Somewhat confused by this morning’s Seattle Times editorial, “Expand GI benefits,” I sat down to pick apart its arguments, only to find… there aren’t any. At least none that adequately defend a central part of their thesis.
Let the fisking begin.
A VASTLY improved and expanded package of GI educational benefits is caught in an unseemly standoff between Congress and the White House. Both manage to come off as penny-pinching ingrates.
I think it fair to conclude from the lede that the Times has two theses: 1) expanding GI educational benefits is a good thing (a sentiment with which I heartily agree); and 2) the “ingrates” in both Congress and the White House are equally to blame. Now let’s see how they go about defending their theses.
The benefits have not been updated for a generation, and the expense of the 10-year package is $52 billion — about five months of fighting the Iraq war.
Chalk that up as an adequate argument in defense of Thesis 1. I haven’t double-checked their facts, but throwing caution to the wind, we’ll just take them at their word this time.
The federal government is bleeding red ink, but a mix of Republicans and Democrats has suddenly gotten fussy about how the benefits are dealt with in the budget.
Really? Do tell.
President Bush threatens a veto because he objects to the benefit being included with his request for extra money for the war.
And the Democratic Congress?
Bush and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., claim re-enlistment rates would suffer if the maximum benefits were available after three years.
And the Democratic Congress?
The GOP presidential nominee wants those with more years of service to receive full benefits. Others counter the expanded benefits will boost enlistments.
And the Democratic Congress?
The Democratic Congress passed the new GI Bill, against the Republican objections, and now President Bush threatens to veto it. And this makes the current Congress a bunch of “penny-pinching ingrates,” how?
Congress and the White House have shameful records of providing for the welfare of the men and women in the U.S. armed forces.
True, but Congress has mostly been in the hands of Republicans for the past decade or so, so it seems kinda odd to blame Democratic members of this current Congress—you know, the Congress that just passed the expanded GI benefits the Times wants—for the admittedly “shameful record” of members who came before them, both Democrats and Republicans alike.
They were sent to war lightly equipped and have returned home wounded in body and spirit to often inadequate care.
Absolutely true, but I understand that as a defense of Thesis 1, not Thesis 2.
Our leaders ask extraordinary things of our all-volunteer military. Multiple overseas tours are routine, rotation cycles have been sped up, tours were extended to 15 months, and exhausted troops shuttle between Iraq and Afghanistan.
Again, a reasonable defense of Thesis 1.
Let the pragmatic at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue call the new GI educational benefits a cost of doing business.
Can’t argue with that. But it might useful, for the sake of argument, if the Times would bother to explain what was so unpragmatic about Congress passing the exact benefits their editorial demands?
For the rest of the nation, these overdue improvements represent both a humble thank you for sacrifices made and a measure of tribute for keeping a universal military draft at bay.
Turns out, they’re not so bad at explicating that Thesis 1 stuff after all. But I’m still waiting for a defense of Thesis 2.
Congress and the White House ask a lot of the military, but are only too willing to show their appreciation with rhetoric.
Um… and I hate to sound like a broken record here, but… Congress passed the GI Bill. How is that just rhetoric?
I think—and given the muddled nature of the editorial I’m not exactly sure—that the Times is criticizing Congress for attaching the GI Bill to a supplemental defense appropriations bill. That’s one of President Bush’s own complaints, though he objects to it because it makes the measure harder to veto. Standing on its own, the GI Bill wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance of a veto override, so it seems odd that the Times would object to such a pragmatic political maneuver at the same time it bemoans the lack of pragmatism “at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”
I suppose the Times’ editors might have some other gripes about Congress and its Democratic leaders’ course of action on the GI Bill, but they haven’t bothered to voice them in this particular editorial. Likewise lacking is any constructive suggestion as to how Congress might overcome the White House’s objections, or move effectively forward in the face of a Presidential veto.
