With four weeks remaining before the election, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) released its report cards on members of the 110th Congress. Grading was based on legislation that affected veterans and their families.
In the Senate, Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona earned a ‘D’ on the report card, while his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, finished the term with a ‘B.’ Grades were based on nine votes covering a range of issue including veterans’ health care, the new GI Bill, mental health and support for homeless veterans.
Both of the nominees’ grades were hindered by their attendance. While hitting the campaign trail for potential votes, McCain missed six of the nine votes, while his counterpart, Obama, missed four of the votes.
The IAVA, the largest organization of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, says it is committed to holding elected officials accountable through its nonprofit, nonpartisan 501, the IAVA Action Fund. The advocacy group released the report card on Oct. 6 to educate American voters on the voting records of elected officials and hold them them accountable for their actions regarding the 1.7 million veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The report card scores are based on how often legislators voted in favor of pro-veteran positions that align with the IAVA Action. All of the bills were equally weighted, except the 21st Century GI Bill, which was doubled because it was the IAVA’s top legislative priority.
The latter boded well for Obama, who co-sponsored the bill, but adversely affected McCain, who not only did not support the final version of the bill, but, while fundraising in California, missed the vote. McCain did co-sponsor an alternative bill, which was quickly shot down in the Senate, because it conflicted with Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb’s version of the bill.
Voting against the new GI Bill affected Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who received a ‘C’ on the report card, while his colleague Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, received the highest rating, an ‘A+’.
In the House, Iowa’s freshmen Democrats, Reps. Bruce Braley, District 1, and Dave Loebsack,District 2, joined Harkin at the top with an ‘A+.’ They were closely followed by Reps. Leonard Boswell, D- District 3 and Tom Latham, R- District 4, who received an ‘A,’ and Rep. Steve King, R-District 5, who earned a ‘B’.
The IAVA used 13 votes in the House to assess grades
Showing posts with label Jim Webb. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jim Webb. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
New GI Bill Survives the Right Way, the Congressional Way and the Bush Way
When it comes to updating the 64-year-old GI Bill, a military adage comes to mind: There is the right way, the wrong way and the President Bush way. After reaching a more costly compromise that would avert Bush’s veto pen, the House voted Thursday to approve the 21st-century GI Bill.
Bush is expected to sign the latest version of the bill, which prompted Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., to issue a statement regarding the president’s pledge. “For the past 17 months, I and my staff have been working every day to provide first-class educational benefits to those who have served since 9/11,” Webb said. “I am delighted that after having opposed this legislation, the President has now pledged that he will not veto it when it comes before him as part of this year’s supplemental appropriations package.
“I would like to again express my appreciation to the veterans’ service organizations, many of whom communicated their support of this bill directly to a skeptical White House, and to the 58 Senate and 302 House cosponsors of this landmark legislation,” Webb said. “This bipartisan coalition consistently rejected the allegations of this Administration, and of Senators McCain, Burr and Graham, among others, who claimed that the bill was too generous to our veterans, too difficult to administer and would hurt retention.”
While simultaneously praising the passage of the war-funding bill, Republican presidential nominee John McCain of Arizona voiced his reservations: “I am pleased an agreement has finally been reached to fund our troops,” McCain said in a statement. "That [retention] has always been my primary concern with respect to the Webb bill, and it is essential that we continue to act decisively to encourage military service and ensure the well being of our All Volunteer Force.”
The Congressional Way
But how the bill finally reached Bush’s desk gives new meaning to the definition of quagmire.
The bill, originally introduced by Webb, had bipartisan support early on, but it hit a few snags in Congress, including the threat of a revolt from members of the Blue Dog Democrats and objections from McCain.
McCain, who sided with the Bush administration’s reasoning in refusing to support Webb’s version, offered his own version, which was immediately shot down in the Senate. Citing the same reasons as Bush did in explaining why the president planned on vetoing the measure, McCain objected to giving veterans, after serving only a few years, an education benefit equivalent to the tuition of a state’s highest-priced public institution. McCain voiced concerns that Webb’s bill would persuade service members to leave the military early and pursue higher education.
Webb’s version passed with overwhelming bipartisan support by a vote 75-22. McCain, however, was AWOL on the day of the vote, reportedly raising money in California for his presidential bid.
The bill moved to the House, where it initially appeared it would receive veto-proof support from both parties. However, some members of the moderate Blue Dog Democrats threatened to revolt, citing the "pay as you go" budget rules that require new benefit programs be financed with offsetting spending cuts or new taxes so as not to increase the budget deficit. They argued that the war funding bill is an emergency appropriation, but the veterans' education funding is a new mandatory benefit program that's supposed to be subject to the budget rule.
"It's the principle involved of not putting a mandatory program of any kind on an emergency supplemental," Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., told the AP.
However, not all the Blue Dogs shared this view or threatened to revolt, including Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, a 20-year Army veteran, who was one of the 277 House members co-sponsoring the new legislation.
Boswell's chief of staff, Susan McAvoy, told the Iowa Independent that the opposition was not officially endorsed by the Blue Dog coalition. "Boswell informed his colleagues where he stood prior to any debate on the bill," McAvoy said. "Rep. Boswell is very supportive of veterans and would not do anything that would keep the new GI Bill from moving forward in the House."
Despite the House’s most recent compromise with the administration, some of the Blue Dog Democrats are still upset with the $62 billion price tag on the GI Bill benefits, which will be added to the deficit instead of being “paid for” as called for under House rules.
The Bush Way
All during the congressional process, Bush had threatened to veto the new GI Bill because of the costs, but ironically, the administration pushed for a compromise that would boost the funding an additional $10 billion over 10 years.
The White House wanted to add a provision that would allow troops to transfer their educational benefits to their spouses or children.
In an interview with the AP, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., responded to the White House push: "It's like the Yogi Berra story: 'I don't like that restaurant. Besides, the portions aren't large enough. They don't like it, but they want more."
"It's not a bad idea," Pelosi added. "It just costs money."
And it looks like the compromise process yielded just that: a GI Bill that will cost more money.
Bush is expected to sign the latest version of the bill, which prompted Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., to issue a statement regarding the president’s pledge. “For the past 17 months, I and my staff have been working every day to provide first-class educational benefits to those who have served since 9/11,” Webb said. “I am delighted that after having opposed this legislation, the President has now pledged that he will not veto it when it comes before him as part of this year’s supplemental appropriations package.
“I would like to again express my appreciation to the veterans’ service organizations, many of whom communicated their support of this bill directly to a skeptical White House, and to the 58 Senate and 302 House cosponsors of this landmark legislation,” Webb said. “This bipartisan coalition consistently rejected the allegations of this Administration, and of Senators McCain, Burr and Graham, among others, who claimed that the bill was too generous to our veterans, too difficult to administer and would hurt retention.”
While simultaneously praising the passage of the war-funding bill, Republican presidential nominee John McCain of Arizona voiced his reservations: “I am pleased an agreement has finally been reached to fund our troops,” McCain said in a statement. "That [retention] has always been my primary concern with respect to the Webb bill, and it is essential that we continue to act decisively to encourage military service and ensure the well being of our All Volunteer Force.”
The Congressional Way
But how the bill finally reached Bush’s desk gives new meaning to the definition of quagmire.
The bill, originally introduced by Webb, had bipartisan support early on, but it hit a few snags in Congress, including the threat of a revolt from members of the Blue Dog Democrats and objections from McCain.
McCain, who sided with the Bush administration’s reasoning in refusing to support Webb’s version, offered his own version, which was immediately shot down in the Senate. Citing the same reasons as Bush did in explaining why the president planned on vetoing the measure, McCain objected to giving veterans, after serving only a few years, an education benefit equivalent to the tuition of a state’s highest-priced public institution. McCain voiced concerns that Webb’s bill would persuade service members to leave the military early and pursue higher education.
