Obama Puts Veterans Benefits on the Front Burner

[#98QBKiller]

If the repubs can post columns/blogs and pretend like they're news so can I....

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/86474/

Obama Puts Veterans Benefits on the Front Burner

Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report

One of the week’s more contentious disputes came between Barack Obama and John McCain over benefits for the troops, highlighted by McCain’s opposition to a bipartisan expansion of the GI Bill. Obama questioned McCain’s priorities; McCain lost his cool and attacked Obama for not having served in the military; and the dispute got a little nasty.

But Obama isn’t backing down, and seems anxious to make this a key campaign issue.

Barack Obama told veterans Saturday that he can’t understand why Republican John McCain opposes legislation that would provide college scholarships to people who have served in the U.S. military.

“Now, let me be clear: No one can dispute John McCain’s love for this country or his concern for veterans. But here’s what I don’t understand. I don’t understand why John McCain would side with George Bush and oppose our plan to make college more affordable for our veterans,” the Democratic presidential candidate said. “George Bush and John McCain may think our plan is too generous. I could not disagree more.” […]

Obama, speaking to reporters aboard his plane Saturday, countered that the idea that he can’t speak on veterans’ issues because he didn’t serve in the military “makes no sense whatsoever.”

“I didn’t serve, as many people my age, because the Vietnam war was over by the time I was of draft age and we went to an all-volunteer Army. But obviously I revere our soldiers and want to make sure they are being treated with honor and respect,” he added.

This may seem counter-intuitive. McCain, given his military record and background, would seemingly have a lock on issues like veterans’ benefits. Obama, in this sense, should avoid the issue that should cut automatically in McCain’s favor.

But the reality is, Obama has found a key vulnerability for McCain, and he’s taking advantage of the opportunity.

His media-driven reputation notwithstanding, McCain’s record on veterans’ issues is actually something of an embarrassment. Brian Beutler reported in The Nation:

Times have changed since McCain needed veterans services so urgently.

And for many of those thirty-five years, McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, the candidate who talks the best talk on veterans issues, has demonstrated a tendency to work against veterans’ interests, voting time after time against funding and in favor of privatizing services — in other words, of rolling back the VA’s improvements by supporting some of the same policies that wrecked Walter Reed.

Likewise, the estimable hilzoy took a close look at McCain’s voting record on veterans’ issues and came to a similar conclusion.

I put the wonky results, with links to all the roll call votes, below the fold. Short version: during the last four years (all I checked), McCain has supported basic appropriations for vets. However, when there are two competing proposals, he generally chooses the cheaper one, and often, when only one proposal to increase benefits is available, he opposes it. But, as Beutler says, this doesn’t seem to be because he is in general in favor of fiscal discipline: in 2006, in particular, he voted against several bills that actually tried not just to increase spending on vets, but to pay for it, in one case voting for an identical bill that was not paid for.

If you think that we ought to be spending more money on veterans’ benefits and health care, it’s not a very good record.

All of this, of course, leads to the question of why McCain has such a weak record when it comes to veterans’ benefits. Yglesias speculates:

One sort of wonders why this is. McCain’s clearly not some kind of dogmatic libertarian, and he certainly seems to have a great deal of emotional attachment to the military. I believe the particular military family in which he grew up was a bit idiosyncratic in actually being composed of life-long military officers rather than veterans (Webb, by contrast, is also from a military family and is clearly very influenced by his military background but after graduating from the academy put his time in then took advantage of veterans’ benefits to move on to other things) as such. Or maybe he just takes very seriously the idea that we can’t make the benefits too generous lest it undermine our ability to endlessly prolong the war in Iraq.

Whatever the reason, I’m glad to see Obama take McCain to task on the issue. There’s no reason to cede this ground to McCain at all.

AlterNet is a non profit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by our writers are their own.

© 2008 The Carpetbagger Report All rights reserved.

View this story online at:

[Thiebear]

But Obama isn’t backing down link goes to a Clinton article....

[Midnight Judges]

McCain says he is worried that too many people will get their educations and leave the military but I think many of them will get degrees and stay-probably with a promotion. In a few years when the boomers are retiring en mass, this could be a valuable asset (there I go thinking about the future again).

To say our men and women are underpaid is an incredible understatement. They deserve this benefit and the option to go to college, send their kids to college, and improve their chances of upward mobility in our society. It's the least we can do.

[skinfan2k]

I would say that more people would serve for this country but less people stay longer. However this causes a ripple effect and more younger people are in the armed forces.

[Thiebear]

McCain says he is worried that too many people will get their educations and leave the military but I think many of them will get degrees and stay-probably with a promotion. In a few years when the boomers are retiring en mass, this could be a valuable asset (there I go thinking about the future again).

To say our men and women are underpaid is an incredible understatement. They deserve this benefit and the option to go to college, send their kids to college, and improve their chances of upward mobility in our society. It's the least we can do.

