Tuesday, May 13, 2008
In Jurassic Park, the favorite line of the theme park’s mastermind is, “Spared no expense.”
But, of course, he did.
He staffed it with a skeletal crew. He gave barely a nod to the catastrophic potential of cloning dinosaurs.
I don’t know about you, but that movie reminds me of what’s happened in Iraq. “Spared no expense.”
But, of course, we did.
For many months, U.S. personnel pleaded for body armor and for vehicles that would give them a chance against road-side bombs.
The thing is, Donald Rumsfeld didn’t have to give his trademark poverty-case plea, “You have to go to war with the Army you have.”
This military engagement — America’s second costliest in real dollars — has had scant cost controls. And why should it? It’s been waged off-budget, and essentially on credit.
It’s only when people return from battle that we become sticklers for decimal points.
Such is the case in Congress right now with debate over veterans benefits contained in a supplemental bill to fund what we’re doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Too expensive? Ahem
President Bush has threatened to use his rarely flexed veto pen against this measure if it contains a bipartisan expansion of the GI Bill of Rights and other veterans benefits.
Bush says the benefits package shouldn’t be tied to supplemental military funding. And he says it costs too much: $51 billion over 10 years. That sounds expensive, yes. That is, if you stand it up beside the Tyrannosaurus that is the supplemental bill for Iraq and Afghanistan: $195 billion for not even one whole budget year.
By contrast we’re talking about $2 billion a year for veterans who have laid it on the line for what’s adding up as a $2 trillion enterprise.
The bipartisan “New G.I. Bill” legislation authored by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., would nearly double current benefits for college, tying them to cost of living and in-state tuition rates.
It also would end a $1,200 buy-in enrollment fee under current GI Bill.
Sen. John McCain has sided with the president in opposing it. Although he supports increasing education aid, McCain says this is too expensive.
But an interesting wrinkle is that much of the debate is about time, not money. Principally, the Webb bill would grant full benefits after three years in service. The Pentagon, with McCain agreeing, says it doesn’t want full benefits to kick in until six years of service.
The Pentagon said that setting it at three years would result in personnel leaving at that point. Proponents, including a coalition of service organizations, say any attrition would be offset by recruits drawn by the new benefits.
If the original GI Bill required a six-year military commitment for full benefits, this nation never would have seen the benefits that produced so many college graduates who populated the “greatest generation.” They went to war in 1941. They came home in 1945.
Not only did they reap great benefits from the GI Bill, so did the nation. In a strictly fiduciary sense, for dollars returned, it was possibly the best-spent wad of money in America’s history. So, excuse some groups such as the American Legion for choosing not to place a new GI Bill in the “expense” category. They see it as an investment.
For those who insist on calling it a cost, American Legion National Commander Marty Conatser says this: “War is expensive indeed and the bulk of that is paid for by the men and women who bear the uniform. Benefits are just a small, small cost of war.”
Costofwar.com estimates that the United States spends $341.4 million per day in Iraq. We’ll spend more there this week there than the New GI Bill would cost us in a year.
Costs? The man from the American Legion has a point. It’s the men and women in uniform, and the Iraqis, who have borne the cost of this horror. We’ve been on a theme-park ride.
John Young’s column appears Thursday, Sunday and occasionally Tuesday. E-mail: jyoung@wacotrib.com.
Vote for this story!
Comments
By Alan Langford
May 28, 2008 6:54 PM | Link to this
Mr Young, I agree with your position supporting Sen. Webb's bill providing GI educational benefits. If America can send soldiers into harm's way we damn sure ought to be willing--more than willing to send those same heroes to college if they want to go following their 3 year military committment. As you pointed out the GI Bill was a small "thank you" to the warriors of WWII.
The inescapable fact is that money spent on educational benefits has been proven to be money well spent by taxpayers. Education in every economic study provides a net gain to the taxpayers over time as well as enhancing life for the recepients. (See the American Legion commander's comments)
If the idiots that would deny our troops this justly earned benefit would take a gut wrenching stroll through Walter Reed Hospital in the DC area or The Intrepid Center in San Antonio, I would imagine that their position would change radically.Bold
Best regards
By walt mares
May 16, 2008 11:58 PM | Link to this
The effort to better the G.I. Bill is not a matter of liberal or conservative. It involves doing what is right for men and women who serve their country and the great many who are exposed to the reality of their deaths. Anyone who thinks enhancing the G.I. Bill is too expensive should receive an automatic ticket to Iraq and find out first-hand what is invovled in fighting this war. In reference to Mr. Young as a leach, the only leaches I can think of are best found in the Pentagon and among defense contractors. Again, to say this is a liberal or conservative issue is disengenous. I am a vietnam-era veteran and went to school on the G.I. Bill and it made very difference to me. It was something I earned. It is something troops today are certainly earning. Interesting tht we can subsidize corporate farms and big oil but it is too much for some to invest in those who put it on the oline every day. They hide behind labels instead of thinking things through.
By Fred
May 15, 2008 6:07 AM | Link to this
Bush is the worst President that America has ever had. Yes; even worse than Nixon.