Webb’s version passed with overwhelming bipartisan support by a vote 75-22. McCain, however, was AWOL on the day of the vote, reportedly raising money in California for his presidential bid.
The bill moved to the House, where it initially appeared it would receive veto-proof support from both parties. However, some members of the moderate Blue Dog Democrats threatened to revolt, citing the "pay as you go" budget rules that require new benefit programs be financed with offsetting spending cuts or new taxes so as not to increase the budget deficit. They argued that the war funding bill is an emergency appropriation, but the veterans' education funding is a new mandatory benefit program that's supposed to be subject to the budget rule.
"It's the principle involved of not putting a mandatory program of any kind on an emergency supplemental," Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., told the AP.
However, not all the Blue Dogs shared this view or threatened to revolt, including Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, a 20-year Army veteran, who was one of the 277 House members co-sponsoring the new legislation.
Boswell's chief of staff, Susan McAvoy, told the Iowa Independent that the opposition was not officially endorsed by the Blue Dog coalition. "Boswell informed his colleagues where he stood prior to any debate on the bill," McAvoy said. "Rep. Boswell is very supportive of veterans and would not do anything that would keep the new GI Bill from moving forward in the House."
Despite the House’s most recent compromise with the administration, some of the Blue Dog Democrats are still upset with the $62 billion price tag on the GI Bill benefits, which will be added to the deficit instead of being “paid for” as called for under House rules.
The Bush Way
All during the congressional process, Bush had threatened to veto the new GI Bill because of the costs, but ironically, the administration pushed for a compromise that would boost the funding an additional $10 billion over 10 years.
The White House wanted to add a provision that would allow troops to transfer their educational benefits to their spouses or children.
In an interview with the AP, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., responded to the White House push: "It's like the Yogi Berra story: 'I don't like that restaurant. Besides, the portions aren't large enough. They don't like it, but they want more."
"It's not a bad idea," Pelosi added. "It just costs money."
And it looks like the compromise process yielded just that: a GI Bill that will cost more money.
Friday, May 23, 2008
McCain Dodges Iraq War Funding Vote; Grassley and Harkin Split
Despite President Bush’s threat to veto a war funding bill with congressional add-ons, 25 Senate Republicans broke ranks and voted in favor of passing the bill, which added $97 billion worth of spending on top of the $165 billion earmarked for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through next spring.
Although the 75-22 vote surpassed Bush’s veto threshold, a war of words did break out on the Senate floor when Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, fired the first shot at his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Obama took issue with McCain on his reluctance to sign on to a new GI Bill amendment proposed by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., which accounts for over $50 billion of the proposed funding.
"I respect John McCain," Obama said, "but I can't understand why he's lining up with the president to oppose this bill," which provides funding and housing allowances for vets at private and public colleges. "There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.”
Initially, Obama’s words were lost on McCain, who was not in the chamber and did not vote on the bill. Obama and his Democratic presidential rival, Hillary Clinton of New York, voted in favor of the bill. McCain, who had previously stated he did not support the new GI Bill and offered his own version, missed the vote due to campaign fundraising commitments in California.
Obama’s words eventually did traverse the country and McCain was quick to fire back a response:
"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of," McCain said in a statement. "If Sen. Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as president, the country would regret his election.”
McCain’s absence did not go unnoticed by the Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who said in a statement yesterday: "America's veterans and military families deserve better than a candidate who is willing to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years, but refuses to take care of them when they come home.”
On the Iowa front, Sens. Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley voted along party lines. Harkin voted in favor of the bill while Grassley held the party line and joined 21 other Republicans in opposition to the funding bill.
"A supplemental appropriations bill is intended to pay for items of necessity like supporting our troops in the war on terrorism, which is something we can all agree on,” Grassley told the Iowa Independent in an email statement. “Instead, the majority decided to throw in everything but the kitchen sink and chose to ignore their own pay-as-you-go philosophy for most of the bill.
"I supported a GI Bill enhancement measure when it was offered as an amendment to another piece of legislation,” Grassley added. “But, because of procedural maneuvering, a GI Bill proposal was wrapped in with a package of unrelated spending and pet projects. It's a shame we weren't afforded the opportunity to give this important matter the separate consideration it deserves. In the end, this bill was riddled with a lot of troubling policy that I couldn't support."
Troubling or not, it remains to be seen what impact McCain’s non-vote will have on his presidential bid as he continues to court voters and fellow veterans. McCain will face his first test on the issue this Memorial Day weekend as Congress breaks for recess and the presidential candidates hit the campaign trail in full stride.
Although the 75-22 vote surpassed Bush’s veto threshold, a war of words did break out on the Senate floor when Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, fired the first shot at his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Obama took issue with McCain on his reluctance to sign on to a new GI Bill amendment proposed by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., which accounts for over $50 billion of the proposed funding.
"I respect John McCain," Obama said, "but I can't understand why he's lining up with the president to oppose this bill," which provides funding and housing allowances for vets at private and public colleges. "There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.”
Initially, Obama’s words were lost on McCain, who was not in the chamber and did not vote on the bill. Obama and his Democratic presidential rival, Hillary Clinton of New York, voted in favor of the bill. McCain, who had previously stated he did not support the new GI Bill and offered his own version, missed the vote due to campaign fundraising commitments in California.
Obama’s words eventually did traverse the country and McCain was quick to fire back a response:
"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of," McCain said in a statement. "If Sen. Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as president, the country would regret his election.”
McCain’s absence did not go unnoticed by the Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who said in a statement yesterday: "America's veterans and military families deserve better than a candidate who is willing to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years, but refuses to take care of them when they come home.”
On the Iowa front, Sens. Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley voted along party lines. Harkin voted in favor of the bill while Grassley held the party line and joined 21 other Republicans in opposition to the funding bill.
"A supplemental appropriations bill is intended to pay for items of necessity like supporting our troops in the war on terrorism, which is something we can all agree on,” Grassley told the Iowa Independent in an email statement. “Instead, the majority decided to throw in everything but the kitchen sink and chose to ignore their own pay-as-you-go philosophy for most of the bill.
"I supported a GI Bill enhancement measure when it was offered as an amendment to another piece of legislation,” Grassley added. “But, because of procedural maneuvering, a GI Bill proposal was wrapped in with a package of unrelated spending and pet projects. It's a shame we weren't afforded the opportunity to give this important matter the separate consideration it deserves. In the end, this bill was riddled with a lot of troubling policy that I couldn't support."
Troubling or not, it remains to be seen what impact McCain’s non-vote will have on his presidential bid as he continues to court voters and fellow veterans. McCain will face his first test on the issue this Memorial Day weekend as Congress breaks for recess and the presidential candidates hit the campaign trail in full stride.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
McCain Faces Looming Showdown Over 21st Century GI Bill
(Update: Dems Shoot Down McCain’s Alternative GI Bill
Senate Democrats held off a Republican ambush to advance its own version of a new GI Bill Wednesday, shooting the amendment down by a 55-42 vote.)
During an election year, there is no such thing as a sure thing in congressional politics. The latest uncertainty surrounds Sen. Jim Webb’s 21st Century GI Bill, which met a temporary setback in the House last week when the legislation, attached to the Iraq War funding bill, was pulled from the floor after members of the Blue Dog Democrats threatened a revolt.
Meanwhile, the plot thickens in the Senate after a dose of presidential politics was thrown into the chamber pot, pitting decorated Vietnam War veterans against each other.
In a bipartisan effort, combat Vietnam veterans Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., have vowed to improve veterans’ education benefits by introducing a bill, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (S. 22), in the Senate that would substantially increase the educational benefits available to servicemembers who have served since Sept. 11, 2001.
At first, fellow combat veteran and prisoner of war Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, remained silent on whether he would support his colleague’s bill, contending he needed more time to study the bill.
The day after a nonpartisan veterans’ advocacy group, Vote Vets, delivered a petition signed by 30,000 veterans to McCain’ Senate office, McCain broke his silence and followed the Pentagon’s lead, which contends the new GI Bill is too generous and will encourage soldiers to leave military service and pursue a college education.
