# McCain Goes Over-the-Top (GI Bill) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2008, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375 "2008-05-23T16:34:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2008, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/61 "2008-05-23T22:06:36Z")
[QUOTE=grayhairedmomma] I hadn’t known much about McCain’s temper until this election. If these responses are typical, he’d be a shitty diplomat. [/QUOTE] [You have no idea.](http://www.thenation.com/bletters/20080324/dreyfuss) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2008, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/62 "2008-05-23T22:30:19Z")
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil] This thread? McCain favors a sliding scale that further rewards veterans above and beyond the current GI Bill, Obama doesn’t. I’m not sure if I am misunderstanding these positions or if you didn’t read the thread properly (or both). [/QUOTE] That is incorrect. McCain does not favor giving long term veterans anything above and beyond the current bill. he just wants to give other veterans _less_. His sliding scale does not give anything to to the longer term vets that they aren’t already getting under the current one. He wants to withhold benefits early on in order to discourage one time enlistments and to boost retention. His position is that college educations are too generous a reward for vets who only serve one enlistment. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2008, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/63 "2008-05-23T22:54:32Z")
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil] I don’t doubt that people are sick of George Bush, but then he’s only really been a Republican in name only. [/QUOTE] I’d be interested in a definition of Republican which does not include Bush. Is cutting taxes RINO? Being anti-regulation? Doubting climate change? Being in favor of a missile defense plan? Who is a Real Republican in your book, Ron Paul? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2008, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/64 "2008-05-23T23:21:23Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] That is incorrect. McCain does not favor giving long term veterans anything above and beyond the current bill. he just wants to give other veterans _less_. [/QUOTE] No, neither the Webb Bill or the McCain Bill would give short term veterans less than the current GI bill gives them. Both bills increase benefits for all veterans. The Webb Bill increases the benefit for all veterans equally regardless of time of enlistment. The McCain Bill increases the benefit for veterans with a longer enlistment more than those with a shorter enlistment. But they both give veterans more than the current bill. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/65 "2008-05-24T00:13:58Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] No, neither the Webb Bill or the McCain Bill would give short term veterans less than the current GI bill gives them. Both bills increase benefits for all veterans. The Webb Bill increases the benefit for all veterans equally regardless of time of enlistment. The McCain Bill increases the benefit for veterans with a longer enlistment more than those with a shorter enlistment. But they both give veterans more than the current bill. [/QUOTE] Yes, but the McCain Bill does not give longer term veterans more than the _Webb_ bill. Both give the same thing to long term vets. Mccain claims the Webb bill is too generous to short term vets. He wants to give less than Webb to shorter term vets but not any more than Webb to longer term vets. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/66 "2008-05-24T01:01:59Z")
Hell, anything that goes to educating people is money that just about \*can’t \* be wasted. An educated citizenry is essential to a really strong democracy, its an investment that always pays off. Of course pay for veterans to go to school! Its the right thing to do, and happily its also the smart thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/67 "2008-05-24T02:22:12Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Yes, but the McCain Bill does not give longer term veterans more than the _Webb_ bill. Both give the same thing to long term vets. Mccain claims the Webb bill is too generous to short term vets. He wants to give less than Webb to shorter term vets but not any more than Webb to longer term vets. [/QUOTE] But my question stands…does this McCain bill actually _decrease_ what a single-term enlistee would receive \*right now \* under the current implementation of the GI Bill, or do those benefits stay the same and only the reinlistment group get increased benefits? If it’s the latter, I don’t know what everyone’s hollering about. The current plan is pretty generous as it is. You get paid, you get experience and college money. And that’s if you only serve four years and opt out after that (barring stop-loss, of course). ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/68 "2008-05-24T02:29:59Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] Obama made a seriously cheap attack, there. We blame Republicans for questioning people’s patriotism and loyalty whenever it suits their agenda, but Obama did the _exact same thing_ there by questioning McCain’s support of veterans. [/QUOTE] Obama is questioning McCain’s support for veterans because **McCain refused to back a bi-partisan bill that provides support for veterans**. This is not remotely the same as attacking Obama’s patriotism because he wouldn’t wear a flag pin on his lapel. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/69 "2008-05-24T02:38:41Z")
