What's been dubbed the 21st century GI Bill passed the House last week--legislation that would increase the amount of money given to returning vets to cover tuition, books, and a living stipend -- in short, a return to the spirit of the original post World War II GI Bill. Today, soldiers receive only a fraction of the benefits that they used to, and the college costs covered by the military are usually only enough to cover about 60 percent of a public education, and far less at a private institution.

After Congress' Memorial Day holiday, the bill heads to the Senate, where, despite heavy pressure from what is supposedly one of his core constituency, veterans, John McCain is still wavering. Back in March, he claimed not to have read the bill yet, then he announced he was worried that it would affect retention rates, an echo of the Bush Administration's opposition to the bill. Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel, the bill's sponsors and veterans themselves, both dispute that claim.

But pressure is mounting. In a speech on May 12, Obama evoked his grandfather, who went to college on the GI Bill, and slammed McCain for not supporting the new bill, saying: "He is one of the few Senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it's too generous. I couldn't disagree more. At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue the American Dream."

On May 14, one day before the bill passed the House, McCain sent a letter to Jim Webb, its co-sponsor in the Senate, according to the Politico, hoping for a compromise to "eliminate a potential embarrassment for the Arizona Republican's presidential campaign."

It might be too late--the grassroots veterans' association Vote Vets is launching a major video ad campaign to expose McCain's hypocrisy on the bill. As blogger Mike Connery put it, "the campaign to redefine McCain is well underway."

UPDATE: Webb's amendment passed the Senate today 75-22, and guess where John McCain was? On the Ellen DeGeneres show, and then at a high-ticket fundraiser in California with the owner of the San Diego Chargers. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spoke in favor of the bill and attended the vote.

Comments (30)

1. Nail McWeather Vane's hide to this one....and the election is a lock for Obama.

   Run McCain's own ads of him returning home after Hanoi (the one seen here)...and then ad in him voting AGAINST a boosted GI bill....tagline-

   "When John McCain got out of the military, he enjoyed the GI Bill, the same as millions of veterans. Now, he plans on keeping our troops in Iraq until 2013 and is OPPOSED to increased GI Bill funding for them!

   Sir, have you no shame?"

   Use a 527 and keep Obama out of it....and that's it come November 4th.

   Posted by Mask at 05/21/2008 @ 3:02pm

2. Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/21/2008

   Why not a tax on those profiting from the war, HAPP?

   Ooops, no, wait...can't do that, it would kill the economy.

   Ooops, no, wait....already in the toilet.

   Uh...hmmm? Next excuse?

   BTW, if McCain wins, there won't BE anybody serving out a "cushy German or Okinawan" tour of duty, since they'll all have been sent to Iraq atleast once...or twice....or 5 times.

   Posted by Mask at 05/21/2008 @ 3:17pm

3. Here we have an excellent example of the collusion between the Democrats and liberal media to lie about John McCain.

   If anyone bothered to actually investigate the facts, they would know that McCain is not supporting the Webb bill because he is co-sponsor of a competing GI bill that is before the Senate S2938

   Date: 05/01/2008

   Support Grows for Graham-Burr-McCain G.I. Bill

   WASHINGTON- U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Richard Burr (R-NC), and John McCain (R-AZ) officially introduced S. 2938, the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act on the Senate floor this week.

   The original co-sponsors include Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), John Cornyn (R-TX), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Ted Stevens (R-AK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Susan Collins (R-ME), John Barrasso (R-WY), Pete Domenici (R-NM), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), and Jim Inhofe (R-OK).

   The Graham-Burr-McCain bill enhances the existing Montgomery G.I. Bill by significantly improving education benefits for both service members who choose to leave the military as well as those who decide to make military service their career. The legislation will help more military personnel attend college debt-free, and allow them to transfer their education benefits to their spouse or children. It also bolsters recruitment and retention efforts, encouraging service members to continue their military careers.

   Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of Veterans' Affairs James Peake have questioned the effectiveness and implementation of an alternative plan sponsored by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) while expressing support for the key components of the Graham-Burr-McCain bill.

   http://tinyurl.com/5gf27b

   I'm surprised Mask that even you seem unaware of this fact. Or perhaps you have become just another liberal lemming?