"We are working on proposals of our own — I'm a consistent supporter of educational benefits for the men and women of the military," McCain told ABC News. "I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military as well as for people to join the military.”
The latter rationale prompted Wesley K. Clark, the former supreme commander of NATO, and Jon Stoltz, an Iraq war veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org, to pen an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times.
"John McCain needs to be on this bill," Webb said in a statement to The Huffington Post. "I have said to him several times that this is not a political issue -- this is about providing a fair, deserved benefit to our troops. Based on his own military history and how strongly he speaks about the positive contributions of the people who have served, I hope that he will get on board and support this new GI bill."
As promised, McCain joined Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Burr, R-N.C., in unveiling an alternative to the Webb/Hagel bill, the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment through Education Act.
“We have an obligation to provide unwavering support to our nation’s veterans, and that is precisely what this legislation does,” McCain said in a statement. “Men and women who serve their country in uniform deserve the best education benefits we are able to give them. That is why I am pleased to join with Senators Graham and Burr to announce legislation that significantly enhances the Montgomery GI bill and promotes recruitment and retention which is critical to an All Volunteer Military.”
On the campaign trail Tuesday in Charleston, W.Va., Obama took issue with McCain’s unwillingness to support Webb’s bill.
"John McCain is one of the few senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it's too generous," Obama said. "I could not disagree with him more. At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue their American Dream."
McCain’s campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly fired back in a statement, calling it "absurd" for Obama to question McCain’s commitment to America’s veterans "when Obama himself voted against funding our nation’s veterans, and troops in the field, during a time of war."
On the Iowa front, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin has signed on to Webb’s bill, namely because it includes more benefits, whereas McCain’s alternative bill imposes benefit limitations. “The GI bill being led in a major bipartisan fashion by Senators Webb and Warner truly supports our service members with the resources they need to improve and complete their education,” Harkin said in a statement to the Iowa Independent. “Other bills seem to set unnecessary benefit ceilings even though we have asked our troops to go above and beyond the call of duty. We should not limit the progress our returning soldiers can make.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has yet to decide upon either of the proposed bills. “Senator Grassley supports improving the GI bill, but has not committed to supporting any particular bill at this time,” Beth Pellett-Levine, Grassley’s press secretary, told the Iowa Independent. “He's looking forward to studying the bill recently put forward by Senators Graham, Burr and McCain as well as the Webb/Warner bill.”
Old vs. New GI Bill: What’s at stake for veterans?
The original GI Bill was signed into law in 1944 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to help ensure World War II veterans would be able to afford an education. Experts have argued that the GI Bill “reinvented America” after a half-decade of war. A 1988 Congressional study showed that every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added seven dollars to the national economy in terms of productivity, consumer spending, and tax revenue.
Fast forward 64 years to the present wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have produced over 1.5 million veterans. The current educational benefits offered to veterans, when adjusted for inflation and the rise in tuition and cost of living, are far lower than the original GI Bill. Today, after paying a nonrefundable $1,200 contribution from their first year’s military paychecks, troops receive an estimated $1,101 per academic month for up to 36 months, or four years of college.
Webb’s version of the new GI Bill will waive the $1,200 buy-in component, extend time to use benefits from 10 to 15 years, and will change the benefit proposal to pay for any public university and most private colleges -- capping benefits at the rate of the most expensive public university in the state. Moreover, the bill will add $1,000 a year for books and supplies and a stipend to cover cost-of-living expenses (based on DoD’s Basic Housing Allowance rate for E-5 w/dependent and zip code of the college/university).
Veterans attending a public university or select private college in Iowa will receive up to $5,935 based on the tuition cap at the most expensive public university, the University of Iowa. After adding in the living allowance and the $1,000 for books and supplies, veterans will receive an average yearly stipend of $7,674. Ironically, this is $2,226 less than veterans receive through the current GI Bill, but Iowa has the fourth lowest in-state tuition rate, and the intent of the new GI Bill is to provide certainty to veterans transitioning from the military to college, so they don’t have to worry about rising tuition costs outpacing their education benefits.
Another problem with the current GI Bill has to do with structural and bureaucratic delays, which have discouraged some veterans from using their benefits. National Guardsmen and Reservists, including those who have served multiple combat tours, typically receive only a fraction of their GI Bill benefits. Moreover, 30 percent of troops who pay the nonrefundable $1,200 contribution do not end up using the GI Bill at all. These veterans have paid the government $230 million, but received nothing in return.
On the other hand, Keith Pedigo, the Veterans Affairs associate deputy undersecretary for policy and program management, issued a warning last week that meeting an Aug. 1, 2009, effective date for the benefits increases in the new GI bill would be extremely difficult, because the proposal calls for the maximum benefit to be different in each state, payments would have to be processed manually, rather than automatically, Pedigo said.
“VA does not now have a payment system or the appropriate number of trained personnel to administer the program,” Pedigo said in a statement, predicting it would take two years to develop a payment system to provide the new benefits.
Pedigo also warned of fundamental unfairness in a proposed housing allowance that would be based on where a school is located, rather than where a student lives, which could encourage veterans to enroll in online learning programs offered by schools in high-cost areas.
Despite President George W. Bush’s threat to veto the new GI Bill in its current form, both the House and Senate expect to vote on the legislation before the summer recess.
Senate Democrats held off a Republican ambush to advance its own version of a new GI Bill Wednesday, shooting the amendment down by a 55-42 vote.)
During an election year, there is no such thing as a sure thing in congressional politics. The latest uncertainty surrounds Sen. Jim Webb’s 21st Century GI Bill, which met a temporary setback in the House last week when the legislation, attached to the Iraq War funding bill, was pulled from the floor after members of the Blue Dog Democrats threatened a revolt.
Meanwhile, the plot thickens in the Senate after a dose of presidential politics was thrown into the chamber pot, pitting decorated Vietnam War veterans against each other.
In a bipartisan effort, combat Vietnam veterans Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., have vowed to improve veterans’ education benefits by introducing a bill, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (S. 22), in the Senate that would substantially increase the educational benefits available to servicemembers who have served since Sept. 11, 2001.
At first, fellow combat veteran and prisoner of war Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, remained silent on whether he would support his colleague’s bill, contending he needed more time to study the bill.
The day after a nonpartisan veterans’ advocacy group, Vote Vets, delivered a petition signed by 30,000 veterans to McCain’ Senate office, McCain broke his silence and followed the Pentagon’s lead, which contends the new GI Bill is too generous and will encourage soldiers to leave military service and pursue a college education.
"We are working on proposals of our own — I'm a consistent supporter of educational benefits for the men and women of the military," McCain told ABC News. "I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military as well as for people to join the military.”
The latter rationale prompted Wesley K. Clark, the former supreme commander of NATO, and Jon Stoltz, an Iraq war veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org, to pen an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times.
The White House has voiced concern on the bill, arguing that if returning troops are offered a good education, they will choose college over extending their service. This is as offensive as it is absurd.Webb downplayed the political implications of the bill and made a plea for McCain to join the other 54 senators, including his Democratic colleagues Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York, who have already signed on to the new GI Bill.
First, it is morally reprehensible to fix the system so that civilian life is unappealing to service members, in an attempt to force them to re-up. Education assistance is not a handout, it is a sacred promise that we have made for generations in return for service.
Second, falling military recruitment numbers are just as serious as retention problems. To send the message that this nation will not help you make the most of your life will dissuade a large number of our best and brightest from choosing military service over other career options.
"John McCain needs to be on this bill," Webb said in a statement to The Huffington Post. "I have said to him several times that this is not a political issue -- this is about providing a fair, deserved benefit to our troops. Based on his own military history and how strongly he speaks about the positive contributions of the people who have served, I hope that he will get on board and support this new GI bill."
