Obama Picks A Fight, McCain Finishes It
By California Yankee Posted in 2008 | GI Bill | McCain | Obama — Comments (52) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Fear of encouraging a troop exodus caused quite a debate over a generous expansion in the education benefits of the G.I. Bill.
The Congressional Budget Office, in its cost analysis, estimated that the proposed improved benefits would result in a 16 percent drop in re-enlistments.
During yesterday's debate on the enhanced educational benefits, Obama picked a fight with McCain. Obama threw the first punch on the Senate floor when he questioned McCain's opposition to the increased benefits:
"I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill," he said. "I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans."
McCain's response was swift and highlighted Obama's lack of military service:
"I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did," said McCain, a former naval aviator who was held as a prisoner of war for more than five years during the Vietnam War.
"Running for president is different than serving as president ... the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend," McCain said.
McCain's full statement is available below.
Obama got it wrong from the moment he threw the first punch at McCain. McCain did not line up behind President Bush on this issue. According to the New York Times, "the Bush administration threw its support behind an alternative bill introduced last month by Mr. McCain and two other Republican senators, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard M. Burr of North Carolina:"
That benefit is also generous, increasing the monthly tuition benefit to $1,500, or roughly the average cost of public university tuition; it would rise to $2,000 for those who serve for 12 years. After new amendments, some as recent as Wednesday, their legislation would also include $1,000 a year for books and fees. The overall cost, Senators Graham and Burr said at a news conference, would be $38 billion over 10 years, financed by an across-the-board cut of a half percent in discretionary spending.
The main difference, though, is the provision to allow service members to transfer the benefits, up to half after 6 years of service and all after 12 years. Echoing the Pentagon’s arguments, they said that would encourage more service members, especially noncommissioned officers, to make the military a career.
I don't understand why Obama always has to distort McCain's positions. Why is Obama afraid to debate the issues based upon the truth? Are his arguments so weak that he feels he must resort, as numerous non-partisan factcheckers have found Obama has, to "distortion," "rank falsehood, "seriously misleading" statements and "outright lying?"
you hate it when the "Chicken Hawks" comments come home to roost don't you Sen Obama.
Pam
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Sen. Obama says: "I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans."
The first part of this quoted sentence was an accusation that McCain was lying about his reasons for opposing the bill. The second part of this quoted sentence lied about what McCain said his reasons were. All in all, and excellent attempt to trigger McCain's alleged temper.
According to Obama's logic, it would be fine to offer a generous bonus to veterans who refuse to re-enlist. In fact, that's basically what McCain says this bill would do. Obama ought to realize that throwing money around does not necessarily accomplish anything beneficial.
Obama ought to realize that throwing money around does not necessarily accomplish anything beneficial.
To politicians like him, doing something "beneficial" means doing something that...
- will help get them reelected or elected to a higher office
- centralizes more money and power in Washington DC
Bravo, Senator!
Obama- you walked into the
Party like you were walking
Walking onto a yacht
Your quote, which is not actually from the article you cite:
"The Congressional Budget Office, in its cost analysis, estimated that the proposed improved benefits would result in a 16 percent drop in re-enlistments."
The full quote from the article:
"The Congressional Budget Office, in its cost analysis, estimated that the benefits would result in a 16 percent drop in re-enlistments, a number opponents have repeatedly cited. But the office also predicted a 16 percent increase in recruitment because of the new benefits."
Although, certainly enlisted men and women would have more experience than a new recruit, the men and women who have fought for our freedom deserve this bill.
the second tour enlistment is key, Sgts, Petty Officer's. With Obama's plan you'd have to keep filling the funnel - not what the military needs.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
...to think of servicemen as interchangeable blobs?
That's not very hopeandchangey of you, you know.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Stephen King said about our guys in uniform!! You know uneducated, joined up because they couldn't get any other job, yada, yada, yada!! How could he possibly contradict the wisdom of his elders????
(BTW: love the 'hopeandchangey' thing! Maybe we should start a 'RedState Dictionary and Thesaurus!)
The education would still be an significant incentive plus the military gets the second tour of duty. Heck, ROTC commitment's for an officer's 4 year degree vary. Many are 6 years some and up to 10 years for pilots. This is still a good deal.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
education programs are but when I was in the AF the Gov't would pay a substantial portion of your tuition while you attended classes. A program to make getting a degree while on Active Duty financially easier would seem more conducive to re-enlistmnets
do one job! Constant training gives incentive to the trainer to get the h**l out! There is no substitute for experience, none!!!
Your comment is undeniably true. However, besides the political aspect of this bill, there is one issue I believe it is intended to address that has not been mentioned in this thread, namely "Propensity to Enlist". This is one of the big recruiting issues throughout the services. Among the important people who influence a person, having a close relationship with a veteran is strongly correlated to the decision to enlist. As fewer people (proportionally to the US population) enlist, fewer young people will grow up knowing veterans, potentially making recruiting more difficult down the road (although we are already experiencing some of this effect). This bill may or may not be the best idea, but if not this one, we still need some policy to help address this.