So why would the Times go out of its way to assign equal blame to Congress as an institution (and in such an unsupported manner), when it is clear that it is the White House and its Republican allies on Capitol Hill who threaten to block the GI Bill? Because it relieves them of the burden of calling out Rep. Dave Reichert, who voted against the GI Bill on the grounds that it levied a 0.47 percent tax surcharge on the portion of household income above $1 million a year.
Of course, my thesis is pure supposition, but as such it is at least as well supported as those of the Times.
“President Bush threatens a veto because he objects to the benefit being included with his request for extra money for the war.”
Yes, he does — he wants the veterans benefits put in a separate bill … so he can veto them.
World War 2 veterans weren’t required to serve 20 years to get GI Bill benefits.
Korean War veterans weren’t required to serve 20 years to get GI Bill benefits.
Vietnam veterans weren’t required to serve 20 years to get GI Bill benefits.
Yet that’s exactly what Bush and McCain want to do — hold GI Bill benefits hostage for re-enlistment; make them a retirement benefit available only to career soldiers.
And Democrats? No such strings. If you serve a hitch in the volunteer military, you get ’em. Period.
Voters, you choose. You see the Republican plan. You see the Democratic plan. Now, you choose.
And, all you military voters out there, this November remember which party wants to reward you for your military service with an opportunity to go to college and build a better life for yourself and your family after your military service (Democrats), and which party wants to deny those benefits to all but career soldiers who serve 20 years (Republicans). The choice is yours.
Why are all my posts disappearing today?
I’ll try again.
“President Bush threatens a veto because he objects to the benefit being included with his request for extra money for the war.”
Of course he objects to it. He wants the veterans benefits sent to him in a separate bill … so he can veto them.
The Democratic position is clear: If you serve a hitch in the volunteer military, you get full benefits, just like veterans of past wars did.
The Republican position is also clear: Only career soldiers who serve 20 years get full benefits. In effect, they want to convert the G.I. Bill into a military retirement benefit.
The Seattle Times is beating around the bush because they don’t want their readers to understand this clear choice. They’re deceiving their readers into believing the current Democratic Congress is opposing these benefits for our troops, when in fact the reverse is true, because they want to dupe their readers into voting Republican.
Well, Frank Blethen is a Republican, and the Seattle Times is a Republican newspaper. There’s nothing more to say.
Except this. You, voters, have a choice. You can vote for the Democratic plan, or you can vote for the Republican plan. You military voters out there have a choice, too — you can vote for full benefits for all veterans, or you can vote to limit those benefits to career soldiers. There is a clear dichotomy between the parties and their candidates on this issue.
The choice is yours.
“So why would the Times go out of its way to assign equal blame to Congress as an institution (and in such an unsupported manner), when it is clear that it is the White House and its Republican allies on Capitol Hill who threaten to block the GI Bill?”
Because this is the new Republican propaganda tactic. It takes various forms, but the underlying theme in all of them is the same: There’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats. And that’s a lie.
The concept seems to be this: Republicans have made a total mess of everything, and it’s so obvious they can no longer deny it, so they’re trying a different tactic: “Democrats are no better, so elect us again.” That’s pure unadulterated bullshit.
Goldy:
I had he same, perplexed reaction to this editorial that you did. I just didn’t go to the trouble to analyze the reasons that you did. I’d sure be intersted in hearing an explanation from whoever wrote this mess.
This thread has been up for over 5 hours and not a peep from the trolls yet! Could it be the GOP’s opposition to G.I. Bill benefits for Iraq War veterans is so shameful they don’t dare show their faces?
Oh, and one more thing — we’ve got to make sure Republicans can’t prevent the troops from voting this time, like they did in 2004. We’re probably gonna get 85% of the military vote in grades E-5 and below.
Patty Murray has been fighting like hell to fix that. Honest reporting would reflect that.
@7 Yeah, cause that’s what good Democrats do… Join the military, I mean… Uh huh.
Granted, it has been a lot of years since I was in, Roger, but at that point in time, I didn’t know *anyone* who voted Dem, hell most of us didn’t vote, period. We had better things to do. So I wouldn’t be counting your chickens before they hatch.