[QUOTE=Frostillicus] Obama is questioning McCain’s support for veterans because **McCain refused to back a bi-partisan bill that provides support for veterans**. This is not remotely the same as attacking Obama’s patriotism because he wouldn’t wear a flag pin on his lapel. [/QUOTE] But why would McCain, himself a POW and career military man, arbitrarily do that? There must have been something wrong with the bill…too generous (although with respect to vets like myself, there may not be such a thing), pork, bad language…something. ---
**Author:** ![Gozu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gozu/32/6615_2.png) [@Gozu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gozu)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/70 "2008-05-24T03:08:08Z")
Mac ducked an important bill because a Nay vote or an abstention would have been politically risky. Obama shone the spotlight on it to score cheap political points and Mac is trying to spin the story to make Obama look bad. Bottom line: nothing to see here, move along. This whole thing is all sauce and no fish. ---
**Author:** ![ManiacMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b782af/32.png) [@ManiacMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ManiacMan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/71 "2008-05-24T03:14:04Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] I thought the Pubs established in 2004 that any comparison of the candidates’ military service records is irrelevant. [/QUOTE] No that was after it was shown that Kerry staged his military exploits… ---
**Author:** ![ManiacMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b782af/32.png) [@ManiacMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ManiacMan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/72 "2008-05-24T03:17:14Z")
I don’t get it… Does everyone in the senate HAVE to vote for every bill that comes along? If not they are attacked one way or the other? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/73 "2008-05-24T03:19:51Z")
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil] But why would McCain, himself a POW and career military man, arbitrarily do that? There must have been something wrong with the bill…too generous (although with respect to vets like myself, there may not be such a thing), pork, bad language…something. [/QUOTE] As he said himself, the main issue is with retention. Bush and McCain are trying to encourage retention by withholding the full education carrot until they reenlist. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/74 "2008-05-24T03:20:53Z")
[QUOTE=ManiacMan] No that was after it was shown that Kerry staged his military exploits… [/QUOTE] Is this a joke? ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/75 "2008-05-24T03:50:31Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] As he said himself, the main issue is with retention. Bush and McCain are trying to encourage retention by withholding the full education carrot until they reenlist. [/QUOTE] But where is that specific language in the bill? I am again asking if this is just an addendum to the current state of the GI Bill whereby ALL enlistees get a certain amount just for enlisting, and more if they re-up. What is wrong with that as long as it doesn’t undermine the current benefit amount for one-term enlistees? ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/76 "2008-05-24T03:52:48Z")
[QUOTE=ManiacMan] No that was after it was shown that Kerry staged his military exploits… [/QUOTE] Yeah, and GWB is a highly decorated fighter pilot. :rolleyes: I have my reservations about exactly how heroic Kerry’s Vietnam actions were, and the fact that he received Purple Hearts for what amounted to scratches (which isn’t illegal or anything), but the fact that he threw those medals in protest only to try to reclaim them as political cannon fodder 30 years later is what irked me about him. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/77 "2008-05-24T04:51:52Z")
[QUOTE=WF Tomba] I don’t think McCain’s response sounded particularly over-the-top or intemperate, or even “harshly worded”, but it does sound as if he’s got his back up a little about being criticized by a civilian on military matters. I think he ought to get over it; you can’t be thin-skinned if you’re running for President. I also think Obama was a bit unfair to McCain in what he said. Strategically speaking, as an Obama supporter, I _want_ Obama to include military issues in his criticism of McCain. He just needs to stay away from implying that McCain is unpatriotic or doesn’t care about the troops. Those are cheap shots anyway. If he’s got substantive criticisms of McCain on defense-related issues he should make them. [/QUOTE] I’m sorry, but when McCain says: [QUOTE=John McCain] 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. [/QUOTE] I have to say that’s what I would definitely consider “harshly worded,” especially since Obama is a member of the [Committee of Veteran’s Affairs,](http://www.barackobama.com/issues/veterans/) and as such has quite a bit more than “less than zero understanding” of the needs and issues confronting veterans. As for the respective GI Bills, according to [this article,](http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,163440,00.html) the Webb bill offers: > [@Webb GI Bill](#): > > His enhanced GI Bill would be available to any member, active or reserve, who has served at least three months on active duty since Sept. 11, 2001. The level of benefits would be tied to length of service. The $1200 member buy-in under