Well, clock, it sounds like you're in favor of a revolving-door military manpower policy.
Step 1: Promise big things to recruits who won't need to re-enlist to receive them.
Step 2: Incur big obligations to be paid for by us taxpayers.
Step 3: Discharge the short-term vet with his training and benefits while at the same time seeking a new recruit to replace him. Net result: No increase in number of servicemen, decrease in experience.
Step 4. Return to Step 1 and repeat, ad infinitum.
That's not even a zero-sum game; it has a negative return.
Could you be any more intellectually dishonest?
Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.
But if that strawman is more convenient for you rather than ignoring the content of my post so be it.
My post simply points out that the OP purposefully left out the back end of the quotation as it made his point seem better. I acknowledge the experience gap in my post and make no claims as to the effects of the gap, and certainly did not even attempt to claim it as a zero-sum game.
In brief, the bill does not just potentially reduce re-enlistment by 16% as the OP attempts to frame the issue, as it also potentially increases recruitment by 16%. Is there a further gap due to training and experience? Yes, as I originally acknowledged. Should men and women who served three years for us be entitled to a full education? I believe so. Is one enlistment too little for such benefits to be received? Potentially. Which side should we err on? Your call.
There was nothing intellectually dishonest about my post.
Just uninformed and logic challenged. The point those of us who know what we are talking about are making is that the 16% decrease in reenlistments is a severe blow to the service. The 16% increase in recruitments has no bearing on the subject. Therefore, there is no reason to point out the 16% increase.
A new recruit costs more and is less effective than a guy on his first re-up. It is a vast difference in many ways.
What's more, we need to keep the guys with combat experience around to whatever extent we can. They are the ones who keep the next set from getting killed. It is that simple.
It's up to every writer to decide how much to include or exclude. He actually excluded a lot more than just that second sentence. There was the rest of the article that he linked to (which included the second sentence), and there was the entire CBO report as well. I'm sure it was more than two sentences long.
And, the bill will have plenty of other consequences as well, both intended and unintended. Leaving any of them out doesn't make the author "intellectually dishonest." Nor was your comment. I just took a bit of literary license for effect. Your comment simply tried to make a big deal out of a little deal. If you think my post introduced a strawman, I'd say yours contained a red herring.
"My post simply points out that the OP purposefully left out the back end of the quotation as it made his point seem better."
Personally, I think it strengthens the argument against the bill, because it points out the illogic of bringing in recruits, training them, incurring a big financial obligation for them, and then being forced to repeat the process indefinitely. But since that wasn't the point of the OP, he didn't need to go into that.
Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.
A six year commitment would be almost as strong of an attraction and reduce the revolving door for the recruiting force. A better solution would be to integrate the program into the career path of the soldier/sailor/marine. Why are we rewarding someone for leaving the service? Here's an idea, how about one free year of college per three year enlistment. Stay in and you can have a 'free' 4 year degree after 12 years of service. That's about how long it took my brother to pay off his college loans..
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
I haven't seen the actual numbers, but it would seem that if you enlist 100 only a percentage of them will reinlist. Without knowing the reinlistment rate I'll put that at 80%. If that is that case wouldn't you need to recruit 20% more to make up for a 16% loss at the first reinlistment.
Ignoring the experience deficit would that kill the one for one replacement argument?
Atreites
McCain was campaigning and skipped the vote.
Charlie Hall
Or is the the depth of your commentary?
"Even if you think our presidential choices this election year are between disgust and disaster, anyone who has ever been through a real disaster can tell you that this difference is not small. It is big enough to go vote on election day." - Thomas Sowell
How clueless. I bet you root for sports teams based on the color of their jerseys too.
These idjits who post this crap from time-to-time are fun, kinda like going to a rifle range and letting loose a few rounds to start the day.
and exidently ejacted high over North Veitnom,
I enthusiastically second the recruiter's statement above. That journeyman experience that second-tour servicemenbers bring to the success of their units cannot be overstated. They are my first-line leaders, who have the knowledge and seasoning to get the job done. Sure, enlistements would go up enough to compensate for the loss down the road. Seems like a zero sum. It's not. By the end of their first enlistment, the Seargents and Chiefs have trained and molded the new sailor only to see them walk out the door, and then do it all over again - 16% more to be exact. It's bad enough we barely keep half after 4 years - you want 35%? So this bill has many hidden costs, hard and soft. Hard - Training costs go up 16% to compensate, taking away crucial dollars for maintenance and operations. Soft - Unit readiness drifts down due to the larger number of junior, inexperienced Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. Accidents will go up, efficiency will go down, and a smaller number of experienced, senior leaders will be tasked with growing this larger pool of inexperienced talent into effective fighting men and women. McCain's proposal will cost LESS in the long run - it aims to help retain that talent that's been so dearly earned, and it promotes an effective military. Oh yeah, and it's good for the servicemember and thier family.
A non navy guy who threw that in instead of the all encompassing "NCO."
