Congress: Money for War, But No Money for the Troops?
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…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As a Vietnam era, combat veteran currently engaged in a new battle...o
The treatment I see (firsthand) is deplorable, most of the Dr’s., would be lucky to hold a job in a drive through clinic let alone a good hospital. What they seem to care about the most is covering their asses, prescribing unnecessary medications (it gives the impression they are doing something) and putting in their time. Care about the patient…some may, but not too many.
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 stakeholders with a loved one in harms way or are dealing with the aftermath of our disastrous military adventures across the globe.
Oh yeah…the SURGE is working.
I agree and your remarks reflect my own.
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.
I wish the media would spend as much time promoting the documentary Body of War as it does Reverend Wright. I'd urge every one who can to see that movie. The documentary portrays the every day life of a severely disabled Iraqi war veteran. The people who oppose the GI Bill for Iraqi war veterans are unfit to stay in Congress. Almost all of them voted for this war to begin with. To deny veterans their rights is disgraceful and unpatriotic. We need a clean sweep this election - get rid of all the Republicans and serve the Blue Dog democrats that they'll face opposition in the next primary - preferably from an Iraq war veteran. A number of Democratic candidates are Iraqi war veterans. I urge everyone to support them. (Find their website on the internet.) The best way we can support the troops is to bring them home safely and to provide a fully funded GI Bill. We can pay for it, by taxing all the corporations which profiteered from this war.
This is just one more example of why this country is going down the tubes. We have a government that encourages the killing and destruction of brown people, train and order the poor to do that killing then say they aren't worth a damn to them when the killing's done. And this is just one of many ways that our government is failing us. "God bless America"? This is just one more proof that there is no god.
Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted for the specific treason of troop betrayal. Our soldiers were never more than tools to realize Cheney's militant corporatist conspiracy to gut the middle class and enrich the most vulgar and corrupt occupying our country.
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 Corporation has few benefits, sort of like today's domestic corporations who have slashed health benefits for outrageous profit.
http://www
The Corporation simply does not give a shit.
While soldiers die, Bush golfs and lavishes himself with the spoils of the Corporate life.
This country, Democrats and Republicans alike, haven't been worth a crap to service men and women. The adjudication process stinks, appeals take years, GI Bill a joke, medical treatment awful. McCain not the least of hypocrites.
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 philosophical aspects of our presence in Iraq. He could give a shit.
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.
Tell it to the Low Life Republicans, whom most in the Congress are true "Cowards" It takes Democrats to give pay raises to those in the service, while the Republicans fight to stop it. and they claim to be for the troops. "Thats' a 'Joke. It takes the Democrats to fund money for the Vet's Hospitals, and Republicans try to shoot down the funding. "Whats with these two-faced Republicans.
Nice talking point.
Refer to my original point.
That's why it is so important to get shit done immediately! November is only 6 months away. This makes me optimistic:
http://www
I strongly agree.
"When this election is over, service men and women and veterans will again be forgotten and vets left fighting for meager crumbs."
Not by this little citizen, Red.
We may disagree with one another and brawl like the Germans and French at Verdun here on HuffPo, but I still hold your service to our country as a thing to respect, not denigrate, dismiss, or ignore.
I will continue to cajole, harass, pester, and whatever else I can legally do in my own small way to keep the needs of our vets on the radar screens of my elected officials. More to the point, I'll continue to do what I can to see that our vets are neither ignored, nor *neglected* as they have been for far, far too long.
While you regard me as a "liberal' nutjob, I am still more or less on your side in this particular fight, whether that information makes your head explode or not.
Get used to it, old soldier; you're stuck with me. >;D
Leland R. Erickson
Citizen
Leave it to the Demc, their good for that.
Clarification on last post on the $13k-$22k, that was our salary we took yearly. I made about $7-$8k my first year in the service.
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 politicians. It's no longer about experience, it's clear experience hasn't done any good for America. It's time for fresh leadership and vision and doing the right thing for America.
As a veteran, who got out on the promise of the GI bill, and watched tuition sky rocket, I am now saddled with a huge debt, and is that what we give our people who serve?
For those who don't know, we got about $13K-$22K for a $80K+ civilian job. And all that, going to war, and no appreciation by America for our service.
It's no wonder that the world looks down on America, because America has forgotten how to be American.
Unfortunately the House leadership has set up the bill to fail, even though the New GI Bill has overwhelming support were it stand-alone legislation. The supplemental appropriation package contains the following:
****
Amendment 1:
· $162.6 billion to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan well into 2009.
Amendment 2:
· A requirement to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 30 days of passage, with a goal of having all troops out of Iraq by December 2009 (except those providing embassy security).
· A mandate that any unit deployed to Iraq must meet Pentagon requirements that it be "fully mission capable."
· An anti-torture provision that requires the CIA to comply with interrogation techniques in the Army Field Manual.
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 unemployment compensation.
· An expansion of education benefits for returning troops.
This veto-magnet spending bill is designed to create talking points for attack ads. It is not constructed to support the troops.
I agree, Ramirez.
It comes down to the chicken-sh*t Democratic politicians, doesn't it? When the People voted in '06, we wanted our voices heard. Playing politics with a game of Bad Repubs and Lily-livered Dems vs Our Troops, gets me fired up to no end.
Those men and women are not chess pieces, ferchrissakes! They're MY family members.
My 19 year old nephew is headed for Iraq next year. We need a new president so badly.
The Democrats need to stand-up and say out loud and in public the mess this aministration has gotten us into. Condem, Condem, & Condem Again!!!