By Sgt. Steven Morgan
May 15, 2008 1:03 AM | Link to this
I have been an ardent supporter of President Bush throughout most of his presidency. As a member of the U.S. Marine Corps currently serving in Iraq on INVOLOUNTARY recall orders, I am sickened by his stance and comments on the new G.I. Bill proposal. I've given over 5 years of my life defending this country and this is the thanks I get from the man in charge? It took my a while to realize it, but Bush has been a failure in more ways than not. The amount of money we waste over here in Iraq every day and President Bush gets his pants in a wad over a much needed and overdue expansion of G.I. Bill benefits. You can count my vote in the Democrat column for the first time come this November!
By Danny
May 14, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this
The new G I Bill is not a political leg so Dem's can stand on for the new election year. It is a much needed overhaul vets have been waiting on for years. The only political punch being thrown is the New G I Bill by Senator McCain's. Its not okay to throw another 200 billion dollars plus at the war and say giving vets more education benefits is just too expensive. Thats absurd. The reason President Bush doesn't follow Senator Webb's bill is because first and I know shallow but a Dem came up with the idea. Next it will cause retention to fall. It is already hard to keep up with the troop strengths in the middle east and maintain monthly recruiting goals. Bush and McCain both feel that this will only become worse if giving better education benefits. Soldiers will not want to go on that third 15 month tour and would rather get out to seek an education. Hmm... Shame on these soldiers.
Also to add my opinion about McCain's New G I Bill. So in order to get max benefits a soldiers has to stay devoted 12 years in the military. Wait a second though. You can transfer up to 50% to your spouse after 6 years in the service. I don't know if McCain's is aware that military divorce rate is sky rocketing.
To be married 6 years in this current time is tuff enough. Is that really his incentive? But wait theres more. There are couples that manage to deal with these constant deployments. Now if these couples have kids and their spouse is away on deployments. How will they find the time to go to school. Not even spouses want to wait 6 years later to get some kind of education benefits. I know this is totally opinion but normally the longer people wait to go to school they probably wont go to school. Listen McCain I know you have a shot at the Presidency but seriously don't try and pull some back door stop loss program by using the GI Bill it won't work.
By Fred
May 13, 2008 6:58 PM | Link to this
We will lose this war.....just like we lost Vietnam. America's Warriors are wasted for nothing. Support the Troops. End Bush's War now.
By jd byrd
May 13, 2008 6:43 PM | Link to this
obviously the commenters so far have no family members in the service, getting stop-lossed. look it up . i didnt know what it meant either till they did it to my son. good riddance to bush and all of his slugs. geeez--fighting a war 1000 miles from where bin laden is. im am literally sick to my stomach of the lies we have been told. do you idiots know that a soldier must enroll and pay 1200 dollars where he/she ever uses gi bill or not. why does educating these men frighten you.
By jd byrd
May 13, 2008 5:37 PM | Link to this
geeez--people against gi benefits for those who fought their war. my god what are you thinking? good riddance to bush and all of his slugs who have misledthe american people in ways previously thought unconscienceable. think people think while you still have the ability to do so.
By Rusty
May 13, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this
Mr. Young, along with many other writers are confused and tell you thier opinion rather than the truth. Bush did not send the military into combat, without the full support on Congress. Bush does not write these bills, greedy Congressman do. Our President has a lot of power, but not ultimate power. Congress has failed to fix the economy, illegal immigration, and every other problem we face. And, before we blame oil companies on the high price of gas, Congress has not allowed access to future areas to drill, the ability to build more refineries, etc. Of course big oil companies consistantly contribute millions of dollars, to both parties. Sounds like organized crime to me and we are paying every time we fill up.!
By Robbie
May 13, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
What a cruel game, this politics. John Young must think we're all drooling idiots. At least that's how he writes to his readers. He writes smuggly and arrogantly as if we are uninformed of the world in Washington.
He adheres to liberal talking-points like a leach, all the while ignoring the truth and substance behind the rhetoric.
He'll eagerly tell you that "Sen. John McCain has sided with the president in opposing [the New GI Bill]," when, in fact, The President, along with John McCain, has been on record as supporting an increase in educational benefits in the G.I. Bill.
Why is this important, and why now? Politics. It's a game. It's a game that liberals play with our tax dollars, that we earn. It's an election year, and members of congress, including Jim Webb, who wants to keep his job, want you to believe that they are passing a bill that would show Democratic support of our troops, for $51.8 billion over 10 years. Chump change.
John is right in asserting that President Bush and John McCain think that is too expensive, because it is. They are not against the bill however, as John would have you believe, they are against the cost. Not the $51.8 billion that the bill will cost, no, they are against the layers upon layers of pork spending that members of this Democrat controlled Congress will add to this necessary legislation.
Again, this is an election year, and Congress is eager to stay in Washington, at any cost. Congressional pet projects added to this legislation will far excede the $51.8 billion proposed. Congress(wo)men will be adding to this bill, layers of spending projects for their hom districts, and in doing so significantly increase the tax revenue needed to fund this bill.
This is what President Bush and John McCain rightfully oppose. As CBS correctly reports on this matter, "President Bush is expected to veto the measure if it is sent to him with added domestic spending." President Bush does not oppose funding the troops, President Bush opposes the use of your tax dollars from Central Texas going to a senator's pet project in some other corner of the nation.
Should Congress truely have a desire to get this legislation passed, this bill should have the merit to stand on its own, without being burried within a war spending bill and without having burried within it, the added billions of domestic spending for a senator's re-election bid.
[1 2] next
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F, except on Tuesday when it's open until 9 p.m.
Post a comment
*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.