@7,9
I’ve never been in the military, but I’ve worked on campaigns in military towns and those boys are hard to get a hold of. Most of the younger guys who are registered (too many aren’t!) are registered at their parents house or at the apartment they lived at three apartments ago. And even if you do get the right house or apartment in Tacoma or Bremerton, chances are the guy’s not even in this hemisphere. And you’re calling 3 days before the election…
In 2000 and 2004 in Florida, the Republicans mailed letters to the addresses of soldiers they knew were overseas and when the letters came back marked wrong address, they challenged the soldiers right to vote based on the ‘fact’ that the soldier gave them an incorrect address.
That doesn’t show much confidence in the Florida Republicans that the soldiers were going to vote Republican.
Republicans are crooks.
Republiconvicts urinate on our troops.
Deal with it.
Took a few viewings, but I finally got the pun in the title. Whew. Good “piece,” Goldy.
@9 If soldiers are such reliable Republican voters, why does the GOP spend so much effort and money to keep them from voting?
“A confidential campaign directed by GOP party chiefs in October 2004 sought to challenge the ballots of tens of thousands of voters in the last presidential election ….
“Files from the secret vote-blocking campaign were obtained by BBC Television Newsnight, London. They were attached to emails accidentally sent by Republican operatives to a non-party website.
“One group of voters wrongly identified by the Republicans as registering to vote from false addresses: servicemen and women sent overseas.
“Here’s how the scheme worked: The RNC mailed these voters letters in envelopes marked, ‘Do not forward’, to be returned to the sender. These letters were mailed to servicemen and women … stationed overseas, to their US home addresses. The letters then returned to the Bush-Cheney campaign as ‘undeliverable.’ The lists of soldiers of ‘undeliverable’ letters were transmitted from state headquarters … to the RNC in Washington. The party could then challenge the voters’ registration and thereby prevent their absentee ballots being counted. …
“The Republican National Committee in Washington … refused to say why it would mark soldiers as having ‘bad addresses’ subject to challenge when they had been assigned abroad. …
“Soldiers sending in their ballot from abroad would not know their vote was lost because of a challenge.”
Quoted under fair use.)
Here’s a link for #14. http://tinyurl.com/jv9nf
Ask the times to write a story on why Bush’s children aren’t serving, since the cause in Iraq is so “noble”.
Not in a billion years….
Lucy @ 11: I don’t know about Florida in 2000 and 2004, but that was definately the Republican tactic in Ohio in 2004. The Ohio Secty of State (Republican) cooperated by eliminating those with returned mail from the voting rolls without any attempt to notify the voter. Military mail-in ballots, where their names had been removed, were just thrown in the trash. The soldiers didn’t even know their vote was never counted.
But the Republicans were selective, they only targeted precincts which tended to vote Democratic, thereby making the campaign illegal (there’s a word for it, but I can’t recall it right now). Want to guess if the civil rights division of the Bush Administration’s Justice Dept. ever responded to the complaints with an investigation & prosecution?
Article:
Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
The thing is – Republican operatives are probably already sending out mailers in Democratic precincts around the country in an attempt to do the same thing in 2008, but on a larger scale. In areas where Republicans control the registration system, they could pull the same stunts they did in Ohio. In other areas, they might very well attempt a “voter challenge”. Democrats should be prepared to do some quick footwork, like they did in the Gregoire 2004 election challenge, to defend those voter registrations. It would be nice to get some video from servicement currently serving in Iraq whom the Republicans tried to deny the right to vote.
(In other words – I dare ya!)
The Seattle Times is just trying to be “fair and balanced” by excusing the inexplicable republican actions by also blaming democrats – for what the republicans are doing.
RR: I liked your synopsis about the Republicans wanting the G.I. Bill to be a “retirement benefit” for career military. A short and accurate description.
