DOING THE TROOPS WRONG or WHY I WON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN

Submitted by ms zola on May 10, 2008 - 6:33am.

I am submitting this wonderful article by Bob Herbert. It reveals the character of our present leadership and reveals how little the Republicans have supported our troops from the very beginning. it also reveals how there has been very little dissent among the Republicans in Congress even when it all boils down to humanitarian issues.

PLEASE READ THIS ALL THE WAY THROUGH. THANK YOU!

Doing the Troops Wrong

By BOB HERBERT
Published: May 6, 2008
NY TIMES

At the top of the list of no-brainers in Washington should be Senator Jim Webb’s proposed expansion of education benefits for the men and women who have served in the armed forces since Sept. 11, 2001.

It’s awfully hard to make the case that these young people who have sacrificed so much don’t deserve a shot at a better future once their wartime service has ended.

Senator Webb, a Virginia Democrat, has been the guiding force behind this legislation, which has been dubbed the new G.I. bill. The measure is decidedly bipartisan. Mr. Webb’s principal co-sponsors include Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Warner of Virginia, and Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.

(All four senators are veterans of wartime service — Senators Webb and Hagel in Vietnam, Warner in World War II and Korea and Lautenberg in World War II.

Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are on board, as are Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House.

Who wouldn’t support an effort to pay for college for G.I.s?

GI’s who have willingly suited up and put their lives on the line, who in many cases have served multiple tours in combat zones and in some cases have been wounded?

We did it for those who served in World War II.

Why not now?

Well, you might be surprised at who is not supporting this effort. The Bush administration opposes it, and so does Senator John McCain.

Reinvigorating the G.I. bill is one of the best things this nation could do. The original G.I. Bill of Rights, signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, paid the full load of a returning veteran’s education at a college or technical school and provided a monthly stipend. It was an investment that paid astounding dividends. Millions of veterans benefited, and they helped transform the nation. College would no longer be the exclusive preserve of the wealthy and those who crowned themselves the intellectual elite.

As The New York Times wrote on the 50th anniversary of the G.I. bill: “Few laws have done so much for so many.”

“These veterans were able to get a first-class future,” Senator Webb told me in an interview. “But not only that. For every dollar that was spent on the World War II G.I. bill, seven dollars came back in the form of tax remunerations from those who received benefits.”

Senator Lautenberg went to Columbia on the G.I. bill, and Senator Warner to Washington and Lee University and then to law school.

The benefits have not kept pace over the decades with the real costs of attending college. Moreover, service members have to make an out-of-pocket contribution — something over $100 a month during their first year of service — to qualify for the watered-down benefits.

This is not exactly first-class treatment of the nation’s warriors.

The Bush administration opposes the new G.I. bill primarily on the grounds that it is too generous, would be difficult to administer and would adversely affect retention.

This is bogus. The estimated $2.5 billion to $4 billion annual cost of the Webb proposal is dwarfed by the hundreds of billions being spent on the wars we’re asking service members to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. What’s important to keep in mind is that the money that goes to bolstering the education of returning veterans is an investment, in both the lives of the veterans themselves and the future of the nation.

The notion that expanding educational benefits will have a negative effect on retention seems silly. The Webb bill would cover tuition at a rate comparable to the highest tuition at a state school in the state in which the veteran would be enrolled. That kind of solid benefit would draw talented individuals into the military in large numbers.

Senator Webb, a former secretary of the Navy who specialized in manpower issues, said he has seen no evidence that G.I.’s would opt out of the service in significantly higher numbers because of such benefits.

Senator McCain’s office said on Monday that it was following the Pentagon’s lead on this matter, getting guidance from Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Under pressure because of his unwillingness to support Senator Webb’s effort, Senator McCain introduced legislation with substantially fewer co-sponsors last week that expands some educational benefits for G.I.’s, but far less robustly than Senator Webb’s bill.

“It’s not even close to the Webb bill,” said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, an advocacy group.