As promised, McCain joined Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Burr, R-N.C., in unveiling an alternative to the Webb/Hagel bill, the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment through Education Act.
“We have an obligation to provide unwavering support to our nation’s veterans, and that is precisely what this legislation does,” McCain said in a statement. “Men and women who serve their country in uniform deserve the best education benefits we are able to give them. That is why I am pleased to join with Senators Graham and Burr to announce legislation that significantly enhances the Montgomery GI bill and promotes recruitment and retention which is critical to an All Volunteer Military.”
On the campaign trail Tuesday in Charleston, W.Va., Obama took issue with McCain’s unwillingness to support Webb’s bill.
"John McCain is one of the few senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it's too generous," Obama said. "I could not disagree with him more. At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue their American Dream."
McCain’s campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly fired back in a statement, calling it "absurd" for Obama to question McCain’s commitment to America’s veterans "when Obama himself voted against funding our nation’s veterans, and troops in the field, during a time of war."
On the Iowa front, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin has signed on to Webb’s bill, namely because it includes more benefits, whereas McCain’s alternative bill imposes benefit limitations. “The GI bill being led in a major bipartisan fashion by Senators Webb and Warner truly supports our service members with the resources they need to improve and complete their education,” Harkin said in a statement to the Iowa Independent. “Other bills seem to set unnecessary benefit ceilings even though we have asked our troops to go above and beyond the call of duty. We should not limit the progress our returning soldiers can make.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has yet to decide upon either of the proposed bills. “Senator Grassley supports improving the GI bill, but has not committed to supporting any particular bill at this time,” Beth Pellett-Levine, Grassley’s press secretary, told the Iowa Independent. “He's looking forward to studying the bill recently put forward by Senators Graham, Burr and McCain as well as the Webb/Warner bill.”
Old vs. New GI Bill: What’s at stake for veterans?
The original GI Bill was signed into law in 1944 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to help ensure World War II veterans would be able to afford an education. Experts have argued that the GI Bill “reinvented America” after a half-decade of war. A 1988 Congressional study showed that every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added seven dollars to the national economy in terms of productivity, consumer spending, and tax revenue.
Fast forward 64 years to the present wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have produced over 1.5 million veterans. The current educational benefits offered to veterans, when adjusted for inflation and the rise in tuition and cost of living, are far lower than the original GI Bill. Today, after paying a nonrefundable $1,200 contribution from their first year’s military paychecks, troops receive an estimated $1,101 per academic month for up to 36 months, or four years of college.
Webb’s version of the new GI Bill will waive the $1,200 buy-in component, extend time to use benefits from 10 to 15 years, and will change the benefit proposal to pay for any public university and most private colleges -- capping benefits at the rate of the most expensive public university in the state. Moreover, the bill will add $1,000 a year for books and supplies and a stipend to cover cost-of-living expenses (based on DoD’s Basic Housing Allowance rate for E-5 w/dependent and zip code of the college/university).
Veterans attending a public university or select private college in Iowa will receive up to $5,935 based on the tuition cap at the most expensive public university, the University of Iowa. After adding in the living allowance and the $1,000 for books and supplies, veterans will receive an average yearly stipend of $7,674. Ironically, this is $2,226 less than veterans receive through the current GI Bill, but Iowa has the fourth lowest in-state tuition rate, and the intent of the new GI Bill is to provide certainty to veterans transitioning from the military to college, so they don’t have to worry about rising tuition costs outpacing their education benefits.
Another problem with the current GI Bill has to do with structural and bureaucratic delays, which have discouraged some veterans from using their benefits. National Guardsmen and Reservists, including those who have served multiple combat tours, typically receive only a fraction of their GI Bill benefits. Moreover, 30 percent of troops who pay the nonrefundable $1,200 contribution do not end up using the GI Bill at all. These veterans have paid the government $230 million, but received nothing in return.
On the other hand, Keith Pedigo, the Veterans Affairs associate deputy undersecretary for policy and program management, issued a warning last week that meeting an Aug. 1, 2009, effective date for the benefits increases in the new GI bill would be extremely difficult, because the proposal calls for the maximum benefit to be different in each state, payments would have to be processed manually, rather than automatically, Pedigo said.
“VA does not now have a payment system or the appropriate number of trained personnel to administer the program,” Pedigo said in a statement, predicting it would take two years to develop a payment system to provide the new benefits.
Pedigo also warned of fundamental unfairness in a proposed housing allowance that would be based on where a school is located, rather than where a student lives, which could encourage veterans to enroll in online learning programs offered by schools in high-cost areas.
Despite President George W. Bush’s threat to veto the new GI Bill in its current form, both the House and Senate expect to vote on the legislation before the summer recess.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Nussle: ‘Adding New GI Bill to Iraq Funding Bill Will Provoke Bush Veto’
Election-year politics has taken center stage on the Hill in D.C. as the House prepares to do battle with the White House over the Iraq funding bill. In the battle between the legislative and executive branches, the Democrats have switched tactics.
Last year Democratic leaders tried to add time lines for troop withdrawals to several versions of proposed funding bills. This year, however, Democrats have chosen to play the new GI bill card, gambling that President George W. Bush’s veto of a popular, bipartisan bill would be politically damaging.
Bush, however, has nothing to lose politically, so he renewed his veto threat against any bill that comes to his desk equipped with any add-on legislation that would require additional appropriations.
"To just pile them into the troop funding bill because the troop funding bill is necessary is a cynical process that the president has already been very clear about — the fact that he would veto," White House budget office manager Jim Nussle told the Associated Press.
Nussle, a former Iowa congressman and 2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate, told the AP that the House Democrats’ plan to add unrelated legislation extending unemployment benefits, at a cost of $16 billion over two years, and boosting education benefits under the GI Bill, at a cost that could reach $51 billion over the next decade, would provoke a veto even though they are popular politically.
In his call for fiscal restraint, Bush received help from across the aisle, when some members of the moderate Blue Dog Democrats threatened to revolt. The Blue Dogs are strong advocates of the “pay as you go” budget rules that require new benefit programs be financed with offsetting spending cuts or new taxes so as not to cause the budget deficit to spiral. They argue that the war funding bill is an emergency appropriation, but the veterans education funding is a new mandatory benefit program that's supposed to be subject to the budget rule.
"It's the principle involved of not putting a mandatory program of any kind on an emergency supplemental," Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. told the AP.
However, not all the Blue Dogs shared this view or threatened to revolt, including Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, a 20-year Army veteran, who was one of the 277 House members co-sponsoring the new GI Bill legislation.
Boswell’s chief of staff, Susan McAvoy, told the Iowa Independent that the Blue Dog opposition was not an official position endorsed by the coalition. "He informed his colleagues where he stood prior to any debate on the bill,” McAvoy said. “Rep. Boswell is very supportive of veterans and would not do anything that would keep the new GI Bill from moving forward in the House.”
Nonetheless, the threatened revolt by Blue Dog members forced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to pull the war funding bill from the House schedule. She told reporters that she is confident the impasse with the rebel Democrats can be ironed out, but the delay threatens her goal of getting the war funding bill completed by Memorial Day.
Even if Pelosi does iron matters out with the Blue Dogs, there’s still the matter of Bush’s veto threat looming at the finish line. "Judging from what the president has said and where the Congress appears to be heading toward right now, the answer is still the same — that the president would veto," Nussle told the Associated Press.
Last year Democratic leaders tried to add time lines for troop withdrawals to several versions of proposed funding bills. This year, however, Democrats have chosen to play the new GI bill card, gambling that President George W. Bush’s veto of a popular, bipartisan bill would be politically damaging.
Bush, however, has nothing to lose politically, so he renewed his veto threat against any bill that comes to his desk equipped with any add-on legislation that would require additional appropriations.
