It would seem like a no-brainer for any presidential candidate: a bill, introduced by two veterans, with the support of veterans associations around the country, that increases the opportunity for vets to go to college.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have co-sponsored a bill put forth last fall by Jim Webb of Virginia and Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska, called the "Post-9/11 Veterans' Educational Act," that is a return to the spirit of the World War II GI Bill, with enough funding such that every returning veteran is guaranteed a quality education.

The bill, put forth as the first step in making "A 21st Century GI Bill," would give veterans who qualified tuition for a full four years of college, as well as a stipend for books and living expenses. Currently, veterans are covered by the Montgomery GI bill, which requires that troops pay $100 a month during their service, which then qualifies them for around $800 per month for college tuition. As Webb and Hagel pointed out in an op-ed last year, that barely covers courses and books at many community colleges, let alone a state school or private university.

So where's McCain on this, who has made "support the troops" his campaign mantra? When asked in March by a representative of Student Veterans of America why he wouldn't co-sponsor the bill, McCain wavered and mumbled, saying, "Uh, I haven't had the chance to examine the bill." Several weeks later, it seems he still hasn't had a chance to, and needless to say, many aren't happy.

"McCain needs to be on this bill," Webb told reporters recently. "I have said to him several times that this is not a political issue." And this week, Vote Vets and Brave New Films made a fascinating video featuring young vets talking about their own difficulties getting access to education and calling on McCain to sign on to the bill.

The most plausible explanation for McCain's reluctance is the White House's resistance to the bill, with the argument that such an effort would affect military retention rates. But from the so-called "maverick," and a veteran, one would expect better.

Comments (14)

1. Come on Happy, that's BS. This administration cares little for the enormous cost for the Iraq war. As long as we "bring freedom to the Iraqi people" then damn the treasury. Now, that we're talking about actually taking care of our vets we need "prudent care taking of the Treasury?" These people have risked their very lives for their country (at least that's what they've been told) so I really don't think increasing their education benefits is too much to ask.

   When this was brought to McCain's attention back in March, I completely understood his not signing on before reading. That makes perfect sense. Heck, if more people would have read that darn Patriot Act before signing on, I'd be willing the wager the vote for passing would have been narrower. (Still probably would have passed as many of our gutless senators don't want to be labeled as anti-American).

   But it's been weeks. He hasn't been compaigning for a primary slot and he's even gone to Iraq to meet these men and women of the military who would benefit from this bill. There's no excuse for him not to have read it by now. Plain and simple. While I have to believe he does care about the military, his actions show otherwise.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 04/06/2008 @ 4:33pm

2. MarkCanyon-The Iraqis that voted in peril voted against gender equality,freedom of religion,freedom of speech because it offends god.They are an Islamic theocracy and as such,forbid such freedoms.That's what we're fighting for.Lack of freedom and theocracy.There isn't any evidence that the jihadists are powerful enough to take over Iraq.Al Sadr is the only one that powerful.This bill can't undermine Iraq,by the way.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 04/06/2008 @ 5:39pm

3. If an ex-vet is a Republican he's a patriot, if he's a Democrat he's a traitor, that's Mark's world view don't you see that NOB?

   Incidentally and way off-topic, but English REALLY needs a neutral pronoun beyond it, which is demeaning. But that statement above looks sexist and I feel bad.

   Posted by yutsano at 04/06/2008 @ 5:50pm

4. Wow, I have to say I'm shocked. It doesn't matter if a military member has seen direct combat four or five times or if a member has floated around on an aircraft carrier without being shot at. Being in the military is not all roses and patriotism.

   I can't tell you the number of days spent away from families due to overseas tours or deployments. Not to mention 24 hour duty, long days and odd working shifts. When the time comes for action, 99% of these members are willing to drop everything to support their leaders (there's always the 1% that don't).

   The average military family moves at least every three years in locations across the nation and around the globe. Sure, there are benefits to being in the service, even for family members. But they pale in comparison to being able to stay put and build longevity at a job. Their children are moved from school to school rarely being able to make lifelong friends and always having to readjust to a new enviorment - many times having to overcome language barriers. Their parents are sent away on deployments with many going into hostile territory. Don't you think everytime a casualty is reported in Iraq a child of military parents who are serving over there doesn't cringe? A vast majority of the time, CNN or other news outlets are reporting on events that haven't even made it through the red-tape to get a face to face visit from a military representative to notify one of a family member's death. (Granted, names aren't used until the family member has been notified).

