Just goes to show... Democrats are still campaigning to be everything to all people. In West Virginia it's all about the veterans. In Manhattan it's all U.S. needs to be knocked down a level, anti-war this, military is bad, etc. Then at the Israel supporters gathering. Dems love Israel. Then to San Francisco. Yes, Hamas deserves half of the Israel territory, it is only fair.
Fortunately the public will not go with the Mudville Gazette which loves great rhetoric and will back an honorable patriot, John McCain. Otherwise, watch out, you will not know what you are getting.

Mudville embraces the folks that say let's lose the war... but at least you get good benefits when you come back.

Democrats will spin ANYTHING into a reason for folks to vote for them. Obama is all things to all people. Democrats like Mudville eat it all up.

Please troops come home. We are declaring you lost. But here's a bag of treats from the only good person in the world, Democrat Jim Webb.

It would be nice if Obama just voted to fund the troops first. It doesn't take much money to give college educations to vets when they return if you abandon and endanger them in the field. All things to all people, yep that is Obama... I'm all for the college tuition, but I know Obama isn't. How is it that Wright put it, he's just a politician that has to say certain things to get elected.

Pumping more government money into the university system is going to raise tuition across the board. That is a basic economic fact. Increased demand plus a static supply equals higher prices.

If the point is just to buy votes, give them a big fat severence check and let them spend it however they like. At least that way the effect would be spread across the economy instead of concentrated in one sector.

Heh- over 5 years of blogging and that's the first time I've been accused of being a Democrat. That makes the voting about 5600-1 in the "guess Greyhawks political affiliation" contest.

Please believe me - I'm being completely politically neutral in this post, and not trying to sway opinions on candidates. I thought I was offering advice to Republicans based on my insider's view (and a LOT of experience) of what the average "Joe" is talking about "around the water cooler." That can be used or ignored as the receiver sees fit.

By the way, the war was effectively won last year. It's possible that by November even the Democrats won't be able to screw that up.

The Webb Bill is smart politics. McCain is being typically dumb not to support it. He's doing so for budgetary reasons, and he's trying not to blow out the budget, but sometimes Republicans do stupid things.

This is one of those times.

For now, the bill will have the effect of providing an inducement for serving soldiers to leave as soon as their enlistments are up, or force DoD to significantly amplify the re-enlistment bonus, contingent upon Congressional appropriation. Think that will happen, anytime soon?

In the long run, it will likely decrease military effectiveness as a greater proportion of military personnel serve their initial tour and bug out for college benefits instead of pursuing a career. The Army in particular will be adversely affected as newly minted squad-leading E-5s depart for freshman year at home-state university.

There's no question the G.I. benefits need to be improved; the question is how do we do it in such a way we maintain force readiness. I think this is Webb and the Democrat's way to undermine the war in Iraq by offering troops a better bribe to leave, notwithstanding your assessment that the war is won.

Tim: Arguing that a GI Bill is too good because people might actually use it is pretty much self-defeating. When I first heard that claim from Secretary Gates I called it "the best endorsement the bill could get."

The CBO has evaluated/estimated what they believe the dollar cost will be - re: increased re-up bonuses. The offset is a reduction in initial enlistment bonuses (and other costs) the GI Bill will make possible.

Full text here.

Excerpt:

The marginal cost of enlistment bonuses and the other expenditures necessary to attract an additional enlistment is about $35,000. CBO estimates that reduced spending for those purposes would result in a savings of almost $5.6 billion over the 2009-2013 period.
...
Thus, CBO estimates that SRBs of about $25,000 for each first-term servicemember who reenlists would offset the expected effects on retention of increased educational benefits, resulting in a cost of $6.7 billion over the 2009-2013 period for additional reenlistment bonuses.

Overall it is a good discussion for the Republicans. No one will be fooled by Obama and his lefty buddies pandering, although I think Webb is sincere.

McCain really can't be outgunned on this by Obama or on anything military.... I had a guy pull it on me in a cigar bar the other day and it was just amusing to hit him around on it. I am a moron on this stuff, but if I can handle it, so will McCain.

It is everything else that worries me on McCain..

Mark, do you think the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars have been fooled by pandering?

Democrats thought they had a "sure thing" in '04 - that John Kerry's war hero status would unseat George Bush. The problem with that - at least among military/vet folks - was the perception that fellow veteran Kerry had betrayed them post-war. (The Winter Soldier Hearings - not the Swift Boat accusations, were more of an issue for military folks.) The key word is "perception", and if you read that Stars and Stripes story you'll appreciate the uphill battle McCain will be facing on that.

Just popped in from Insty. So no regular here. But that is too generous a benefit. Folks above covered the major issues. If you want to do that for 20 year veterans fine. But for four years on the line... across the board, it's overkill. and nothing but political vote pandering. I did get my twenty in... four active, sixteen reserves. I feel I might need to mention that.

Luther, thanks for your service. I've got 23 active and still going. I actually come out ahead on Graham's Bill over Webb's.

A guy signing up for 4 today can look forward to 6 (stop loss and IRR recall) and will probably spend at least 2 in Baghdad, Mosul, or Kandahar.

College tuition (and higher income and higher taxes the rest of his life) is "too generous" a perk, eh?

