Never mind the fact that providing a solid education for soldiers likely provides a much higher ROI than most weapons programs.

I'm always astounded at the extent to which our military favors mechanical captial (i.e. weapons systems) over human capital (i.e. soldiers). If we took half the $$$ that are spent on weapons programs and used them to recruit, retain, and care for soldiers instead, not only would we likely have a more effective military, but probably a healthier and less expensive one as well.

Could you please explain to me the curious habit of asking a question and answering it with no? I simply don't get it.....

Heaven forbid we educate our military. Gotta keep a certain percentage of them dumb and pliable.

They're supposed to follow the McCain GI Plan for enrichment.

1. Dump your current wife.
2. Marry a rich woman.
3. Call her a c*nt, preferably in front of an audience.
4. Run for office as a national hero.

I am curious. Are there differenciated benefits in the new bill, e.g. more for war zone deployment then for, say Kuwait; more for multiple deployments to a war zone, etc?

If we educate too many people, who will paint our toenails?

arco

Paul: Beats me. It's just an idiom. I'm not sure where it originated.

And of course, it would cost too much.

As opposed to the current bloody clusterfuck in Iraq, which is free -- or better yet, paid for by a tax cut.

Wait a mo. 51 cosponsors including NINE republicans? Which 8 Dems -- because I'm guessing that Lieberman is not cosponsoring -- are not already cosponsors of this thing?

Seems like an OBVIOUS millstone around GOP necks during an election year.

It doesn't astonish me that McCain or other high-profile goopers treat the troops like dirt while using the Democrats' supposed hatred of the troops as a political club. That's merely the sort of behavior we've come to expect from them. What does astonish me is that there are numerous people out there so thick they still fall for the ersatz patriotism act the goopers put on.

Could you please explain to me the curious habit of asking a question and answering it with no?

Perhaps you don't have kids. I find many a time you have to give them a cue that they are expected to respond with something other than a blank stare when asked a direct yes/no question.

Never mind the fact that providing a solid education for soldiers likely provides a much higher ROI than most weapons programs.

The ROI for the original G.I. Bill was 7:1. It transformed the economy and made the middle class possible. Pale Rider had a few powerful words to say about it, too.

Sorry about that - I was blogwhoring, but I didn't mean to do it anonymously...

I do find it puzzling. Not that McCain doesn't actually care about soldiers. Just that he doesn't find it expedient to pretend he cares about them.

Beyond the standard-issue GOP talk-the-talk-but-not-walk-the-walk on "supporting the troops," I think a key factor in McCain's failure to support this is that he's probably opposed in principle to soldiers leaving the military at all.

It's really quite simple. Republicans aren't interested in soldiers' welfare, and they aren't interested in creating, building, enhancing, or improving the middle class. They aren't interested in doing anything to the middle class except making it lower-middle class.

Besides, educated people are harder to lie to.

The GI Bill ran until at least the middle 1970s. I got my PhD with support from the GI Bill and my first morgage guaranteed via the GI Bill. And, my tour, which include a remote assignment in Turkey, did not include multiple assignments in Iraq. Every American should support a complete GI Bill for all veterans, including those called up from the reserves. That's patriotism.

But if government paid for GI education, then that would be a positive government action and the Republicans can't have that any more. They are against government, they despise the middle class, they think working people are chumps and this has all become unquestionable political philosophy. So no, McCain will never vote for anything that makes government look good. Don't you love today's right wing?

Here you can find most up to date list of the 51 cosponsors.
http://webb.senate.gov/pdf/cosponsors51.pdf

Kit Bond is the most recent co-sponsor. Missouri bloggers ratcheted up the pressure on him and he did the right thing and signed on on April 7.

thersites beat me to the punch upthread, but why should John McCain care about the GI Bill? His sons, who are in the military, don't have to worry about it either. After McCain cheated on his first wife, he married the Beer Queen, who is going to provide him and his offspring with lots of money for doing nothing the rest of their misspent lives.