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/21/2008 @ 3:51pm

4. maybe women will now pick up the tabs as a matter of routine!!!! :~))))

   Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/21/2008

   we'll make great pets, hap...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/21/2008 @ 4:05pm

5. More on the McCain GI bill.

   On May 14th, the Democrats defeated the Graham-McCain-Burr GI bill 55-42. It was added as an amendment to HR980.

   So who is against Veterans? It seems that the Democrats would rather kill Veterans benefits than let McCain get any political advantage...

   The truth once again reveals the Democrats to be the ones against our Veterans and not Rebublicans.

   Since Obama is aware of this vote, he is just as guilty as the rest in lying about this issue.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/21/2008 @ 4:18pm

6. But instead of seizing this moment, the Clinton/Gore administration has squandered it. We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence.

   Our military is low on parts, pay and morale.

   If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report ... Not ready for duty, sir.

   george w bush, philadelphia, 2000.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2008 @ 4:23pm

7. The world needs America's strength and leadership, and America's armed forces need better equipment, better training, and better pay.

   We will give our military the means to keep the peace, and we will give it one thing more ... a commander-in-chief who respects our men and women in uniform, and a commander-in-chief who earns their respect.

   A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam.

   When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming.

   george w bush, philadelphia, 2000.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2008 @ 4:24pm

8. And I believe this will be a tough race, down to the wire.

   george w bush, philadelphia, 2000.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2008 @ 4:27pm

9. We are now the party of ideas and innovation ... The party of idealism and inclusion.

   The party of a simple and powerful hope ...

   My fellow citizens, we can begin again. After all of the shouting, and all of the scandal. After all of the bitterness and broken faith. We can begin again.

   george w bush, philadelphia, 2000.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2008 @ 4:27pm

10. A prosperous nation is ready to renew its purpose and unite behind great goals ... and it won't be long now.

    Our nation must renew the hopes of that boy I talked with in jail, and so many like him... and it won't be long now.

    george w bush, philadelphia, 2000.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2008 @ 4:29pm

11. This is what I mean by compassionate conservatism. And on this ground we will govern our nation.

    We will give low-income Americans tax credits to buy the private health insurance they need and deserve.

    We will transform today's housing rental program to help hundreds of thousands of low-income families find stability and dignity in a home of their own.

    george w bush, philadelphia, 2000.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2008 @ 4:32pm

12. Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/21/2008

    Since you help people with their taxes, I will assume that you can count and you understand that bills are numbered sequentially. The Webb G.I. Bill is S 2. The Graham-Burr-McCain G.I. Bill is S 2938.

    Now, might we conclude that McCain wants to try to capitalize on his veteran credentials with a bill with his name on it - even if it was presented after 2936 other bills to steal the thunder of Webb's G.I. Bill? Who's making the raw political move that are using veterans as a tool for their campaign? Yes, that's right, it's McCain - another example of how the man has no integrity.

    So, do make a better effort in your Republican apologia. Because this supporting McCain here is sad.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/21/2008 @ 6:16pm

13. More on the Burr version versus the Webb version...

    "Webb's bill would allow Reserve and Guard members who mobilized multiple times to earn the same GI Bill benefits as active duty peers.

    Finally, the Webb plan is designed so that benefits automatically keep pace with the cost of public college education."---Iowa Gazette

    And since those Reserve and Guard guys and gals get swept up in the occupation of Iraq...shouldn't they earn the same bennies?

    And since without automatic increases that keep pace, the benefits would be useless...???

    BTW, the difference between the two bills is $15 Billion.....a little more than a SIX WEEKS in Iraq.

    Posted by Mask at 05/21/2008 @ 8:09pm

14. So, a couple of things because many of the responses here are, well, not responsive.

    First of all, none of the responses deal with Liberty's fundamental criticism: the Nation article here deliberately tried to create the impression that there was exactly one bill aiming to give benefits to military personnel and McCain opposed it. That impression is both unmistakable and blatantly false.

    Second, the responses themselves are somewhat lacking. Mask's response isn't helpful because (with the exception of the last part, the impact of which is unclear) it isn't comparative between the bills.