"To just pile them into the troop funding bill because the troop funding bill is necessary is a cynical process that the president has already been very clear about — the fact that he would veto," White House budget office manager Jim Nussle told the Associated Press.
Nussle, a former Iowa congressman and 2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate, told the AP that the House Democrats’ plan to add unrelated legislation extending unemployment benefits, at a cost of $16 billion over two years, and boosting education benefits under the GI Bill, at a cost that could reach $51 billion over the next decade, would provoke a veto even though they are popular politically.
In his call for fiscal restraint, Bush received help from across the aisle, when some members of the moderate Blue Dog Democrats threatened to revolt. The Blue Dogs are strong advocates of the “pay as you go” budget rules that require new benefit programs be financed with offsetting spending cuts or new taxes so as not to cause the budget deficit to spiral. They argue that the war funding bill is an emergency appropriation, but the veterans education funding is a new mandatory benefit program that's supposed to be subject to the budget rule.
"It's the principle involved of not putting a mandatory program of any kind on an emergency supplemental," Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. told the AP.
However, not all the Blue Dogs shared this view or threatened to revolt, including Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, a 20-year Army veteran, who was one of the 277 House members co-sponsoring the new GI Bill legislation.
Boswell’s chief of staff, Susan McAvoy, told the Iowa Independent that the Blue Dog opposition was not an official position endorsed by the coalition. "He informed his colleagues where he stood prior to any debate on the bill,” McAvoy said. “Rep. Boswell is very supportive of veterans and would not do anything that would keep the new GI Bill from moving forward in the House.”
Nonetheless, the threatened revolt by Blue Dog members forced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to pull the war funding bill from the House schedule. She told reporters that she is confident the impasse with the rebel Democrats can be ironed out, but the delay threatens her goal of getting the war funding bill completed by Memorial Day.
Even if Pelosi does iron matters out with the Blue Dogs, there’s still the matter of Bush’s veto threat looming at the finish line. "Judging from what the president has said and where the Congress appears to be heading toward right now, the answer is still the same — that the president would veto," Nussle told the Associated Press.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Thanks to Bipartisan Support, House Expected to Pass New GI Bill
Despite the adage that everything changed after Sept. 11, 2001, there is one thing veterans have not seen changed: the GI Bill.
Sixty-four years have passed since the GI Bill, which ensured that 8 million combat veterans coming home from World War II would be able to afford a college education, was first signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
During this period, soldiers have witnessed firsthand how their enemies' strategies have evolved, from the guerrilla warfare tactics used in Vietnam to the current insurgency methods used in Iraq and Afghanistan
Soldiers and veterans have also witnessed the increasing costs of college tuition consistently outpacing the steady rise of inflation.
In a bipartisan effort, combat Vietnam veterans Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., have vowed to improve veterans’ education benefits by introducing a bill, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (S. 22), in the Senate that would substantially increase the educational benefits available to servicemembers who have served since Sept. 11, 2001.
The House is expected to vote on its version of the bill today. House Resolution 5740 has received bipartisan support and is co-sponsored by 277 House members, including Iowa Democratic Reps. Leonard Boswell, Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack, and Republican Rep. Tom Latham."No one has done more to secure our freedom than our veterans and military personnel,” Latham said in a press release. “The American people and the U.S. government have a solemn obligation to ensure they receive the benefits they deserve and that those benefits allow them to achieve their educational goals in life.”
Latham’s sentiments were echoed on the other side of the aisle by Loebsack. “For too long our country has not lived up to our promise of serving our nation’s veterans with the same honor, commitment and dignity with which they have so bravely served our nation,” Loebsack said in a statement to the Iowa Independent.
“This new GI Bill for the 21st century is a key step in honoring the service and sacrifice of our troops by restoring the promise of the GI Bill to pay for a full four-year college education,” Loebsack said. "Not only will this strengthen our military, it will also make the heroes of Iraq and Afghanistan part of a new American economic recovery, just like after World War II.”
Moreover, the bill would cover the cost of tuition up to the most expensive in-state public school and provide a living and book stipend, so that new veterans can focus on their educations and their readjustment to civilian life. It would also offer a more equitable benefit to National Guardsmen and Reservists than what is currently available.
Although the bill is expected to pass in the House, it has a roadblock, namely Arizona senator and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s reluctance to endorse Webb/Hagel’s version of the bill.
McCain joined fellow Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Burr of North Carolina in unveiling their own version of the GI Bill, the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment through Education Act. Initial reports indicate that McCain is reluctant to support Webb/Hagel’s bill, fearing the incentives will encourage servicemembers to leave the military prematurely and pursue a college education.
Sixty-four years have passed since the GI Bill, which ensured that 8 million combat veterans coming home from World War II would be able to afford a college education, was first signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
During this period, soldiers have witnessed firsthand how their enemies' strategies have evolved, from the guerrilla warfare tactics used in Vietnam to the current insurgency methods used in Iraq and Afghanistan
Soldiers and veterans have also witnessed the increasing costs of college tuition consistently outpacing the steady rise of inflation.
In a bipartisan effort, combat Vietnam veterans Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., have vowed to improve veterans’ education benefits by introducing a bill, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (S. 22), in the Senate that would substantially increase the educational benefits available to servicemembers who have served since Sept. 11, 2001.
The House is expected to vote on its version of the bill today. House Resolution 5740 has received bipartisan support and is co-sponsored by 277 House members, including Iowa Democratic Reps. Leonard Boswell, Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack, and Republican Rep. Tom Latham."No one has done more to secure our freedom than our veterans and military personnel,” Latham said in a press release. “The American people and the U.S. government have a solemn obligation to ensure they receive the benefits they deserve and that those benefits allow them to achieve their educational goals in life.”
Latham’s sentiments were echoed on the other side of the aisle by Loebsack. “For too long our country has not lived up to our promise of serving our nation’s veterans with the same honor, commitment and dignity with which they have so bravely served our nation,” Loebsack said in a statement to the Iowa Independent.
“This new GI Bill for the 21st century is a key step in honoring the service and sacrifice of our troops by restoring the promise of the GI Bill to pay for a full four-year college education,” Loebsack said. "Not only will this strengthen our military, it will also make the heroes of Iraq and Afghanistan part of a new American economic recovery, just like after World War II.”
Moreover, the bill would cover the cost of tuition up to the most expensive in-state public school and provide a living and book stipend, so that new veterans can focus on their educations and their readjustment to civilian life. It would also offer a more equitable benefit to National Guardsmen and Reservists than what is currently available.
Although the bill is expected to pass in the House, it has a roadblock, namely Arizona senator and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s reluctance to endorse Webb/Hagel’s version of the bill.
McCain joined fellow Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Burr of North Carolina in unveiling their own version of the GI Bill, the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment through Education Act. Initial reports indicate that McCain is reluctant to support Webb/Hagel’s bill, fearing the incentives will encourage servicemembers to leave the military prematurely and pursue a college education.
Monday, December 10, 2007
‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Poses Clintonian Catch-22 for GOP Hopefuls
Imagine a stage full of Republican presidential candidates standing underneath the national spotlight and agreeing with one another. Better yet, try imagining all of them agreeing with former President Bill Clinton.
CNN and YouTube helped make this scenario a reality Nov. 28 when the two hooked up and hosted a Republican presidential debate. Just two days before the 14th anniversary of the enactment of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) law that prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, the candidates were asked to tell what they thought about the law.
During the debate, retired Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr asked: “I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.” Kerr, a Santa Rosa, Calif., native, served in the armed forces for 43 years, and, without being asked, told the audience that he’s an openly gay man.
Now the catch. The candidates could either agree with President Clinton’s initiative, or disagree with DADT, which implicitly supports Sen. Hillary Clinton’s stance. Sen. Clinton says the “outdated and outmoded” and should be repealed. Either way, the GOP hopefuls still end up agreeing with a Clinton, a major political faux pas in the Republican Party.
