Senate Overwhelmingly Pases Webb's GI Bill

[Arrian]

I don't think he was accusing you of spewing, Ramo. I think it was a general comment.

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

As talked about in the other thread, the main issue is retention. I have to say I agree that this will not be good for retention, and incenting retention would be a good idea; hence the point Patty and McCain are making, which is that this is a not-very-well-thought-out bill aimed at grabbing votes and screwing McCain out of the votes of people like Apo, rather than actually fixing the problem.

[Ramo]

The CBO estimates that the drop off in retention would be made up for by the increase in recruitment.

[Patroklos]

1. WTF? I don't believe I "spewed" any "patriotic crap."

I was talking about the various Congressmen on both sides.

2. Given the whole war thing, further incentivizing service, particularly for young people, might help with recruitment.

I for one and not very enthusiastic about recruiting an army solely through money incentives. Many nations have tried that before, and in most cases is turned out badly over time.

Money can be an incentive and these people are in fact working and should be paid for it, but it shouldn't be the overriding incentive. We are volunteers, not mercenaries.

3. This isn't a direct subsidy to soldiers, but an investment in society's human capital.

No its not, if that were the case they should just put the money in the general student loan pool. This is money reserved specifically for soldiers and in the end is nothing more than a form of pay no different than Roman generals promising land to their soldiers after a campaign.

And whats worse, is that it is promised pay you can't get until after the campaign, which means if you get denied your early out or your your commission resignation gets declined, you get bitter.

So civilian/military pay parity isn't the only issue involved here.

Its not, but it should be.

CBO estimates that the drop off in retention would be made up for by the increase in recruitment.

Retention and recruitment need to be balanced, one does not make up for the other. What good is an army of privates?

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by snoopy369
As talked about in the other thread, the main issue is retention. I have to say I agree that this will not be good for retention, and incenting retention would be a good idea; hence the point Patty and McCain are making, which is that this is a not-very-well-thought-out bill aimed at grabbing votes and screwing McCain out of the votes of people like Apo, rather than actually fixing the problem.

Yeah...I really wish Hutchinson would have ran this term. She would have been great if there wasn't a huge anti-free trade, xenophobic attitude right now.

This is not good for retention, but they really need decent pay raises and putting more funds into cities by military posts.

A lot of people already get out because there are much better jobs as contractors.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


(a) Do we have enough soldiers now?
(b) If not, compensate them better.

No. Conscript.

[Ramo]

I for one and not very enthusiastic about recruiting an army solely through money incentives. Many nations have tried that before, and in most cases is turned out badly over time.

If you have issues with professional armed services, GI Bills aren't going to do much to change the situation one way or the other. It sounds like you're looking for conscription.

I think public service (including non-military service) is good, and that the gov't should encourage it among young people. And educational incentives are better than most others.

No its not

It's both.

[Apocalypse]

McCain responds...

"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. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim.

"When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed. I rarely saw him again for four years. My grandfather, who commanded the fast carrier task force under Admiral Halsey, came home from the war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. I grew up in the Navy; served for twenty-two years as a naval officer; and, like Senator Webb, personally experienced the terrible costs war imposes on the veteran. The friendships I formed in war remain among the closest relationships in my life. The Navy is still the world I know best and love most. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well .

"But I am running for the office of Commander-in-Chief. That is the highest privilege in this country, and it imposes the greatest responsibilities. It would be easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation. More importantly, I feel just as he does, that we owe veterans the respect and generosity of a great nation because no matter how generously we show our gratitude it will never compensate them fully for all the sacrifices they have borne on our behalf.

"Senators Graham, Burr and I have offered legislation that would provide veterans with a substantial increase in educational benefits. The bill we have sponsored would increase monthly education benefits to $1500; eliminate the $1200 enrollment fee; and offer a $1000 annually for books and supplies. Importantly, we would allow veterans to transfer those benefits to their spouses or dependent children or use a part of them to pay down existing student loans. We also increase benefits to the Guard and Reserve, and even more generously to those who serve in the Selected Reserve.

"I know that my friend and fellow veteran, Senator Jim Webb, an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously, has offered legislation with very generous benefits. I respect and admire his position, and I would never suggest that he has anything other than the best of intentions to honor the service of deserving veterans. Both Senator Webb and I are united in our deep appreciation for the men and women who risk their lives so that the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. And I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And 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.

"The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.

"Most worrying to me, is that by hurting retention we will reduce the numbers of men and women who we train to become the backbone of all the services, the noncommissioned officer. In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family. And in combat, no one is more important to their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, and to the officers who command them, than the sergeant and petty officer. They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people not to choose to become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly. As I said, the office of President, which I am seeking, is a great honor, indeed, but it imposes serious responsibilities. How faithfully the President discharges those responsibilities will determine whether he or she deserves the honor. I can only tell you I intend to deserve the honor if I am fo rtunate to receive it, even if it means I must take politically unpopular positions at times and disagree with people for whom I have the highest respect and affection.

"Perhaps, if Senator 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."

[snoopy369]

McCain Standing up for what he believes in, even if it costs him votes...

[Arrian]

I don't know what Obama said, but he's on dangerous ground if he's questioning McCain's support for veterans... that's an issue he shouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. McCain has the better credentials on that issue. Leave it be.

Plus, I think the retention point is a good one.

-Arrian

[Ramo]

Retention and recruitment need to be balanced, one does not make up for the other. What good is an army of privates?

Again, as the CBO makes clear, decreased retention can easily be offset by re-enlistment bonuses. You can save money from less spending on recruiting and put it in re-enlistment if necessary.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/92xx/doc9212/s22.pdf

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by VetLegion
No. Conscript.

The worst thing any military can do is to draft unwilling soldiers and send them into a guerilla war. They will generate far more new guerillas than they kill. It's a sure receipe for disaster.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ramo


Again, as the CBO makes clear, decreased retention can easily be offset by re-enlistment bonuses. You can save money from less spending on recruiting and put it in re-enlistment if necessary.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/92xx/doc9212/s22.pdf

Indeed, you can add another $6.7 billion in re-enlistment bonuses to counter the NEGATIVE impact of this proposal... or you can rework the proposal to have a POSITIVE effect on retention without costing $6.7b a year (and gaining the bonuses to new recruitment, so possibly actually saving money in that front; hence why I discount the $5.6b savings from that front - it (in some level) is true regardless of the specific benefit given.

Again - I think the concept is a good one, but it would have profited from a longer consideration and a more well-written bill. The timing and content of this bill screams "electioneering", not "helping soldiers".

[Zkribbler]

On the other hand, seeing a critical bill like this permeated with porkbarrel spending is a slap in the face to our brave soldiers and marines. I'm beginning to look far more favorably on SlowwHand's call for a Line Item veto.

[Ramo]

Indeed, you can add another $6.7 billion in re-enlistment bonuses to counter the NEGATIVE impact of this proposal... or you can rework the proposal to have a POSITIVE effect on retention without costing $6.7b a year (and gaining the bonuses to new recruitment, so possibly actually saving money in that front; hence why I discount the $5.6b savings from that front - it (in some level) is true regardless of the specific benefit given.

Again - I think the concept is a good one, but it would have profited from a longer consideration and a more well-written bill. The timing and content of this bill screams "electioneering", not "helping soldiers".

That's $6.7 (or a net 1.1) billion over 4 years.

Webb-Hagel might not be perfect, but it seems pretty good to me. My issues with the McCain proposal are the significantly lower benefits and forcing more than one enlistment (at least 6 years) to get any benefits.