You don't get a promotion based on Civilian education. I know in the Army you can get up to 100-150pts(?) at the time of a possible 1000pts based on civilian education. And there needs to be open slots to drop some of them below 998 where they sit...

they are underpaid but do get nice benefits as it is now.. the GI bill aint too shabby.

[DRSmith]

What happens when people only serve to get an education?

What sort of soldiers do you get?

If someone enlists espicially during peace times just to get an education how will they fare went sent to battle if war suddenly breaks out?

Soldiers should be paid well and their famalies given good benefits in the event of death

Tying the chance to get an education into serving in the army is further explotation of the poor

[Thiebear]

What happens when people only serve to get an education?

What sort of soldiers do you get?

If someone enlists espicially during peace times just to get an education how will they fare went sent to battle if war suddenly breaks out?

Apparently quite well...

[DRSmith]

Apparently quite well...

Early into the war there were many who were serving who got called to duty who were complaining, there were stories on the news all the time and I could not help but woder how many enlisted during the Clinton years just to get an education never expecting to have to actually fight

[Midnight Judges]

You don't get a promotion based on Civilian education. I know in the Army you can get up to 100-150pts(?) at the time of a possible 1000pts based on civilian education. And there needs to be open slots to drop some of them below 998 where they sit...

they are underpaid but do get nice benefits as it is now.. the GI bill aint too shabby.

So you say you don't get a promotion based on civilian education and then proceed to tell me it helps by about 15%. So which is it? 15% is a huge discriminator between job candidates. I also find it a little dubious to exclude civilian education when Universities around the country are starting schools of logistics.

I don't know any specific cases of this happening in the army but two friends of mine in the Air Force got good jobs that you don't get without a degree.

[EersSkins05]

What happens when people only serve to get an education?

What sort of soldiers do you get?

If someone enlists espicially during peace times just to get an education how will they fare went sent to battle if war suddenly breaks out?

Soldiers should be paid well and their famalies given good benefits in the event of death

Tying the chance to get an education into serving in the army is further explotation of the poor

I have a hard time understanding how anyone could be in opposition to the GI Bill. It's so incredibly and clearly successful in creating better opportunities for not only soldiers, but their children and children's children, as well as society as a whole.

My grandfather attended UVA law school thanks to the GI Bill. He then had a very successful career as an attorney, which allowed him to be able to financially assist my dad and uncles in obtaining their own college education. One of my uncles decided to serve voluntarily, and has risen to the rank of general. My father was a public servant all his life, and as an administrator, was able to financially assist my brother and myself in obtaining our college and post-graduate degrees, and I now work as a public servant myself.

Immeasurable good came from that initial opportunity created by the GI Bill. Not only good for my immediate family, but also for the countless individuals that were helped because of the positions in which my family members were placed as a result of their opportunities.

There is absolutely no harm that can come as a result of a well-educated populace.

[SkinsHokieFan]

There is absolutely no harm that can come as a result of a well-educated populace.

Yes there is. You'll have a bunch of eltist snobs who vote against Hillary Clinton

[DRSmith]

I have a hard time understanding how anyone could be in opposition to the GI Bill. It's so incredibly and clearly successful in creating better opportunities for not only soldiers, but their children and children's children, as well as society as a whole.

My grandfather attended UVA law school thanks to the GI Bill. He then had a very successful career as an attorney, which allowed him to be able to financially assist my dad and uncles in obtaining their own college education. One of my uncles decided to serve voluntarily, and has risen to the rank of general. My father was a public servant all his life, and as an administrator, was able to financially assist my brother and myself in obtaining our college and post-graduate degrees, and I now work as a public servant myself.

Immeasurable good came from that initial opportunity created by the GI Bill. Not only good for my immediate family, but also for the countless individuals that were helped because of the positions in which my family members were placed as a result of their opportunities.

There is absolutely no harm that can come as a result of a well-educated populace.

They still can, there is no more draft so the money can be put into paying those who volunteer and those well paid service men can in turn use their money to pay for their education and their famalies education, anyone ever read the history of the GI bill?

[PleaseBlitz]

Comparing this bill to the GI Bill that was passed during WWII is sort of silly, but i realize the political benefits of doing that.

I can see the benefit and problems with this bill. Soldiers in out military ARE underpaid in an almost criminal way, and they should be supported in any way we can, especially through funding their education.

But i also see the problem the military has with it. If people have every reason to leave the military ASAP, there is going to be a huge lack of experienced leadership, especially NCO's.

I need to read more about the alternate plan before i make up my mind on this one.

[DRSmith]

Comparing this bill to the GI Bill that was passed during WWII is sort of silly, but i realize the political benefits of doing that.

I can see the benefit and problems with this bill. Soldiers in out military ARE underpaid in an almost criminal way, and they should be supported in any way we can, especially through funding their education.

But i also see the problem the military has with it. If people have every reason to leave the military ASAP, there is going to be a huge lack of experienced leadership, especially NCO's.

I need to read more about the alternate plan before i make up my mind on this one.