Note that McCain has already had his college paid for by the American taxpayer (as do all service acadamy graduates). Why do they insist that others be deprived that priviledge until they are in their 40’s? Is it perhaps that they don’t want G.I.s from the “hood” competing for college spots with their priviledged offspring, who equate campaigning for Republican candidates to be equal service to their nation as serving in the military in harm’s way? Further, could it be that they don’t want those same graduates to be competing with their offspring for the same jobs after college, when four years of military service showing leadership skills (even if just at a squad level), plus a four-year undergraduate degree, might look better to some employers than someone who has spent their early 20’s as party coordinator for their fraternity?
But if you keep them in the military for 20 years, THEN offer them a chance of a college education, the new graduate (now in their mid-40’s) is hardly going to be competing with their children for the same jobs. Instead, they are going to be WORKING FOR the offspring of Repubicans who decided NOT to enlist at the same time the veteran did, and is now in upper management of the company the veteran will be working for.
16
The word is “caging” and I am sure they’ll do it again in 2008. It’s why Washington passed a law making frivolous challenges illegal.
18 rhp
McCain hasn’t been off the government dole for one minute of his entire life. Although he supplemented it handsomely when he dumped his disabled wife for a wealthy heiress after cuckolding her (the first wife) for a couple of years.
Jumping ahead to later topics:
So far the Dow seems to be recovering a bit of the huge loss it took Friday. That is to be expected. But articles over the weekend warned that their may be no “second-half recovery” this year, while other articles this morning argue that everything is fine, and the worst is behind us. Bush himself was quoted as saying that he is both “concerned” and “confident” about the economy – a contradiction which he doesn’t seem to explain.
As of Friday’s close, the DJIA has increased only an average of 2.04% per year over the seven and a half years of the Bush administration – less than the rate of inflation. This is AFTER most of his presidency being under a “wartime economy”, wereby high military spending would be expected to artificially inflate the stock market. And it is AFTER the Fed cut rates from 5-1/2 % to 2%, and TWO economic incentive packages putting cash directly in the pockets of American consumers. If not for this intervention, I am convinced the DJIA average performance for the life of the Bush presidency would be a negative number.
For the DJIA to even reach an average of 10% per year, which many consider to be the minimum return you might expect from the stock market over that long a period of time, the DJIA would have to be at 18,528 by the end of the Bush presidency. Even so, remember that Bush I was turned out of the Presidency after four years with an 11% average annual return of the DJIA, his re-election campaign fatally wounded by the cries of “It’s the economy, stupid!”
And for the DJIA to perform as well as it did during the Clinton administration, then it would have to reach 32,956.52 by January ’09.
So if any of the Wingnuts start trying to sing the praises of the Republican economic miracle if the DJIA manages to crawl above 13,000 or even 14,000, remember how far we still have to go to meet any measure of respectable performance.
That pretty much sums up the Republicans over the past decade or so. They have lowered the bar so far, we have to remind people what it was like before they were put in charge.
I’m still seething that party-boy Bush is trying to deprive veterans of the same benefits which allowed Bob Dole, and lots of others in Congress on both sides of the aisle, to get their college degrees and advance up the economic ladder.
And the Times is letting them off the hook. They should be exposing the hypocracy of defenses against the bill, and specifically calling Reichart on his votes against the G.I. Bill, rather than publishing an insepid editorial which attempts to excuse the Republicans by passing their guilt onto the Democrats.
23 rhp
To be fair, I wouldn’t expect the Dow to rise again anytime soon as quickly as it did under Clinton, because it was in response to the first really mass adoption of computerization in American business and the efficiencies and productivity gains that made possible.
The father of the young soldier who just received a posthumous Medal of Honor for heroism in Iraq has come out and urged Bush to sign the GI bill. Darcy Burner shgould get this guy on film and then tell WA-08 voters all about Dave Reichert’s weaselly vote against our armed forces.
It may restore my belief in the power of journalism to do good if a single reporter were to ask Sen. McCain how he can justify not supporting this bill when the excuse he’s been using about lowering retention has been refuted by the services themselves. Unfortunately we may wait in vain for such a simple and direct question given the failed state of our mainstream media.