The plot thickens. It turns out Kerr had been named a co-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s National Military Veterans group. After the debate, Kerr told CNN that he had not done work for the Clinton campaign. CNN claimed that Kerr told them he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was representing no one other than himself. The day after the debate, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said the retired general "is not a campaign employee and was not acting on behalf of the campaign."
Regardless of who Kerr was representing, the question had been asked and who asked it does not negate the question itself. The same question was asked at a Republican presidential debate in June. However, despite the legitimacy of Kerr’s question, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, who moderated the debate, felt compelled to apologize to the Republican candidates. “We never would have used the general's question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate."
True, there are some ethical issues to consider about the process of how the question was asked, but this merely serves as a distraction to how the candidates responded (see video below).
California Rep. Duncan Hunter took first swing at DADT and played the Colin Powell card, who Hunter quoted as saying that “having openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion.” However, nearly three in four troops (73 percent) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians (Zogby International & the Michael D. Palm Center 2006 study).
Hunter, a military veteran, attempted to defend DADT with the unit-cohesion fallacy, while simultaneously negating the notion that 23 of the other 26 NATO countries are open to gays serving in the military. “Even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives,” Hunter argued. “They have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them.”
Is Hunter suggesting the military segregate soldiers based on ideology to maintain unit cohesion? The military has a history of being one of the first governmental institutions to implement desegregation policies, yet Hunter wants to reverse this trend, which his fellow Republican President Harry S. Truman initiated in 1950.
In an attempt to appeal to his conservative base, Hunter opened up a new can of discrimination against moderates and liberals serving in the military. The big question is, if elected, would Hunter expand DADT to include anyone whose ideology isn’t consistent with the conservatives?
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee echoed Hunter’s unit-cohesion stance. However, Huckabee did manage to undermine the premise underlying Hunter’s argument about protecting conservative principles. “The Uniform Code of Military Justice is probably the best rule, and it has to do with conduct. People have a right to have whatever feelings, whatever attitudes they wish,” Huckabee said. “But when their conduct could put at risk the morale, I think that's what is at issue. And that's why our policy is what it is.”
Here, Huckabee argues that it’s a homosexual’s conduct that jeopardizes morale, and by conduct I assume he’s referring to sexual conduct. However, no other soldier’s sexual conduct is put under the morality microscope, so under a Huckabee administration, soldiers who indulge in pre-marital sex or adultery are given a free pass.
Not to mention, the morale for combat troops in Iraq has already been plummeting, even with the DADT policy in place. Released in May, a Pentagon mental health study of troops in Iraq found 45 percent of junior enlisted Army soldiers rated their unit's morale as low or very low. Twenty percent of soldiers and 15 percent of Marines were found to have a mental health problem, defined as anxiety, depression or acute stress.
The report was based on data collected from some 1,300 soldiers and nearly 450 Marines in Iraq last fall. About two-thirds of those surveyed said they knew someone who had been killed or injured. More than three-quarters of soldiers and Marines said they had been in situations where they could have been killed or seriously injured.
The report also indicated 56 percent of soldiers were highly concerned about the long tours, something Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., tried to address with an amendment (S. AMDT. 2012) that would improve military readiness and require periods of down time between redeployment. The amendment was successfully filibustered by the Republicans in the Senate, much to the chagrin of Webb, a Vietnam War Veteran, who shared his disappointment on the Senate floor: "Today the Republicans decided to filibuster an amendment that goes straight to the well-being of our troops. I deeply regret this move. They expect us to take the sort of positive action that might stabilize the operational environment in which are troops are being sent again and again.”
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Arizona Sen. John McCain borrowed a tactic from the current Commander in Chief George W. Bush and deferred their commander-in-chief obligations to the military leaders in the field. “I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops, and I listen to what they have to say,” Romney said.
McCain reassured the audience he has his ear to the ground in Iraq and keeps in constant contact with military leaders in the field. “Almost unanimously, they tell me that this present policy is working, that we have the best military in history, that we have the bravest, most professional, best prepared, and that this policy ought to be continued because it's working.” Even if McCain’s assertion is proven to be true, one would have to question the sources. To openly question or refute an order that was signed by someone at the top of the chain-of-command goes contrary to a soldier’s training. Military personnel are trained to follow orders, and this includes generals.
McCain’s intelligence gathering doesn’t hold the same weight with retired generals. A group of 28 retired U.S. generals and admirals released a statement Nov. 29 urging Congress to repeal the current ban on openly gay troops:
Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"
CNN and YouTube helped make this scenario a reality Nov. 28 when the two hooked up and hosted a Republican presidential debate. Just two days before the 14th anniversary of the enactment of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) law that prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, the candidates were asked to tell what they thought about the law.
During the debate, retired Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr asked: “I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.” Kerr, a Santa Rosa, Calif., native, served in the armed forces for 43 years, and, without being asked, told the audience that he’s an openly gay man.
Now the catch. The candidates could either agree with President Clinton’s initiative, or disagree with DADT, which implicitly supports Sen. Hillary Clinton’s stance. Sen. Clinton says the “outdated and outmoded” and should be repealed. Either way, the GOP hopefuls still end up agreeing with a Clinton, a major political faux pas in the Republican Party.
The plot thickens. It turns out Kerr had been named a co-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s National Military Veterans group. After the debate, Kerr told CNN that he had not done work for the Clinton campaign. CNN claimed that Kerr told them he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was representing no one other than himself. The day after the debate, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said the retired general "is not a campaign employee and was not acting on behalf of the campaign."
Regardless of who Kerr was representing, the question had been asked and who asked it does not negate the question itself. The same question was asked at a Republican presidential debate in June. However, despite the legitimacy of Kerr’s question, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, who moderated the debate, felt compelled to apologize to the Republican candidates. “We never would have used the general's question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate."
True, there are some ethical issues to consider about the process of how the question was asked, but this merely serves as a distraction to how the candidates responded (see video below).
California Rep. Duncan Hunter took first swing at DADT and played the Colin Powell card, who Hunter quoted as saying that “having openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion.” However, nearly three in four troops (73 percent) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians (Zogby International & the Michael D. Palm Center 2006 study).
Hunter, a military veteran, attempted to defend DADT with the unit-cohesion fallacy, while simultaneously negating the notion that 23 of the other 26 NATO countries are open to gays serving in the military. “Even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives,” Hunter argued. “They have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them.”
Is Hunter suggesting the military segregate soldiers based on ideology to maintain unit cohesion? The military has a history of being one of the first governmental institutions to implement desegregation policies, yet Hunter wants to reverse this trend, which his fellow Republican President Harry S. Truman initiated in 1950.
In an attempt to appeal to his conservative base, Hunter opened up a new can of discrimination against moderates and liberals serving in the military. The big question is, if elected, would Hunter expand DADT to include anyone whose ideology isn’t consistent with the conservatives?
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee echoed Hunter’s unit-cohesion stance. However, Huckabee did manage to undermine the premise underlying Hunter’s argument about protecting conservative principles. “The Uniform Code of Military Justice is probably the best rule, and it has to do with conduct. People have a right to have whatever feelings, whatever attitudes they wish,” Huckabee said. “But when their conduct could put at risk the morale, I think that's what is at issue. And that's why our policy is what it is.”
Here, Huckabee argues that it’s a homosexual’s conduct that jeopardizes morale, and by conduct I assume he’s referring to sexual conduct. However, no other soldier’s sexual conduct is put under the morality microscope, so under a Huckabee administration, soldiers who indulge in pre-marital sex or adultery are given a free pass.
Not to mention, the morale for combat troops in Iraq has already been plummeting, even with the DADT policy in place. Released in May, a Pentagon mental health study of troops in Iraq found 45 percent of junior enlisted Army soldiers rated their unit's morale as low or very low. Twenty percent of soldiers and 15 percent of Marines were found to have a mental health problem, defined as anxiety, depression or acute stress.