That is why it is better to take the post service benefits and convert them to something that is given while serving like increased pay

[#98QBKiller]

If someone enlists espicially during peace times just to get an education how will they fare went sent to battle if war suddenly breaks out?

They know the risk when they sign up.

[EersSkins05]

Yes there is. You'll have a bunch of eltist snobs who vote against Hillary Clinton

:laugh:

Well played, sir.

They still can, there is no more draft so the money can be put into paying those who volunteer and those well paid service men can in turn use their money to pay for their education and their famalies education, anyone ever read the history of the GI bill?

Comparing this bill to the GI Bill that was passed during WWII is sort of silly, but i realize the political benefits of doing that.

I can see the benefit and problems with this bill. Soldiers in out military ARE underpaid in an almost criminal way, and they should be supported in any way we can, especially through funding their education.

But i also see the problem the military has with it. If people have every reason to leave the military ASAP, there is going to be a huge lack of experienced leadership, especially NCO's.

I need to read more about the alternate plan before i make up my mind on this one.

From what I understand, this proposal would apply to currently serving members of the armed forces as well as future applicants.

Obviously, receipt of the funding for college education would be in exchange for a certain minimum level of service. Are we really saying that their service isn't this valuable? What does it say about our armed forces if they're too scared to give their soldiers these sort of post-service benefits because they think everyone will immediately flee after their minimum service is up? What kind of message does that send?

[PleaseBlitz]

From what I understand, this proposal would apply to currently serving members of the armed forces as well as future applicants.

Obviously, receipt of the funding for college education would be in exchange for a certain minimum level of service. Are we really saying that their service isn't this valuable? What does it say about our armed forces if they're too scared to give their soldiers these sort of post-service benefits because they think everyone will immediately flee after their minimum service is up? What kind of message does that send?

The minimum service time is 3 months.

And i dont think the Army is "scared" they just dont want to do it. Why would they? Their job isnt to give people a leg up, their job is to fight. Its tough to fight effectively with no experienced soldiers leading the troops.

Everyone is saying this is about "supporting the troops" but they ignore the fact that, while its great of the people who get out and use the money for college, it pretty much ****s the soldiers still in that have a much lower level of effectiveness.....it puts them in more danger in combat.

[DRSmith]

They know the risk when they sign up.

Yeah I am sure many sit down down and think about what happens if presidents change and you go from one who avoids wars to one who looks or them

[#98QBKiller]

Yeah I am sure many sit down down and think about what happens if presidents change and you go from one who avoids wars to one who looks or them

So do you disagree then that they are aware of the risk when they sign up?

[Destino]

McCain says he is worried that too many people will get their educations and leave the military but I think many of them will get degrees and stay-probably with a promotion. In a few years when the boomers are retiring en mass, this could be a valuable asset (there I go thinking about the future again).

To say our men and women are underpaid is an incredible understatement. They deserve this benefit and the option to go to college, send their kids to college, and improve their chances of upward mobility in our society. It's the least we can do.

That's a hell of a statement. Don't give them benefits because they might leave!

[DRSmith]

So do you disagree then that they are aware of the risk when they sign up?

I do not think many young people sit down and consider the risks or consequences, when they send out people to recruit how many recruiters do you see with no or artificial limbs?

The down side is never played out for people, that is why you need leaders who think out things, and have experiences

[gbear]

the whole if you train them they might leave bit reminds me of my management training.

Do you train your best employees thus giving the mthe skills with which they may leave you?

Yes option - you train, they work for ya, and then some of them leave.

No option - you don't train, they never learn, you're stuck with an untrained workforce...forever. :doh:

Back on topic, the more I read about the benefits our country reaped from the first GI bill, the more I think that investment paid off in spades. A better educated workforce led to some incredible boom times. The Greatest Generation has been a great read for me to see how it paid off. How many of that generation's success stories come from education gained through the GI Bill after WWII? Did the U.S. gov not get increased revenue from a whole generation of educated people? That leaves of the impact on our culture and society.

I see some saying this isn't comparable. If the details changed, will the impact be lessened? Will the end result not be a better educated populace that has served, a better educated populace that hopefully has gained some sense of honor, patriotism, and self control?

[#98QBKiller]

I do not think many young people sit down and consider the risks or consequences, when they send out people to recruit how many recruiters do you see with no or artificial limbs?

The down side is never played out for people, that is why you need leaders who think out things, and have experiences

Just because the armed forces doesn't advertise that going to war is an option when you sign up doesn't mean that the people who sign up aren't aware of that risk.

[LegionOfDoom]

I knew the possibilities when I signed up that is why I didn't sign up for the signing bonus which are most of time linked to the infantry or some other fighting job. I signed up for a job where I would have little to no action if called upon. Luckily it was during the Clinton presidency when I signed up and the only action my unit saw was is in Bosnia in 1995.

I knew the possibilities that is why I didn't sign up for infantry, other combat jobs or combat support jobs.

[chomerics]

Yes there is. You'll have a bunch of eltist snobs who vote against Hillary Clinton

wait, I thought the elitist snobs were dems?