the current Montgomery GI Bill would be returned. > > The bigger change would be in the value of benefits. Maximum benefits, earned for 36 months’ active duty, would cover tuition for up to four years at a level to match tuition at the most expensive in-state public school. The average across states is about $1900 a month. MGIB pays $1100. > > Webb’s bill also would pay a monthly stipend to cover living expenses. The stipend would reflect local housing costs near school and would be set to equal military Basic Allowance for Housing for married enlisted in grade E-5. The alternate bill proposed by McCain is referenced [here,](http://www.military.com/news/article/senate-passes-webb-gi-bill.html) and as you can see the benefits are significantly less, unless you spend 12 years in the military before going to college. > [@Proposed Graham GI Bill](#): > > Graham and Burr said Wednesday that their revised bill would increase the monthly benefit to $1,500 for most participants and bump it up to $2,000 for those who stay in uniform for 12 years or more. Their new proposal also would provide some aid to veterans with as little as two years in uniform, a provision that drew muted criticism from Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell. > > Defense Secretary Robert Gates believes “two years is too soon” to provide college aid and would encourage some troops to quit the military, Morrell said. > > Graham and Burr said Wednesday that their revised plan would cost taxpayers $38 billion over 10 years, $13 billion less than the cost of Webb’s bill. > > Congressional Democrats have proposed a 0.5 percent surtax on those earning more than $500,000 to finance the Webb plan. Graham and Burr said they would offset their proposal’s cost with a 0.5 percent across-the-board cut in other federal spending. > > Webb aides quickly pointed out that such a cut would take a bite out of other federal aid programs for veterans. Both GI Bill proposals do away with the $1200 enrollment fee required by the current Montgomery GI Bill. For contrast, current benefits are as follows: > [@Current Montgomery GI Bill](#): > > Under the Montgomery plan, after six years – two enlistments for most troops – participants are eligible for $1,100 per month in tuition aid, plus a $500 annual allowance for books. I find it telling that the Webb bill is allocating 52 billion dollars over the next decade, an amount equivalent to 2.5 months worth of current spending for the Iraq war, and is proposing to pay for it via a 0.5% tax increase on those whose adjusted gross income exceeds a half million per year whereas the Graham bill allocates 38 billion dollars over the same time frame and they want to pay for it by cutting something else out of the budget–which could very well be some other veteran’s benefit. Whereas I understand wanting to maintain retention and all, can anyone truly defend a policy that would deny full GI Bill benefits to a war veteran who had a leg blown off by an IED during his first deployment? Can anyone honestly say that soldier doesn’t deserve full educational benefits? I’m also extremely uncomfortable that all the emphasis on retention smacks much more of stick than of carrot, what with “stop loss” policies and restrictions on educational benefits. Wouldn’t a more liberal GI Bill help with recruitment? The Webb bill also explores the possibility of giving away GI Bill benefits to someone else if the service person commits to a long term enlistment, which would be an inducement for those with small children to enlist in order to send their kids to college. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/78 "2008-05-24T19:44:08Z")
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil] But why would McCain, himself a POW and career military man, arbitrarily do that? [/QUOTE] Perhaps because he himself was educated at the Naval Academy and never had to worry about paying for college. And because of his wife’s family fortune he’s been quite well-off most of his adult life and has never had to face the sort of day-to-day economic challenges most veterans face. He’s led a very priveleged existence, and that may have blinded him to the challenges that the average veteran faces reintegrating himself into civilian life. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/79 "2008-07-01T19:59:21Z")
Predictably, after fighting tooth and nail against the G.I. Bill, Bush didn’t veto (as he threatened to do) but instead [took credit for its passage.](http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/06/30/gibill/index.html) :rolleyes: And of course, he praised McCain for his “hard work” on the bill. Yeah, badmouthing the bill and refusing to vote on it would exhaust anybody! Ugh. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375/80 "2008-07-01T21:29:28Z")
Here’s what I would have said were I McCain. “The military is more important than a single soldier. Every soldier should be taken care of, regardless of length of service, but those who commit to additional time serving the country should receive additional benefits commensurate with their length of service. The current legislation does not recognize or reward the decision to re-enlist with appropriately scaled benefits. I have sponsored legislation which does, and I stand behind that legislation as a better choice for our men and women in uniform, and our country.” Drop all the anecdotes and posturing about how he’s been there and how he’s personally qualified to make these calls. Stick to the issue. Enjoy, Steven [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-goes-over-the-top-gi-bill/450375.md?page=5)