   A vast majority of people who volunteer for service come from underprivileged homes and are poor. The military is normally their only way out of that situtation. Most don't stay in until retirement and get out after fulfilling their contracts. They learn a few skills here and there but in a time of conflict, their main focus is on the mission at hand. There's no time to take advantage of school perks the military offers to active duty. The pay these members receive isn't that great but it's better than years ago. Still, if a service member has a family, they're struggling. With the constant moves, it's very hard for the spouse to find a decent job other than the minimum wage jobs here and there and we all know how far you can get on minimum wage. That's one reason, if not the primary reason, most of the military vote Republican. Republicans do far more for the wages of our military than Democrats. While I think both sides equally support the military, the Republicans do so in a way that is directly felt. The last time the military got a huge salary increase (to bring their salaries up to match civilian wages) was under the Reagan administration.

   The G.I. Bill as it stands now, is really great to be honest. But it hasn't been revamped to keep up with modern times. $800 per month won't even cover the tuition for two classes let alone the books and other supplies needed. Right now, military members pay $100 a month for the first year of service to qualify for the G.I. Bill. That's a $1200 investment that really pays off. Unfortunately, many who leave the service never take advantage of the G.I. Bill within the 10 year timeframe. Anyone who leaves the service without an Honorable discharge doesn't get the G.I. Bill no matter if they paid into it. Even a General discharge won't get you the benefits.

   I don't know what the numbers are but I'd be will to wager the bill comes out about even between those who use the G.I. Bill versus those who either don't use it or have lost eligibility for it (justifyably so I might add as if you can't fulfill your contract honorably then you shouldn't be entitled to that benefit).

   I'm shocked because we aren't talking about corportations that make money off of the military or the Pentagon. We're not talking about new weapons or new technologies on how to kill more people. We're talking about a real-time benefit for the men and women who serve. I'm shocked because if you look at the history of politics, it is the Republican party that seems to do more directly for the men and women in uniform. Yet here we have a Republican nominee who *seems* not to be too interested followed by a Republican supporter who now wants to put a reign on the purse strings.

   I see this bill as a benefit that will positively affect society as a whole as these men and women gain an education they probably couldn't afford otherwise as they re-enter the workforce of civilian life.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 04/06/2008 @ 5:54pm

5. Wow, Fritz really said most of what I wanted to say, but I've got one thing to add: Mark you make me laugh, you need to pay more attention to how thinly stretched our military really is. It is bringing people on for their 2nd and 3rd tours of duty, recruiting veterans back into service, doing everything it can to get people, and it still needs people.

   If anything, passing a bill that gives the promise of a college education that the military likes to use in their commercials teeth will raise enlistment. The benefits of a college education in todays society are tremendous, it means the ability to learn complex skills required to compete in the post industrial economy, if used right it can raise people out of poverty, and graduating without thirty thousand in debt will enable these people to start a good life from the moment they get out of college. This bill is awesome.

   Posted by shadow master at 04/06/2008 @ 7:51pm

6. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 04/06/2008 @ 5:54pm | ignore this person

   kudos. the only caveat i have is that the money should flow quickest and easiest to areas in which we are weak, like science - you know, hard stuff that all to many americans avoid because its hard or contradicts their mythology...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/06/2008 @ 9:27pm

7. These "patriots" want to abandon a battlefields where America's most fundamental principles are on the line Such is their idea of the spirit of WWII. Basta!

   Posted by MARKCANYON 04/06/2008 @ 5:23pm

   fundamental principles?

   hahahahaha......

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2008 @ 9:37pm

8. if you educate people,

   they're will be no one left to be soldiers...

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2008 @ 9:39pm

9. Obviously an amendment could address the affect on retention. For example, the longer the service the stronger the tuition benefit.

   So what is the real reason Cheney/Bush are opposed to the bill?