He is now cheating on the Beer Queen with the Telecom Wench and probably will find some other tart to cheat with, as long as the Viagra holds out....

I really don't care why McCain is not supporting this bill, tho I think the "R" behind his name is a clue. I'm just GLAD he's not as this will be a big millstone around his neck come November.

I can see the ad now, "John McCain says he supports the troops, but apparently only while they are on active duty. He doesn't support helping them get a college education, buying a house, or paying for the long-term medical consequences of their service. He supports war, not troops."

Could you please explain to me the curious habit of asking a question and answering it with no?

No

Whoever becomes the next commander in chief needs to look for those purple heart recipients that were discharged "for the good of the Army".

I have been told several have shown up in Seattle living on the streets.

Well, as an American taxpayer, I certainly don't want to see any more money going to the military. Not one red cent. They already have much better benefits than the rest of the citizenry, and they contribute much, much less. We need to eliminate this apartheid system where warmongers (anyone serving in the military) get better benefits than the rest of the people. Enough is enough. Let the people who support the wars cough up the money to educate these people, if they want. I have better things to do with my money.

Remember, they are not "defending our country," as they claim. Iraq, for one, was never, ever a threat to the US. What they are really doing is endangering us all. We MUST stand up against these people, and these incessant, never-ending demands for more money for the military. Enough is enough.

Well said, Kevin, well said.

I strongly support the new bill, but I do think it's kind of admirable that McCain is willing to cut programs for his friends as well as his enemies. If you honestly believe federal spending is out of control, as Repubs have said for years, you don't add new programs until get a grip on the old ones... kinda like going to Iowa and denouncing ethanol, some things about McCain are a lot better than Rove and dubya, even if you disagree with him.

After all, who's opposed to a college education for returning Iraq vets?

I am.

These fellows are volunteers - hence willing accomplices to the war crime that is Iraq.

It's past time that "liberals" like Drum stop kissing up to them.

mike at 4:03, speaking as
a) a veteran, and
b) a pacifist
I would respectfully point out that "giving money to the military" and providing medical and educational benefits are two entirely diffent things.

On the first, I agree. Our military budget is huge and bloated, and most of that money is spent on crap that does not serve the national defense at all.

On the second, I would point out that not everyone in the military is a "warmonger." Those serving in Iraq are, in many cases, there not because they want to be in Iraq but because the civilian leadership put them there. Of the many sins of the Bush regime, one of the chief ones is to have taken the genuine patriotism of many young people who enlisted in the wake of 9/11 and put that energy at the service of their own twisted ends which, it's true, have little or nothing to do with "defending the country." To deny benefits to those that served to the best of their ability, as a way of expressing our anger against the plutocrats who put them there, would be both wrong and a recipe for massive social upheavals. Compared to what's spent on useless mega-weapons, the cost of educational benefits is almost trivial.

who's opposed to a college education for returning Iraq vets?

Antiwar behaviorists. Rewarding bad behavior increases the usage of the unwanted behavior. The soldiers who obeyed W. Bush and killed for him should not be punished, but they should not be rewarded either. The generals, however, should be hanged, if they are found guilty of war crimes by a Nuremberg-like court, which all the generals and political leadership should be subjected to whenever military force is used.

"If we took half the $$$ that are spent on weapons programs and used them to recruit, retain, and care for soldiers instead, not only would we likely have a more effective military, but probably a healthier and less expensive one as well." (mfw13)

$$$ spent on weapons programs generate immediate huge profits for the companies that produce them. Investment in human capital (including the GI Bill) benefit the entire economy over a longer period. Republicans, in general, favor the former.

As a generalization, most questions that are asked about the allocation of public funds during a Republican administration can be answered by looking at who benefits the most in the short run. All relevant statistics will quickly confirm that Republic administrations channel public funds to wealthy Republicans who fund the political process.