To be fair to the Dems, the "Blue Dog Coalition" pols have almost always been Dems in Name Only.
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).
I forgot to add my link. The details of the posting above come from the excellent milblog "Mudville Gazette." (They are all over this story.) The commentary and rhetoric is mine.
http://www
Outstanding post!
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.
Americans could not care less about the troops. All the "Support the Troops" crap means nothing.
Dead US Troops = Halliburton Profits = Money in Dick Cheney's bloody criminal pockets.
It's that simple. Iraq is simply a business transaction to make the Oil and Arms dealers more wealthy. The troops mean nothing. Money in the pockets of the Bush criminals is all that matters.
**********
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. But when we offer to pay for a college education in exchange for our fellow citizens signing up to help Bush wage his senseless war, we are bribing those who can't afford college to join this carnage. Is this bribe really beneficial for those who need money for college and is it beneficial for our nation to continue this war? I don't want to short-change our veterans more than they're already being taken advantage of. But I despise this evil war and I want it to end - for the despicable war itself and for the safety of our troops over there. I don't really know what's ethically and morally the right thing to do.
**********
hmmm wasn't a big part of the problem with the proposed change that the full entitlement applied after a mere 90 days of service???
Negative.
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. You can read the full text here:
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.
I'm really not that surprised that it was members of the Blue Dog Republicans. In my view they are nothing but fifth columnists. Republicans in sheeps clothing if you will. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them and that's why I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. As far as I am concerned the Democrats ought to use the same methods for insuring party loyalty as the Republicans do. If you don't vote according to the Parties Platform and Policy beliefs then you get no more support for reelection. You would be left out in the dark to fend for yourself. Why support betrayers. Ever notice that most of the Blue Dogs are from the South. These guys are "Old School Dems" the kind who resemble what are now mainly Republicans. Most of their ilk have already gone over to the Republican Party, guys like the oily toads from Texas who switched parties in the last few years. I don't think they are even active in Congress now.
When you refer to insuring party loyalty by cutting off support... do you mean, sort of like what happened to (former Democratic) Senator Joe Lieberman for instance?
Why is it may I ask, that everyone on these threads who says he's an "Independent", has no party loyalty, then launches into a bitter condemnation of the Republican party?
What's up with that?
And so.... how will your staunch "Independent" self be voting this fall, pray tell?
The fiscally responsible "Bluedogs" should consider putting forth a Cheney/bush Iraq War Tax, a burden targeted to America's richest people, to pay the ongoing expense of the Cheney/bush mistake retroactive back to March 2003. Putting the entire war on a "pay as you go" basis should be something the "ole Bluedogs" should pursue, or are they the same as the anti people Republicans.
Anyway, how ARE we paying for the war at present? Dumping off the debt to future generations. Get back to cash-and-carry, people, and the economy will fix itself. The credit sysyem we currently employ is an extention of the old company store technique used to keep the miners digging. You're so far in debt for your basics, you can't break away.
If you don't know the full story, you shouldn't be writing commentary on it Mr. Rieckhoff. Clearly the point of contention is not the granting of those benefits to our soldiers, but how to pay for them.
"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-go rules imposed by House Democrats when they took power early last year. "I've never seen the Blue Dogs this unified, this upset," said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. and a Blue Dog member, in an interview with Congressional Quarterly.
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.
Why, thank you, lightnin' roddy, for adressing my "spin" concern one minute after I posted it.
If this is such a terrific piece of legislation (which, as a military retiree, I think it is) then why was it attached to a war funding bill that everyone knew the President would veto because of timetables? Such an honorable bill should have been submitted as a stand-alone - especially with the bipartisan support it received. Sounds like someone is practising the sleaziest form of politics with something that should be done just because it''s right.
The people practicing the "sleaziest form of politics" are the Blue Dogs that are fine with putting $180 billion+ on the deficit to fund the war but shout "fiscal responsibility" regarding the new GI Bill. FYI, the President (and Senator McSame) has come out in opposition to this "terrific piece of legislation" regardless of what it may be attached to.
This issue about the cost of S. 22 is absolutely frivolous. Just look at the pie graph!!! We could pay for S.22 with one week's worth of the money spent on the War in Iraq.
Spend, spend, spend? How the hell are we funding the war? I cannot believe the audacity of people in making arguments against S.22 This is an absolute no-brainer. As others have said, this should be a calculated cost of war.
If you can't read, maybe you shouldn't be criticizing Paul Reickhoff. Let me condense a few paragraphs. The fiscally responsible Blue Dogs are ok with putting 180 billion for the war on credit. 780 million for benefits trips their PAYGO conscience so much they can't figure out a way to cover it.
Lame is too kind.
For the record, my father and uncle both got advanced degrees on the GI bill. Dad worked R&D in building materials. Among other patents: the first fire retardant ceiling tile.
His brother went into physics. He joined the Johns Hopkins Physics team that developed the Polaris, Poseidon and Trident missiles for the nuclear subs. One of his responsibilities was to meet the subs in ports world wide to troubleshoot problems.
Thanks as always Paul, for all you do. Got the email yesterday, did my part and forwarded to Dad and the rest to do theirs.
Thanks so much, Ginny! You guys rock!
If you can't read the full story, you shouldn't be commenting on it rodnacious. Rather than simply cherry picking the BS Blue Dog rationale out of the story, why not read the whole thing? If the Blue Dogs were serious about fiscal responsibility they'd oppose the ENTIRE war funding bill since it hasn't been established how it will be paid for through spending cuts or tax increases. (cont.)
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