   Posted by winyahn at 04/06/2008 @ 10:34pm

10. Mewonders if it has to do with shining positive light on Webb.

    Posted by winyahn at 04/06/2008 @ 10:36pm

11. Posted by WINYAHN 04/06/2008 @ 10:36pm | ignore this person

    dont want to make the opposition look good, thereby making themselves look bad?

    sounds like our demigodly randian overmen's M.O. to me!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/06/2008 @ 10:48pm

12. "The sponsors of this bill support retreat and defeat."

    "Obama, Hillary and company want to abandon Iraq to Islamofascists whose specialty is mass murdering civilians."

    Posted by MARKCANYON 04/06/2008 @ 5:23pm

    Enough of the misdirection of blame and the silly little word-games such as "retreat and defeat", "cut-n-run", etc.

    I agree that the reality is unfortunate. But, the bottom line is that it was this administration and all who support them who recklessly and incompetently created a situation so untenable that our only viable option is to withdraw.

    In so doing, it was they who betrayed our security, our troops and our great nation.

    But oddly, people like MarkCanyon give them a pass while deriding those who understand the unfortunate reality and are left to clean up the mess.

    It's the same backwards logic that has them screaming "Support The Troops" and at the same time attacking every proposal (such as the subject bill and Webb's previous proposal) that would do just that. Even more amazing is that they do this while supporting policies that needlessly keep our troops in harm's way and separated from their families.

    Yet, they support the troops while opponents of the war don't. Give me a break.

    Hagel said it best: Alice In Wonderland.

    Posted by itstime at 04/07/2008 @ 11:27am

13. Ha. Gotta love it. Always the Republicans shrieking loudest about patriotism and supporting the troops, and so forth. But then when it comes to actually funding anything or having any substance on the issue(s) pertaining to enacting any support, they run and hide behind their glitzy, pretty flag graphics on FoxNoise like the cowards they are. Or, in Dubya's case, hide behind Dad and all the other stronger, smarter people he's hidden behind like a total coward his whole life.

    Posted by molotov at 04/07/2008 @ 9:53pm

14. What's that saying again? "Throw a rock into a pack of dogs and the one who hollers loudest is the one who's been hit".

    The bigger point was about the subject of this thread: The whole notion that only the right "Supports the Troops" while the left does not, contrasted with McCain's stance (or lack thereof) on this bill. More hypocrisy.

    But, since you appear unable to offer up a cogent response on that, here's a point by point refutation of what you did write:

    "The war is not expensive in treasure. It cost buts 1% in GDP."

    You're kidding right? Only 1% of the world's largest economy's GDP is not expensive? We're at over $500 billion appropriated and projected to go to $1 trillion and beyond, while we're bailing out investment banks, homeowners are being foreclosed on at record rates, a credit crunch has taken hold, fuel prices are out of control, and our economy is sliding (has slid) into a recession.

    Not to mention America's record foreign-debt to which this war is contributing. How's that for securing our future?

    By the way a lot of the money is now going to pay our former enemies not to shoot at us/one another. Prudent use of taxpayer money, huh? Can we pay them forever? What will happen when we stop? Does this sound like a winning strategy to you?

    "As wars go, it is not expensive in lives."

    So easy to say when it's not your life.

    And of course, you exclude the untold thousands of non-U.S. lives lost. Not to mention that lives aren't the only measure of human cost. From emotional to physical maiming, disruption to families, etc. the true human costs are astounding.

    This is the kind of flawed, narrow, reckless thinking that makes clear the severe limitations of your "logic" here.

    "That region is of vital importance. The US cannot afford to lose access to 60% of the world's oil and gas..."

    False choice. The options are not 1.) Keep an open-ended military commitment in Iraq OR 2.) stand by and watch the collapse of the entire Middle-East. I'll add again, however, that if those were the only options, then you have this administration to thank. To paraphrase Colin Powell, "He broke it. He owns it".

    "America is defending a govt elected by 10.5 million Iraqis."

    That logic is so dizzyingly circular that I don't know where to jump in.

    "We are fighting fascists who hate democracy, who blow up crowds of civilians, who detest freedom of speech and religious toleration."

    Er, it's a little more complicated than that.

    "Withdrawing would spark new insurgencies across the whole Gulf region"

    Who told you that?

    Posted by itstime at 04/08/2008 @ 2:45pm