GOP comes out strong for military
The Senate this morning voted overwhelmingly to pass Sen. James Webb's (D-Va.) proposal to expand education benefits for post-9/11 vets. Twenty-five Republicans, including Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., bucked the White House to support the bill. (The final vote was 75 to 22).
Two things are significant here: First, the strong show of support from Republicans means the White House veto threat is meaningless, at least as it pertains to the upper chamber. (The House passed the bill last week by the non-veto-proof count of 256 to 166, putting pressure on House leaders to start cutting some deals and twisting some arms if they want this thing to pass this year.)
And second, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), likely to be the GOP's presidential nominee, was noticeably absent from the vote. McCain's camp will surely say the senator was busy on the campaign trail, but he also opposes the Webb bill, and has every reason to elude being on record voting against a veterans benefit in the year of the election.
Not that this issue is going away anytime soon...
Comments:
Posted 05/22/2008 20:18 with
Almost half of the Republicans voted against this bill. How is this coming out strong? A more appropriate headline might be: Almost Half of GOP Senators turn their back on those who have ALREADY served.
Posted 05/23/2008 16:50 with
There is a reason why some elected representatives (and some of the armed services) are opposed to this bill. Proponents liken the current bill to the post WWII GI bill, but the situation today is very different. In WWII, we had achieved a clear military victory, and we had millions of men in uniform who were soon to be demobilized. Today, we have an on-going conflict, an all-volunteer force, and the cost of training soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines…especially in highly technical career fields….is substantial. The Air Force, in particular, spends a lot on training and has very high retention goals. If an education benefit is offered after only 3-4 years of service, it makes it more difficult to retain experienced people beyond their first enlistment.
This in no way denigrates the men and women who have served in wartime in recent years…but the services have very valid concerns about the effects this bill could have on retention rates.