And just imagine the effect of an influx of veterans on campus - real "diversity" that would go a long way to destroying a certain status quo...

Grey:

While vets would definitely benefit, this is one-part "pander" and one-part "transfer payment to a long time constituency", namely, "the Academy."

Obama's not proposing putting the check in the vet's pocket.

At least in part, this is about insulating Obama's friends in the teaching profession from accountability in the marketplace.

Yes, you're right. But being in close contact with enlisted men, I knew months ago that the GOP had lost the enlisted man. This is just one more nail in the coffin. I don't know how the officer corps will vote, but the enlisted man is not going GOP this year. It is a bad situation for the GOP.

I support the bill, of course, but to be honest and clear, the Pentagon opposes the bill for the reason that the full benefit acrues after only three years (so the incentive to re-enlist is gone). Now, again, I support the bill, but yet another problem here is that the national support for the long war is vanishing. Suppose that this bill was matched by re-enlistment bonuses that made it overall attractive to re-enlist? We wouldn't be having this discussion. But this will not be forthcoming because neither party wants to tell the hard facts and fund the long war.

Best,

HPS

I don't know the merits of the bill and, generally speaking, I'm always in favor of giving more to people who risk life and limb for my benefit. But come on! Do you REALLY think that an Obama presidency is going to be better for the military? REALLY???? If you do, well, I hope it's what you hoped it would be. I'd wager it won't be . . .

You're welcome Greyhawk... and thank you for yours. I had just mentioned this discussion to a friend of mine who then had the same thought about 'diversity' on campus. That is a good point and would perhaps do a lot of good.

But still, for a four year tour there is something about this plan that smacks a little of mercenary. I did my two tours in SEA, volunteered for both, and did them for the greater good. Don't misunderstand, I know that most enter the service for that very reason... but it seems to me that such a 'generous' benefit might dilute that particular motivation. I think we need to keep the spirit of service and not succumb to payback. Call me old fashioned.

If I was calling the shots and needed to compete with the expanded GI Bill I'd offer up a very attractive and greatly expanded path to a commission for prior enlisteds - maybe cut down on the ROTC numbers and "promote from within" (moreso than now). Guarentee someone a job with O1E pay after college, offer something on top of the GI Bill while they're finishing the degree...

Just a thought.

The percentage of people who will vote for Obama, or against McCain because of any GI Bill stand is miniscule. For those of us with an already established GI benefit, it's pretty much OBE.
At any given time in the last 10 years, little more than 1.5% of the voting population was in the military. Of that 1.5%, there are some who will have no GI education benefits to worry about (ROTC Scholarship/Academy grads) and some for whom the GI education benefits are not a top concern. Add into that a very few non-military for whom this might be a concern (moms and dads who want to see their kids earn their college tuition). That amounts to a miniscule percentage of voters in America who will consider anything at all about the GI education benefits when they vote. And some, like me, prefer the McCain bill because I already have a Masters degree and don't plan on using any of my educational benefits (right now at 100%), and the McCain plan will allow me to transfer some of my accrued benefits to my four kids. If I can't transfer the benefits, they are pretty much worth zero to me, no matter what the theoretical monetary value in tution. At least under McCain's plan, my educational benefits rise from zero to some amount. Under Obama's plan, they stay a very unappealing zero.

Rule #1: You can't outspend a Liberal.

This bill says something quite simple. "Hey G.I. You're nearing the end of your first enlistment, what would you rather do, quit and come to our nice cozy soft campus full of young women where we can properly modify your mind, or return to that darned dusty dangerous Army?"

I haven't looked at the text of the bills, but either bill also ought to make sure that GI Bill benefits won't affect eligibility for Stafford loans. Veterans are automatically considered independent students and if you go to a private school or grad school (including many expensive state ones like UVA in Webb's own state), you are going to need Staffords on top of even Webb's bill. There is a cap in the current law that prevents veterans under the old law from fully using both the GI Bill and the Stafford program. Basically, I had to drop my GI Bill in order to borrow sufficiently to complete my education. That needs fixing.

My other thought is somewhat reflexive. Jim Webb is damaged goods in this veteran's eyes because of his last bill mandating R&R that was designed to make the war unsustainable in the guise of helping the troops. I'm willing to be persuaded, but I am suspicious his real motivation is again to hand out a poison pill.

I think this is Webb and the Democrat's way to undermine the war in Iraq by offering troops a better bribe to leave, notwithstanding your assessment that the war is won.

Agreed.

How about giving anyone who serves a big bonus at the beginning of their enlistment then after a particular amount of time served give them and their immediate family members tax-free Federal-State-City status for life.

I am finding it amusing, in an evil sort of way, to imagine the manifest in-class effects a big new wave of GI-Bill vets might have on a number of the postmodern relativist profs and asst profs I had to endure in the mid '70s. Of course, the question is how much trampling them with objective truth can you do and still get a passing grade? Still, I'd love to be a "fly on the wall".

I find it interesting that anyone would think that a university is going to mold the mind of a twenty-two year old easily. It didn't mold me when I was eighteen, my opinions were pretty well set. Most students will say what they must to get through class and get the grade. Then it is on to more important things - women and beer.