The flawed benefits bill
Legislation S.22, is titled the "Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007", or the "21 century GI Bill".
The bill grants a free four-year education at any state college for anyone serving in the military for three years after September 11, 2001. Sounds generous, but unfortunately it also means that few soldiers will stick around after that three years. Correctly, President Bush opposes it, since retention is always important in the military - particularly now.
But the New York Times lambasted Bush for this, and in an all-too-rare exchange, he answered them back.
Of course the NY Times supports the bill. It was sponsored by Democratic Senator Jim Webb, a particularly virulent Bush hater who strongly opposes the war and won his election in Virginia only because the media were able to whip up a hysteria over a non-racial remark made by his opponent.
Based on a CBO report, the NYT speciously claims S.22 wouldn't hurt retention:
They [Bush and McCain] have seized on a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office that new, better benefits would decrease re-enlistments by 16 percent, which sounds ominous if you are trying — as Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are — to defend a never-ending war at a time when extended tours of duty have sapped morale and strained recruiting to the breaking point.Problem is, the NY Times doesn't seem to understand the definition of "retention". Even if the loss of soldiers is made up by an equal increase in recruitment, the loss is considerable. New recruits are not the same things as experienced ones. 1000 new soldiers need to be trained from scratch - they are no substitute for the same number of experienced leaders.
Their reasoning is flawed since the C.B.O. has also predicted that the bill would offset the re-enlistment decline by increasing new recruits — by 16 percent.
But since the NY Times (and Sen. Webb) oppose the war, they would be happy to see soldiers running out on the military like rats leaving a sinking ship. But this is not only irresponsible but incredibly short-sighted; these benefits will linger on far after Bush leaves office and the Iraq War has ended. And from a political perspective, cutting servicemember benefits is political suicide. What we provide today become permanent obligations for our future.
This debate is also purely manufactured altruism. I find it strange that the NYT, and other liberal advocates, are suddenly seizing on this issue now. The Montgomery G.I. Bill has been in place since 1966 (as the "Veterans Readjustment Benefits Act"), with various increases over the years to help compensate for inflation. Why weren't they asking for more educational assistance for military members during the previous administrations? Where was the outrage during the Johnson, Carter or Clinton years, for example?
Senator McCain has proposed a similar bill that seems to be superior in several ways. It provides the full benefits after six years (instead of three) and allows them to be transferred to spouses or children instead (something Webb's bill doesn't do). These two factors are likely to both help retention and recruitment - we wouldn't have to sacrifice one for the other. I'll wait until it's in writing before making a firm judgment call on it, but on the face of it, it makes a good deal more sense than Webb's bill.
Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed
Click here for more...
