That quote is a line from Bob Herbert's very incisive column this morning, entitled Doing the Troops Wrong. The column is in support of the new GI Bill introduced by my junior senator, Jim Webb. The title is derived from the attitutes of the Bush administration and John McCain in opposition.
This is an action diary. I want to you to read the column. Perhaps you can cut and paste it into an email or print it out for a fax, highlighting the key passages.
Let me give you SOME guidance on important parts.
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."
That by itself should be sufficient. But I am going to push fair use and offer a few more snippets. But first let me offer some background.
Two the key cosponsors are themselves beneficiaries of earlier versions of the the G. I. Bill. Sen. Lautenberg went to Columbia on the WWII version, then eventually went on to found a very profitable company named ADP which did payroll processing and other tasks for hundreds of small businesses. He taught as an adjunct at Columbia Business School, where my father also served part-time. Sen. Warner went to Washington & Lee on the WWII version, and to UVa Law on the Korean War version. His public service goes back to the Nixon administration.
Those bills paid full expenses. Even the Vietnam era GI Bill, under which I completed my undergraduate degree at Haverford, paid 100/mo for college with no contribution for any serviceman with more than 6 months on active duty. But in Vietnam tours in country were 12 months for the Army and 13 months for the Marines, and one was not sent back involuntarily. And we had a separate benefit for being able to purchase houses with a government guarantee, which maximized the points we paid at one. I both finished college and bought the home in which I write this using my Vietnam era GI bill benefits. And if you'd like a comparison of how far that 100/month went when the Vietnam era bill became law in 1966, consider some factoids:
Gallon of Milk 1.11
Loaf of Bread .22
Gallon of Gas .23
New Auto 2,410.00
New Home 40,000.00
Average Income 6,004.00
(Here is the site from which I obtained these, but there are other similar ones).
Now let's return to Herbert, with a few more snippets.
Herbert reminds of us the arguments by McCain and the administration that Webb's proposed benefits are too generous, would cost too much, and might leave to people leaving the service rather than being retained. He responds bluntly that 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.He also points out that more generous benefits might actually serve to draw more to military service - and while Herbert does not mention it, we should remember that the only way the military is currently "meeting" its recruitment goals is by raising the maximum age, lowering the educational and intellectual standards, and - worst of all - providing extensive waivers for incidents of behavior previously considered disqualifying. Who would we rather have serving, higher quality individuals drawn by better benefits, or those we would otherwise rather not have as part of our military?
After quoting our own Paul Rieckhoff about how McCain's proposed alternative does not come close to the Webb bill, Herbert closes with a line that should be repeated any time politicians talk about "supporting the troops":
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.
Bush is likely to veto the Webb proposal should it pass Congress. If there are not votes to override directly, there is a simple solution. The President does NOT have line-item veto authority. Attach the Webb bill to any further funding for the Iraqi conflict. If the administration is unwilling to provide for those serving in that conflict, let them take that case to the American people in an election year.
Peace.
We still have House members we can lobby.
And if we have roots or connections in other states, we can try to use them to promote this legislation as well.
Peace.