stubborn to give up on his or because he's taking a stand with what he believes is the right thing to do. I have no idea which is the real reason, but I have my guess. In either context, "tone deafness" doesn't really apply, unless you are advocating that our elected officials abandon their stance in favor of scoring a political win. (On second thought, I'm pretty sure you do condone that.)

If "tone deafness" refers to his lack of interest in caving to popular opinion then I couldn't disagree with you more on that one. This is one of the areas where our elected officials are charged not with representing us as much as they are charged with having a better understanding of issues such as these than we do. The excerpt included in your posting doesn't include any actual assessment of the difference in merit between the two bills...only that the Webb bill gave veterans more money more easily. Is that it? Is the situation as simple as "let's give veterans more money more easily"? I'm glad I'm not trying to defend that position.

Anonymous said...

I looked at McCain's bill and it seems to me to be one giant bribe with not a lot of payoff. The Webb bill takes into account a number of other factors (housing, books) that the McCain bill does not. It's no wonder it got bi partisan support. It's a good bill!

Anonymous said...

i would be interested to know why you [PL] think the webb bill doesn't make political sense -- without i admit, having read either the webb or mccain bill in any detail, as sara and mark have, more having gotten the gist of both.

I understand that the webb bill 'gives veterans more money (& prob benefits) more easily' -- why doesn't that make political sense? I'm not one way or the other, not having studied the bills, though from a humanitarian viewpoint, see no reason not to give back to veterans who risk their lives, often for political wars, so young.

So, is it from a taxpayer point of view, that you think it doesn't make political sense? Because increased benefits and payouts will ofcourse need to be funded in one way or another, and will possibly open the door to other civil servants requesting increased benefits too.. this funding will either increase taxes, or request money from the private sector (hey, as a thought, why not? especially from the corporations making a bundle out of the war.. though they would lobby against any such efforts, but the government has been known to bail out the private sector enough times...) or take money away from other taxpayer funded projects, to give to veterans instead.

if john mccain is taking a stand, and your argument about that is clear and makes sense, then what's his stand do you think? That he would not wish to fund increased benefits for military veterans (from 1st enlistment) via the taxpayer? Or, that he can't find some alternative imaginative / creative way to fund it, if in principle, it makes sense to a majority of public opinion. i understand what you say about public opinion. i think it seems that the majority of legislative as well as public opinion, so far, wants to increase veteran benefits.

it's an important issue, especially with the likelihood of iraq or even new wars, not going away anytime soon in the current global climate. joanne

Anonymous said...

I think you misunderstood me, Joanne. I was attempting to say that not supporting the bill is the stance that didn't make sense. Or, to avoid using the double-negative, supporting the bill would be the position that makes political sense.

Somebody interested merely in scoring a win for the folks at home who are voting in November would clearly be motivated to support the Webb bill. The fact that he doesn't support the bill is what suggests to me that his motive is other than political. (i.e. that he's taking a stance based on principle, that he truly believes his bill is better in the long run)

The "makes sense" component of what I was saying doesn't deal with the merits of the bill as much as it does the support of the bill.

Anonymous said...

got it :)

so mccain has his reasons for not supporting a bill that makes political sense.

but if it makes political sense, not just in the sense of popular vote-generating politics, but beyond that, it makes sound politics to help your biggest supporters in tense times -- the military and their families -- just as congressional or presidential candidates ALWAYS pay back corporate and lobbyist sponsors with favourable future legislation and major tax breaks or hiring loopholes... So, i'm just wondering, is it because mccain doesn't want BIG or bigger government? BIG government already exists for corporate backers, from a legislative, fiscal profit policy and bail-out viewpoint, so why can't the government find a way of allocating or reappropriating funds, towards military personnel? No one has to answer the question, i'm just thinking out loud... joanne

Mark Ward said...

Actually, I think the person that should answer your question, joanne, is John McCain.