Brojo: The soldiers who obeyed W. Bush and killed for him should not be punished, but they should not be rewarded either.

Even if I agreed with you on principle (I don't but won't argue it, because I know your principles are strongly held) I would worry about the long-term consequences of abandoning war veterans and just cutting them loose with little prospect of advancement in society. Education is not just a "reward;" it's a vital part of the healing and re-integration process.

As a retired enlisted Army veteran (23 years) currently using my GI-Bill benefits (VEAP) to get a math degree (future HS math teacher) another issue lost in the details is that for the many veterans who use their benefits after they retire, the amount of money they have accrued doesn't come close to covering my tuition bill for 4 years of schooling. I joined the Army in 1983 and at that time one could accrue (with the VEAP program) approximately 21,000 dollars. At the time, 83, that would have been enough money to go to my present university (University of Colorado). In 2008 $21,000 sure doesn't go far.

Oh well, back to epsilon-delta proofs.

The soldiers who killed for W. Bush should not be abandoned. They should be entitled to the same benefits as every other citizen, but no more.

"And of course, it would cost too much."

I never quite get that "cost too much" argument.

First, the DoD isn't a profit-making entity. Second, why do the E-Ring suits care? The Congress appropriates the money. It isn't as if the money is going to be taken from some other program to pay for the GI bill.

And how often does the Pentagon put the brakes on weapons program that costs too much? (Well, it does. . .eventually.) I recently read an article in the WAPO regarding the GAO's review of weapons and assorted programs. Many were waaay out of control.

I'm an aircrewman (reservist)on old, T-model,Navy C-130s and was shocked to learn that the cost of upgrading the Hercs avionics (aviation electronics)increased 323 percent. Hercs have some problems but are (with proper maintenance and inspections)utterly reliable. The newest models ("J") The first deliveries of the J-model was in 1999. (Marines, Coasties and the Air Force and Air Guard fly J-models.)That means the oldest aircraft are only 9 years old. With a good maintenance and inspection regime, those things are babies. The Hercs are fitted out with digital avionics, including Head-Up Displays (HUDs) for each pilot. What type of upgrade caused a 300+ percent cost overrun?

What the hell are these systems supposed to do? Shit diamonds? Fly at light speed? Why didn't someone apply the brakes when the cost increased 1.5 times? Or two times the cost. 323 percent?? Outrageous.

thersites is right -- the reason we gave vets generous education benefits post WWII is because of the lessons learned after WWI. We broke so many of the promises made to the doughboys and they returned to a broken economy and like now so many did not share in the prosperity of the 1920s.

After 1929 as desperation set in and yet another bonus promised denied, vets marched en masse in the Bonus Army March to Washington where the vets and their families camped out in the Anacostia Flats of Washington, DC because the literally had no other place to go. Suprisingly in the months they were camped out, the camp was pretty crime free and peaceful with many activities including makeshift schools for the children.

Of course that Would Not Do, so they sent in the army including two young officers -- Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower to clear them out. Later Eisenhower would write of his shame and embarrassment at being ordered to do so.

HokieAnnie -- don't forget Patton.

tec619 -- I sure loved me some Hercs back in the 70's.

Another reason for the original GI Bill was to prevent another Depression. One of the greatest fears for the post-war period was a return to the economic conditions of 1938/39.
Public works programs were cut severely in the 1937 Budget because "economic indicators" said that the worst of the Depression was over. The result of the cuts was the "Roosevelt Recession" of 1937/38. The cuts were quickly restored, but the economy didn't recover to pre-recession levels until the 1940 Budget provided massive expenditures for military preparedness.
The memories of that recession greatly assisted in the passing of the GI Bill in 1944. The idea being, I presume, that while the GI's were in school they wouldn't be out hunting for jobs, thus giving the economy time to switch over from war time to peace time production.
for mike @ 4:03PM "...warmongers (anyone serving in the military)..."
While many of the people I knew while I served in the Navy were very impressed with the power and efficacy of the missiles, guns, torpedoes, etc. that we carried; few wanted to see them used in combat because if we were firing them at someone, then that someone would be firing their equivalent missiles, guns, torpedoes, etc. at us. Nobody wants to be a target.
I know you will find it hard to believe, but not once during my 20 years service did Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush1, or Clinton ever ask for my opinion on who we should or shouldn't invade. The communications channels tend to run only one way, you know.

thersites:

Were you a maintainer? What do you think of Herc avionics that runs 323 percent over-budget? Strange, no?