The report was based on data collected from some 1,300 soldiers and nearly 450 Marines in Iraq last fall. About two-thirds of those surveyed said they knew someone who had been killed or injured. More than three-quarters of soldiers and Marines said they had been in situations where they could have been killed or seriously injured.
The report also indicated 56 percent of soldiers were highly concerned about the long tours, something Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., tried to address with an amendment (S. AMDT. 2012) that would improve military readiness and require periods of down time between redeployment. The amendment was successfully filibustered by the Republicans in the Senate, much to the chagrin of Webb, a Vietnam War Veteran, who shared his disappointment on the Senate floor: "Today the Republicans decided to filibuster an amendment that goes straight to the well-being of our troops. I deeply regret this move. They expect us to take the sort of positive action that might stabilize the operational environment in which are troops are being sent again and again.”
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Arizona Sen. John McCain borrowed a tactic from the current Commander in Chief George W. Bush and deferred their commander-in-chief obligations to the military leaders in the field. “I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops, and I listen to what they have to say,” Romney said.
McCain reassured the audience he has his ear to the ground in Iraq and keeps in constant contact with military leaders in the field. “Almost unanimously, they tell me that this present policy is working, that we have the best military in history, that we have the bravest, most professional, best prepared, and that this policy ought to be continued because it's working.” Even if McCain’s assertion is proven to be true, one would have to question the sources. To openly question or refute an order that was signed by someone at the top of the chain-of-command goes contrary to a soldier’s training. Military personnel are trained to follow orders, and this includes generals.
McCain’s intelligence gathering doesn’t hold the same weight with retired generals. A group of 28 retired U.S. generals and admirals released a statement Nov. 29 urging Congress to repeal the current ban on openly gay troops:
We respectfully urge Congress to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.The post-debate dust has already settled, and the GOP candidates have resumed their silence on the issue of DADT -- at least until the general election. While they can afford to choose silence, or risk losing their conservative base, the same luxury does not hold true for the 65,000 gay soldiers still serving in the military, who have had no choice but to remain silent their entire careers under DADT.
Those of us signing this letter have dedicated our lives to defending the rights
of our citizens to believe whatever they wish. As General Colin Powell, Former
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said when the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was
enacted, it is not the place of the military or those in senior leadership to
make moral judgments.
Scholarly data shows there are approximately one million gay and lesbian veterans in the United States today, as well as 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in our armed forces. They have served our nation honorably.
We support the recent comments of another former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General John Shalikashvili, who has concluded that repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would not harm, and would indeed help our armed forces. As is the case in Britain, Israel, and other nations which allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality. Such collaboration reflects the strength and the best traditions of our democracy.
Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"
Thursday, September 20, 2007
No Legislated Rest for Troops: Webb Amendment
Once again, Republican senators fell in line with the Defense Department and the Bush administration by rejecting a bipartisan amendment that would let soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have at least same time off at home as their latest deployment before they are redeployed. The amendment, sponsored by Sens. James Webb, D-Va., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., failed on a 56-44 vote because a 60-vote super-majority was needed for passage. Wednesday's vote was nearly identical to a previous vote in July.
The Democrats voted along party lines, while six Republicans defected (was Grassley one of them? need to say how he voted somewhere in story), which prompted disappointment on the Democratic side of the aisle. “I was disappointed that the Webb amendment did not pass yesterday," Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said in a statement to the Iowa Independent. "This amendment would have provided support to our troops by ensuring they didn’t suffer from lengthy deployments without proper dwell time, unless absolutely necessary for our national security. I find it absurd that anyone can stand up there and say they support our troops, but vote against these amendments. Our troops are at a breaking point -- we cannot continue on the path we are on.”
The GOP, including Iowa’s Sen. Chuck Grassley, blocked what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has characterized as a back-door attempt by Democrats to force the Bush administration to draw down troops. Grassley could not be reached for comment but had issued a statement to the Iowa Independent regarding his “no” vote when the amendment first came up for a vote in July. "The last thing politicians in Washington should do is tie the hands of our commanders on the ground by dictating troop rotations," Grassley said. “New troop deployment policies as well as increases to the size of the active duty military should help relieve the stress on our current forces, and the reserve forces in particular -- while maintaining the flexibility and capability to respond to national security needs."
Gates had recommended that Bush veto the proposed legislation before Wednesday’s vote in the Senate, contending the bill would hamstring the Pentagon’s ability to maintain current troop levels in Iraq. "It would be extremely difficult for us to manage that. It really is a back-door way to try and force the president to accelerate the draw-downs," Gates said.
Democrats appeared to have some momentum when Sen. John Warner, R-Va., had voiced his support for the amendment, only to change his mind after a last-minute campaign by the Defense Department and the White House to kill the bill. Warner’s late defection deflated any momentum that had been building, thus ensuring the amendment's second death.
Meanwhile, military personnel and family members are facing uncertainty upon the return of soldiers, not really knowing when they will be redeployed. One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., pleaded their case on the Senate floor. “We owe it to our troops and their families to adopt a fair policy that ensures predictable rotations, adequate time to be with their families before redeployment, and adequate time for realistic training for the difficult assignments we are giving them,” said Obama, a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.
“There are scores of anecdotes that bear out the strain on our families,” Obama said. "One woman from Illinois recently wrote my office to tell me how her husband was facing his fourth deployment in four-and-one-half years. She described how her husband had spent so much time in Iraq that, in her words: ‘He feels like he is stationed in Iraq and only deploys home.’ That is not an acceptable way to treat our troops. That is not an acceptable way to treat their families.”
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., an adamant opponent of the Webb/Hagel amendment urged Congress to reject the measure on constitutional grounds. “The Constitution of the United States gives no authority for the Congress of the United States to set lengths of tour or lengths of duty in the military, and I hope we will steadfastly reject this kind of micromanagement, which would create chaos,” McCain said.
Webb rejected McCain’s assertion that the Senate has no role in troop deployments on CNN. “Well, first of all, Senator McCain, who I’ve known for 30 years, needs to read the Constitution. There is a provision in Article I, Section 8, which clearly gives the Congress the authority to make rules with respect to the ground and naval forces. There’s precedent for this."
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., backed up his Democratic colleague in a press release: “Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says clearly that Congress must ‘make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,’” said Biden. “This may be the president's war, but it is America's sons and daughters fighting it. Congress must and will do what is necessary to protect them and preserve the readiness of our military to meet any threats to our security.”
The Democrats voted along party lines, while six Republicans defected (was Grassley one of them? need to say how he voted somewhere in story), which prompted disappointment on the Democratic side of the aisle. “I was disappointed that the Webb amendment did not pass yesterday," Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said in a statement to the Iowa Independent. "This amendment would have provided support to our troops by ensuring they didn’t suffer from lengthy deployments without proper dwell time, unless absolutely necessary for our national security. I find it absurd that anyone can stand up there and say they support our troops, but vote against these amendments. Our troops are at a breaking point -- we cannot continue on the path we are on.”
The GOP, including Iowa’s Sen. Chuck Grassley, blocked what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has characterized as a back-door attempt by Democrats to force the Bush administration to draw down troops. Grassley could not be reached for comment but had issued a statement to the Iowa Independent regarding his “no” vote when the amendment first came up for a vote in July. "The last thing politicians in Washington should do is tie the hands of our commanders on the ground by dictating troop rotations," Grassley said. “New troop deployment policies as well as increases to the size of the active duty military should help relieve the stress on our current forces, and the reserve forces in particular -- while maintaining the flexibility and capability to respond to national security needs."
Gates had recommended that Bush veto the proposed legislation before Wednesday’s vote in the Senate, contending the bill would hamstring the Pentagon’s ability to maintain current troop levels in Iraq. "It would be extremely difficult for us to manage that. It really is a back-door way to try and force the president to accelerate the draw-downs," Gates said.