"Even if you think our presidential choices this election year are between disgust and disaster, anyone who has ever been through a real disaster can tell you that this difference is not small. It is big enough to go vote on election day." - Thomas
"Even if you think our presidential choices this election year are between disgust and disaster, anyone who has ever been through a real disaster can tell you that this difference is not small. It is big enough to go vote on election day." - Thomas
The Seargents and Chiefs have trained and molded a new sailor by the end of his first enlistment, only to see him walk out the door...
"ma deuce says no truce"
"Even if you think our presidential choices this election year are between disgust and disaster, anyone who has ever been through a real disaster can tell you that this difference is not small. It is big enough to go vote on election day." - Thomas Sowell
I'm a US Navy Senior Chief - 20 years service next month. I tried to keep it "service neutral" but The Sailor in me just couldn't stay in.
Okay, there's nothing wrong, per se, with the Webb initiative (ANY improvement to benefits is good), BUT, McCain had a better proposal. It gives us in the service a benefit we've been asking for - transfer to our family. Webb's doesn't do that. Instead, it gives full benefits after serving 3 years. Many will walk - they do anyway, but if we can give an incentive to stay a little longer, the investment we (not just me, but the country as a whole) will have better return on our investment. I've watched many of my Sailors walk out - it's not an easy job. If they had this to look forward to, they might give a little more time. We're competing for the talent pool colleges and trade schools are after, we need every qualified person we can get. And we want them to stay.
FCCS(SW/AW) Jeff Weimer
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
he said they would have been trained by sergeants and chiefs by then of the new recruits first enlistment!
the Seargents and Chiefs have trained and molded the new sailor...
try to mold and train the President Barry during his first four years of military experience?
I'll pass on retaining Obama for a second term to get a return on that investment.
May the first term never happen.
I said that the Sergeants and Chiefs have to train them in their first enlistment. Sheesh, it took me 13 years to make Chief! 19 for Senior Chief. I'm not looking good for 9. Oh well, I can't complain - it's been a great ride!
I see you know your Navy, were you in?
Unfortunately, for your theory to bear out, it requires people ignore the fact that we've had a properly functioning military for a lot longer than we've had an all volunteer system. All the New GI Bill really does is restore things to their original intent, which was to pay for a four year degree. It hasn't been enough to provide that for some time, due to inflation, as well as the ever increasing costs of tuition. The GI Bill is also not about the military per se, it's about veterans, as well as the economy. When it was first enacted, it ushered in an unprecedented growth of the middle class. Without a healthy economy to back it up, our military isn't of any practical use.
As to the fears that people will leave the military to get an education, I think it's a lot of worrying over nothing. Unless there's a lot more people staying in solely for economic reasons than I'm aware of.
But it left out the transferability, something we've been asking for for years. And the 16%/16% rings true. We have to grow them, even after initial training. We'd have to grow more, more often, taking away from money better used for other things.
Yes, we've had a functioning military prior to all-volunteer, BUT, take a closer look. Between wars, we've let our military fall behind all too often, only to rush madly to catch up. See Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII. Heck, we were using WWI vintage equipment when we were hit at Pearl Harbor, and it took us months to get on a war footing. We've changed to a highly-trained, albeit smaller, standing military due to the Cold War, and we need to keep it that way. That means more career professionals, and fewer "short-termers", which was a vast majority of the forces during times of the draft. We could afford to throw bodies at a problem then, we can't now. Webb's proposal works against that.
Also, it seems like pure politics that they spiked McCain's proposal in favor of Webb. Just to have an issue to poke the GOP nominee in the eye, maybe? Wouldn't put it past them.
FCCS(SW/AW) Jeff Weimer
quite aggresively against Obama and the MSM.
good blog yank from the land of fruits and arnold
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Very prudent of you to phrase it that way.
"the land of fruits and arnold"
You don't want to take even a sly dig at Arnold's nuts.
Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.
Just because my wife looks like Skeletor iss no reeson to doubt my manhood!
-Da Governator
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
"I don't understand why Obama always has to distort McCain's positions."
I sure do - it is because Obama HAS NO POSITION, on anything. Therefore he has to attack something/anything just to keep his quota of camera face-time for the adoring minions.
Obi's Sister
www.justgrits.wordpress.com
veterans? Poppycock! If they go to college, they would become more educated. Definitely a step in the wrong direction. In addition, if they leave the military, that's one less person to fight for our geo-political interests, oops, I mean "Freedom and Liberty".
I see no reasonable debate on the point that we should be good to the men and women that protect us.
Exactly how that is best done may be debatable.
However, the major point I take away from this piece is the Fact that McCain displayed backbone and put the arrogant upstart in his place.
This is so uncommon in the national GOP that it is noteworthy.
What I am very curious to see is if this trend will continue.
First Bush starts enforcing laws on employers hiring illegals, Then the GOP nominee shows the Demoncrats his teeth when provoked.
I am beginning to feel a little better about things.....
Regards
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I listened to Sen. Biden on CNN this morning go into a fit about McCain putting the smack down on Obama over his lack of military service. Boo-hoo-hoo...now let me think, where have I last heard a candidate pointing out his opponent's military service record in a presidential campaign...hmmm, let's see, I the the candidate's name might have rhymed with "scary"...