When it comes to hypocritical "Support the Troops" rhetoric, I thought I'd seen it all. But I was wrong. This week, a small group of Democrats are using back door dealings to torpedo the widely-supported new GI Bill. For anyone new to the issue, here's the bottom line up front:
In 1944, FDR signed the original GI Bill, which gave every veteran a chance to go to college. It paid for tuition, fees, and books, and gave veterans a living stipend. The GI Bill helped the "Greatest Generation" readjust to civilian life, it helped pull us out of a post-war recession, and it helped build the middle class. Every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added at least seven dollars to the national economy.
Today, 1.7 million troops have come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but the GI Bill no longer covers anything like the cost of college. So a bipartisan coalition of veterans now serving in the Senate introduced a new GI Bill, modeled on the World War II legislation. This bill recently got added to the war funding bill currently in Congress.
In the real world, two things are obvious:
1) If you send troops to war, caring for the veterans who come home is an unavoidable and necessary cost of that war.
2) The GI Bill is a proven program, and a smart financial investment that pays for itself.
It just makes sense. That's why the 300-plus Senators and Representatives from both parties and all the major veterans organizations in America have endorsed the legislation.
In Washington, however, it seems like nothing is ever easy. A couple of Congressmen, including Rep. John Tanner (D-TN), Jim Cooper (D-TN), and Allen Boyd (D-FL), all members of the Blue Dog Coalition, have gotten together to OPPOSE paying for the GI Bill this week. (If you live in their districts, you can urge them to support the GI Bill by clicking here.)
As Representative Tanner quipped, "Some of us oppose creating a new entitlement program in an emergency spending bill, whether it's butchers, bakers or candlestick makers." Really? Does the Congressman usually explain major policy decisions by quoting Mother Goose?
Seriously, though--by saying that the GI Bill shouldn't be in the war funding bill, Representative Tanner is supporting the war, but not the warriors. That kind of thinking used to only appear in parodies. Moreover, these Representatives insist on referring to the GI Bill as a "new entitlement" - even though we've had a GI Bill for more than 60 years. But the most remarkable logical pirouette they've offered so far is that they oppose the GI Bill because they are "fiscal conservatives."
Our government has been paying for basically the entire war "off-budget"--the equivalent of racking up billions in credit card debt. Everyone thinks this is a bad way of doing business. But it's not the whole supplemental that these Congressmen are threatening to vote against; it's just the GI Bill. For those of you playing along at home, here's what that looks like:
This circle is the spending bill we're talking about. The big red part? That's spending that is A-OK with these Congressmen (more than $180 billion). It's that tiny blue sliver that represents the GI Bill, and that's the dealbreaker for these folks ($780 million).
It's absurd. Anyone who can find the money to fund the war has no excuse for voting against the tiny fraction of money needed for veterans' education benefits. The fiscal conservative argument seems even more ludicrous once you realize that even five years of spending on the GI Bill would only cost as much as nine weeks of war in Iraq.
While their arguments seem asinine to anyone outside the Beltway, they are putting a serious speedbump in the way of the new GI Bill. Do I think sanity will prevail on this issue? I hope so. One of the leaders of the Blue Dogs is Representative Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-SD), a dedicated supporter of veterans. She may be able to get her troops in line. If not, I'd love to see those members of Congress find a way to explain to their constituents in an election year that they voted for a $170-billion war bill, and then also voted to nickel-and-dime the troops who are fighting that war.
As President Roosevelt said, the GI Bill "gives emphatic notice to the men and women in our armed forces that the American people do not intend to let them down." Please help us show these members of Congress that Americans' support for our troops is no different today than it was 60 years ago. You can join us at www.GIBIll2008.org.
UPDATE (As of 1:19AM Wednesday): Good news. It looks like a deal was reached late Tuesday night. Check out this article from the Politico.
The vote in the House should be on Thursday. There is still a long fight ahead before we can claim victory. Thank you to all of you who called, signed the petition and told your friends. Please check www.IAVA.org for all the latest.
Follow Paul Rieckhoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PaulRieckhoff
Loading comments… 
The treatment I see (firsthand
The "American public,” they only seem to care about what is "on sale" at the mall and how much they have to pay for gas. Military personnel and veteran’s treatment issues are quite secondary to most people’s thoughts unless they are stakeholde
Oh yeah…the SURGE is working.
Most of the people on these threads are two young or couldn't remember the name of that uncle or neighbor's kid that served. So they have no idea what the hell they are talking about. They've read something about McCain on the internet apposing something that had to do with vets, and now they are my best god damned friend.