Politicians tend to talk very, very big about supporting our men and women in uniform. But time and again — whether it’s about providing armor for their safety or an education for their future — we find that talk to be very, very cheap.

----------------------------------------------------

For some reason President Bush has been very stingy with our GI's and their families. He has vetoed a bill which would have helped war widows and would have given the men and women in uniform a decent raise. You can do something about this by contacting your Senators and representatives and reposting this. Please help our service men and women! Many of our troops joined the military to help finance their education. Many of those kids didn't live to collect it. Help those who do come back to have a better future than the homelessness many of our veterans have faced.

If you do believe in supporting the troops this is the best way possible!!!!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sassys Says:
May 10, 2008 - 7:08am

http://bloggerparty.com/blog/sassys

will live on in infamy...as our Presidente likes to say "history will tell" I actually agree with that statement as it's common sense, but what history will tell is that this administration did NOTHING for this country and actually turned back time. Nothing Bush and his cronies have done has been in service to this great country...it has only been to serve themselves and it's glaring...McCain is just another Bush in sheep's clothing. The only difference between the two is Bush is less intelligent and McCain is more vicious, plus McCain feels he has a little vendetta being that he was held captive, he truly believes "now it's their turn" If he wins this country may never be able to recover the damages...This illegal war never was about "saving America" nope it was, and still is, about OIL and money.

ms zola's picture
ms zola Says:
May 11, 2008 - 3:07am

I cannot believe that these people have gotten away with robbing the country. Their deep pockets have brought this country to rack and ruin. As we sit on the edge of a depression, as many businesses are closing their doors due to the greed by the present administration and their polies, the tip of the iceburg is sitting and waiting for the Titanic to float by. What scares me is the Democrats will get the blame for the last 8 years if indeed the bottom falls out in early '09.


huttriver10's picture
huttriver10 Says:
May 10, 2008 - 2:23pm

Right wingers everywhere even down under, dont like spending too much money on social type programs. Why? They are scared that their friends and fellow travellers may miss out on some of the dosh!!

My Qassia LinkTHE GREEN BLOG - World of Conservation and Ecology


ms zola's picture
ms zola Says:
May 11, 2008 - 3:14am

that can go by the wayside to pay for something as noble as thanking our G.I.'s for the sacrifice they have made for the country. Bush calls for sacrifice, but he doesn't mean himself and any money for the people who are doing the sacrificing.

Some people who are opposed to the Bill say soldiers will leave the military to take advantage of the Bill. Actually, it will increase the numbers so kids who couldn't go to college will have the opportunity after a few years in the military. With the archaic thinking of the do nots, it means they believe an ignorant military is what is best for the country. The best way to keep service members in the military is to offer good packages and quit sending our soldiers to Iraq over and over and over again.


Pussy Willow's picture
Pussy Willow Says:
May 12, 2008 - 2:10pm

because fewer people are voluntarily enlisting in the military. But the only incentive for enlisting these days are for those who find themselves in front of a judge who gives them a choice, military service or jail. The government certainly isn't offering any incentives to enlist.

Servicemen and women coming back from Iraq and Afganistan are comitting suicide in record numbers. One of the reasons postulated for this is because they have nothing to live for when they get back. In fact, many service men and women have said just that. Civilian life can't offer them the challenges that serving in Iraq gave them. And they're coming back to a crippled economy that doesn't have enough decent paying jobs for them.

Offering them enough money to get a college education isn't just the right thing to do to thank them for risking their lives. It just might give them a reason to keep on living once they get back.

The Willow Does Gary Oldman


ms zola's picture
ms zola Says:
May 12, 2008 - 2:43pm

soldier who had been a sergeant in the army and h ad served several tours in Iraq in Baghdad. When he got out, the only job he could find was working in the fast food industry. He quit when he was chastised by an 19 year old assistant manager for cutting the onions too big. And then we wonder why these people don't feel challenged?

Many businesses won't hire veterans because thye feel they are a walking powder keg because they served in combat....and the want to draft more? so that those people can get out and face the same bleak future?...what's wrong with this picture?


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.