The GI Bill was initiated when the US had universal conscription. Almost everyone served and almost everyone was eligible for the benefit. The GI Bill was a reward for coerced service. For being drafted and serving.

There were a lot more citizens serving as soldiers in WW I, II and Vietnam compared to the numbers serving today. Although today's veterans will impact their local communities, they may not affect overall rates of crime and drug use like the Vietnam era vets did.

Rewarding the current crop of soldiers beyond what was promised at the time they volunteered reinforces their behavior to obey monsters like W. Bush and sets them apart from the rest of the population as a more important subset because of that obedience. Integrating the soldiers back to peaceful and product lives is important, but it is just as important for every other citizen. Just because these soldiers were obedient to immoral and unlawful commands by the president does not justify making them more important than any other group or individual.

tec619 -- I was in NavAids Maintenance. TACAN, VOR, IFF and Radar. Most of the equipment was still vacuum-tube based.

I don't know about 323% overruns, but one time Stateside I got my butt reamed for using a can of contact cleaner that I'd bought at Radio Shack for about a buck, instead of the same stuff -- in a white can with an FSN -- Uncle was paying about $3.00 for, when we could get it. The more things change and all that...

Brojo,

On a certain level, I do agree with what you are saying.

I do want to point out, though, since your focus is exclusively on REWARDING the soldiers, the purpose of this new GI Bill is also if not primarily a RECRUITING tool, designed to increase the number of volunteers to replenish our depleted military.

You could argue that replenishing the depleted military is not a worthy goal and one that circles around to your original disagreement, but I would not accept the premise that a strong military deterrent is unnecessary.

A strong military deterrent to what? The problem Americans have is we sacrifice so much wealth for no good reason. Everyone could go to the most expensive colleges if we spent defensecare monies on education. The military needs to be mothballed until an actual military threat exists. Bring the troops home, disband 80% of the military, and everyone, those who killed Iraqis for W. Bush and those who who did not, goes to college with a citizens education benefit. The US would be much better off if we did this immediately.

Bring the troops home, disband 80% of the military, and everyone goes to college with a citizens education benefit and everyone receives universal healthcare, too. Instead we arm ourselves with overwhelming force for which no foe exists.

McCain is probably into the Dream Act for illegal aliens nowadays.

Getting tortured as a POW implies patriotism is a sentimental conclusion, but not a logical one. One can be a tortured POW and unpatriotic also.

Brojo: disband 80% of the military, and everyone goes to college...

The 80% number is arguable. But in principle, you're not wrong.

My quarrel is with your blanket condemnation of "those who killed for W." There are always a few yahoos who join up out of bloodlust, but the majority don't.

Dishonoring the service of the troops by diminishing their service to just obeying W. Bush is my way of not providing positive reinforcement for a behavior I would like to extinguish. My hostility to the US occupation of Iraq is expressed through our soldiers use of deadly force. Even though I do not mean it personally, my disrespect is a negative emotion stimulated by the killed and the soon to be killed.

The troops do need to be treated for the trauma their service has caused them. I have no problem providing them those services. If my hostility becomes an obstacle to that, then I will need some war trauma services, too.

...is my way of not providing positive reinforcement for a behavior I would like to extinguish

Ah, the "stern father" approach to behavior modification, along with the "we can't let them get away with this" mindset. How very Republican of you.