Lots and lots of promises and bullshit sympathy during the election cycle, then no matter who wins, you and I will be sitting in a long crappy corridor waiting to see the next foreign, student doctor, or reject who doesn't give a shit.
Our troops are nothing more than capital investment and receive little or no respect as human beings who once thought their loyalty and sacrifice would be honored. But serving the armed Corporatio
http://www
The Corporatio
While soldiers die, Bush golfs and lavishes himself with the spoils of the Corporate life.
Just why the hell do you think someone volunteers to be a Marine or Infantry soldier? They train every stinking day to kill whomever they are pointed at. Want to piss off a Marine or tanker? Tell him he's staying home. Do you actually think a Ranger, Recon or Jump Master sits on his bunk and ponders the philosophi
Telling him you feel his pain out of one side of your mouth, and saying innocent children are being murdered by Bush is rank shit and the hypocrisy of your "love and respect" is sickening.
The service people you love, respect and feel so deeply for are the ones that went to Canada or come on these blogs and spew some agreeable garbage. The fact is, the other 99.9% have no use for you or your false pity and you hate and disdain them. They are simply a large voting block you'd like to win over. Liberals here always preface their remarks with "my daddy" or "I have the utmost respect", etc...
When this election is over, service men and women and veterans will again be forgotten and vets left fighting for meager crumbs.
Refer to my original point.
http://www
Got $11K for the GI Bill, and school cost about $40K when prices started shooting through the roof, after I got out, and started on the GI bill.
No relief by the Government and by our lawmakers.
If this were a company that I owned, I would fire them.
Wait, as US Citizens, we do own America. We need to fire all our politician
For those who don't know, we got about $13K-$22K for a $80K+ civilian job. And all that, going to war, and no appreciati
It's no wonder that the world looks down on America, because America has forgotten how to be American.
****
Amendment 1:
· $162.6 billion to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanista
Amendment 2:
· A requiremen
· A mandate that any unit deployed to Iraq must meet Pentagon requiremen
· An anti-tortu
Amendment 3:
· $1.2 billion for global food aid.
· $5.8 billion to repair levees in Louisiana.
· An additional $11 billion over 10 years for unemployme
· An expansion of education benefits for returning troops.
This veto-magne
It comes down to the chicken-sh
Those men and women are not chess pieces, ferchrissa
The Democrats need to stand-up and say out loud and in public the mess this aministrat
Also Jim Webb, a Dem from VA, was the one who wrote the GI Bill in the Senate. That version is supported primarily by the Dems in the Senate with a handful of Repubs thrown in (McCain is not one of them).
http://www
The problem is, there are many on both the far left and far right that live by talking points.
Far too many people are far too fond of this partisan vitriol and bickering for it's own sake and have no real interest in these issues further than using it as a tool to score points.
Dead US Troops = Halliburto
It's that simple. Iraq is simply a business transactio
I feel terrible for even thinking this and terrible for writing it. And I feel so bad for our military sent out to a war zone to face death or horrible injuries to kill Iraqis for no reason whatsoever
**********
Here is my reply from a previous post:
This bill would be THE MOST FAIR AND EQUITABLE bill to ever come out of our government
http://frw
The easiest way to sum it up would be to say that for every month served on active duty you will receive one month of education benefits.
In actuality, if a veteran qualifies, which could be as little as 90 days of active duty, they will receive 36 months of education benefits. HOWEVER, they only receive a proportion of benefits based on time served on active duty. In order to receive 100% of benefits they will have had to serve 36 months of active duty.
Now, if they only served a fraction of the 36 months they will receive a fair and equal proportion of benefits. Here is the breakdown of benefits earned based on months of AD:
>36mo=100%
30-36mo=90
24-30mo=80
18-24mo=70
12-18mo=60
6-12mo=50%
90d-6mo=40
This levels the playing field for reservists who have served any number of months in this war.
Why is it may I ask, that everyone on these threads who says he's an "Independe
What's up with that?
And so.... how will your staunch "Independe
"The Blue Dogs complained the House hadn't identified any way to pay for the new benefits, either through spending cuts or tax increases, as required by pay-as-you
So, do you want more of the same, as in spend, spend, spend with no thought of how to pay for what you are buying, or do you want a balanced budget. I am a retired veteran who has used the GI Bill to the fullest. I am also grateful for the fortitude of the Blue Dogs in keeping with the pledge that the House Democrats agreed to with respect to a blance budget.