Democrats appeared to have some momentum when Sen. John Warner, R-Va., had voiced his support for the amendment, only to change his mind after a last-minute campaign by the Defense Department and the White House to kill the bill. Warner’s late defection deflated any momentum that had been building, thus ensuring the amendment's second death.
Meanwhile, military personnel and family members are facing uncertainty upon the return of soldiers, not really knowing when they will be redeployed. One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., pleaded their case on the Senate floor. “We owe it to our troops and their families to adopt a fair policy that ensures predictable rotations, adequate time to be with their families before redeployment, and adequate time for realistic training for the difficult assignments we are giving them,” said Obama, a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.
“There are scores of anecdotes that bear out the strain on our families,” Obama said. "One woman from Illinois recently wrote my office to tell me how her husband was facing his fourth deployment in four-and-one-half years. She described how her husband had spent so much time in Iraq that, in her words: ‘He feels like he is stationed in Iraq and only deploys home.’ That is not an acceptable way to treat our troops. That is not an acceptable way to treat their families.”
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., an adamant opponent of the Webb/Hagel amendment urged Congress to reject the measure on constitutional grounds. “The Constitution of the United States gives no authority for the Congress of the United States to set lengths of tour or lengths of duty in the military, and I hope we will steadfastly reject this kind of micromanagement, which would create chaos,” McCain said.
Webb rejected McCain’s assertion that the Senate has no role in troop deployments on CNN. “Well, first of all, Senator McCain, who I’ve known for 30 years, needs to read the Constitution. There is a provision in Article I, Section 8, which clearly gives the Congress the authority to make rules with respect to the ground and naval forces. There’s precedent for this."
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., backed up his Democratic colleague in a press release: “Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says clearly that Congress must ‘make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,’” said Biden. “This may be the president's war, but it is America's sons and daughters fighting it. Congress must and will do what is necessary to protect them and preserve the readiness of our military to meet any threats to our security.”
Friday, July 13, 2007
Republicans Defeat Troop Readiness Amendment
A measure that would improve military readiness and require periods of down time for National Guard and reservists returning from Iraq and Afghanistan before redeploying them was defeated Wednesday by a Senate Republican filibuster. At the very minimum, the proposed down-time requirements would be equal to the time of served during previous deployment. Currently, there are no mandated restrictions set by the Department of Defense.
The amendment, S. AMDT. 2011, was introduced by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which is currently being debated in both chambers of Congress. The vote was 56-41 to end debate on Webb’s amendment, with 60 votes needed to move to a full up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
After the filibuster succeeded, Webb, a Vietnam War veteran, shared his disappointment on the Senate floor with Republican colleagues: “Today the Republicans decided to filibuster an amendment that goes straight to the well-being of our troops. I deeply regret this move. I would remind my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that the American people are watching us today. They expect us to take the sort of positive action that might stabilize the operational environment in which are troops are being sent again and again.”
Webb’s amendment was bound to meet resistance from the GOP rank and file and faced a President Bush veto, who vetoed the 2007 war emergency bill on similar grounds that Congress should not etch into law deployment and down times – which the Bush administration says would curtail commanders’ flexibility on the battlefield. Iowa’s Sen. Chuck Grassley echoed the administration’s steadfast policy in a statement to the Iowa Independent: “The last thing politicians in Washington should do is tie the hands of our commanders on the ground by dictating troop rotations."
"Our troops have been put under tremendous stress and have been asked to do a great deal during the War on Terrorism. The soldiers and their families have answered the call of duty time and time again,” said Grassley, a Republican. “Recently, the Secretary of Defense announced new troop deployment policies as well as increases to the size of the active duty military. This should help relieve the stress on our current forces, and the reserve forces in particular, while maintaining the flexibility and capability to respond to national security needs.”
Praise for the Bush administration’s troop deployment policies was less forthcoming on the other side of the aisle in Iowa. “It is simply unacceptable that our troops’ time at home has often been cut short, depriving them of the time they need to recover from combat, complete additional training and spend precious time with their families,” said Sen. Tom Harkin in a press release. “This systematic abuse of redeploying our troops with little down time has placed enormous stress on our troops and their families, and has brought our Army to its breaking point. Having an established amount of time between deployments is crucial to protecting our troops’ mental and physical well-being and providing some stability and predictability for military families.”
Findings from a Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health in June support Harkin’s claim:
Regarding the mental health issues facing veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health experts have reached a consensus that matters will only worsen unless proactive measures are taken. Webb’s amendment was one of these measures.
Webb, a first-year senator, spoke of frustrations with the politicizing of his legislative action: “Americans are tired of the posturing that is giving Congress such a bad reputation. They are tired of the procedural strategies designed to protect politicians from accountability, and to protect this Administration from judgment. They are looking for concrete actions that will protect the well-being of our men and women in uniform.”
The amendment, S. AMDT. 2011, was introduced by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which is currently being debated in both chambers of Congress. The vote was 56-41 to end debate on Webb’s amendment, with 60 votes needed to move to a full up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
After the filibuster succeeded, Webb, a Vietnam War veteran, shared his disappointment on the Senate floor with Republican colleagues: “Today the Republicans decided to filibuster an amendment that goes straight to the well-being of our troops. I deeply regret this move. I would remind my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that the American people are watching us today. They expect us to take the sort of positive action that might stabilize the operational environment in which are troops are being sent again and again.”
Webb’s amendment was bound to meet resistance from the GOP rank and file and faced a President Bush veto, who vetoed the 2007 war emergency bill on similar grounds that Congress should not etch into law deployment and down times – which the Bush administration says would curtail commanders’ flexibility on the battlefield. Iowa’s Sen. Chuck Grassley echoed the administration’s steadfast policy in a statement to the Iowa Independent: “The last thing politicians in Washington should do is tie the hands of our commanders on the ground by dictating troop rotations."
"Our troops have been put under tremendous stress and have been asked to do a great deal during the War on Terrorism. The soldiers and their families have answered the call of duty time and time again,” said Grassley, a Republican. “Recently, the Secretary of Defense announced new troop deployment policies as well as increases to the size of the active duty military. This should help relieve the stress on our current forces, and the reserve forces in particular, while maintaining the flexibility and capability to respond to national security needs.”
Praise for the Bush administration’s troop deployment policies was less forthcoming on the other side of the aisle in Iowa. “It is simply unacceptable that our troops’ time at home has often been cut short, depriving them of the time they need to recover from combat, complete additional training and spend precious time with their families,” said Sen. Tom Harkin in a press release. “This systematic abuse of redeploying our troops with little down time has placed enormous stress on our troops and their families, and has brought our Army to its breaking point. Having an established amount of time between deployments is crucial to protecting our troops’ mental and physical well-being and providing some stability and predictability for military families.”
Findings from a Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health in June support Harkin’s claim:
The challenges are enormous and the consequences of non-performance are
significant. Data from the Post-Deployment Health Re-Assessment, which is
administered to service members 90 to 120 days after returning from deployment,
indicate that 38 percent of Soldiers and 31 percent of Marines report
psychological symptoms. Among members of the National Guard, the figure rises to
49 percent (U.S. Air Force, 2007; U.S. Army, 2007; U.S. Navy, 2007). Further,
psychological concerns are significantly higher among those with repeated
deployments, a rapidly growing cohort. Psychological concerns among family
members of deployed and returning Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
Freedom veterans, while yet to be fully quantified, are also an issue of
concern. Hundreds of thousands of children have experienced the deployment of a
parent.
Regarding the mental health issues facing veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health experts have reached a consensus that matters will only worsen unless proactive measures are taken. Webb’s amendment was one of these measures.
Webb, a first-year senator, spoke of frustrations with the politicizing of his legislative action: “Americans are tired of the posturing that is giving Congress such a bad reputation. They are tired of the procedural strategies designed to protect politicians from accountability, and to protect this Administration from judgment. They are looking for concrete actions that will protect the well-being of our men and women in uniform.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