    Jenkins' response gets more to the point, but it also seems ineffective. Now, I don't know a whole lot about how the bill numbering system works, but I don't see why the numbering reflects a clear difference in motives. Everything I've seen suggests that both of these bills have been crafted and introduced relatively recently, which seems to leave two possibilities. One is that they're numbered based purely on the order in which they're actually submitted by their sponsors. It's not clear why this would necessarily have any political ramifications for McCain whatsoever. The other possibility, though, is that the process of numbering is in part a function of political bargaining. It's not clear that this reflects poorly on McCain either, particularly since a Democratic Congress might just be able (shockingly) to elevate a Democratic-sponsored bill over a Republican one. This would simultaneously give the Democratic bill a greater chance of being passed and allow Democrats running for House and Senate positions to charge their Republican opponents with not caring about veterans.

    So...it's not clear at all why this GI issue should hurt McCain in the least, especially because an attack on McCain (especially the kind made, say, by Jenkins) here requires the attacker to suggest that McCain actually (despite being a veteran himself) has little concern for the health and welfare of veterans, and I don't think that claim has ever been warranted.

    So here's the bottom line. Neither bill is clearly and unmistakably superior to the other. There is also no clear reason to assume a clear political motive for either. Any attack on McCain has to overcome the initial dubiousness of the assertion that he would use veterans as part of a political stunt, and that burden has most certainly not been met.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/21/2008 @ 8:50pm

15. The bill McCain supports requires twelve (12) years of service (about 88 short of what he apparently expects some to serve in Iraq--oh wait, he has flip-flopped on that one) to get the educational benefits. This is nice. If you join the military after high school, serve twelve years, and don't die, you can finish up college at age 34 and then hope for a job. With the way things are going, the only job available will probably be in the army. Regardless, to even compare these bills is ridiculous. And while neither party seems willing to deal with our apparently inherent right of invasion, at least the Democrats are willing to give their tools some recompense of value should they come home young and alive.

    Posted by onthehelm at 05/21/2008 @ 10:19pm

16. Posted by Thrawn at 05/21/2008

    Bills are numbered sequentially, in order of submission and have been handled in the Senate in this way since 1847. The reason that this is important is that there was already a bill in place, and McCain could have signed on and cosponsored the bill like the 57 other co-sponsors (11 of which are Republican) did since it was introduced over 15 months ago.

    The Graham-Burr-McCain G.I. Bill, by way of contrast, was submitted April 29, 2008. It's primary purpose is to reduce benefits and make service members do more time in order to get those benefits to prevent troop retention shortfalls - and likely give the National Guard short shift to save dollars. Not a particularly "troop friendly" position.

    On a personal note, it is rather interesting to watch you work your logic without the benefit of the facts. An argument is only sound when you have a valid argument (which you are good at) and true premises (which you failed miserable to do in this case).

    Your speculation about bill numbering? False. Your assertion that both bills were crafted somewhat recently? False. Your failure to talk about how this bill got voted on, the fact that the counterpart to the Webb bill has already passed in the House, and so forth - is just as telling is the flagrant errors in your argument.

    Further, you can't sit here and pretend that this kind of political game playing isn't about his campaign, and he is trying to pretend to be a fiscal conservative and saving money, extending the service time of the military in order to recieve benefits, and then turning around and centering his campaign on flag waving and the military. It is obvious what kind of impact this kind of double dealing will have on his campaign - and it speaks volumes of McCain's lack of character and bad judgment.

    It is equally obvious this is a politic stunt. You can't see it because you pack your logic with smuggled in (false) assumptions and your personal political ideology masquerading as pure reason. So, please - make an effort to learn more and stop trying to sugar coat this turd.

    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-blocks-mccain-backed-gi-bill- 2008-05-14.html

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/21/2008 @ 10:30pm

17. Posted by srjenkins at 05/21/2008 | ignore this person | warn it

    SR...that was a great post. I noticed that Thrawn also completely missed the point that your original post was in response to this...

    .

    So who is against Veterans? It seems that the Democrats would rather kill Veterans benefits than let McCain get any political advantage...

    The truth once again reveals the Democrats to be the ones against our Veterans and not Rebublicans.

    Since Obama is aware of this vote, he is just as guilty as the rest in lying about this issue.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/21/2008 | ignore this person | warn it

    .

    So you exposed Larry's LIE...then thrashed Thrawn's uninformed, knee-jerk defense of it.

    Excellent!

    Posted by Lillian at 05/21/2008 @ 11:20pm

18. RE: Obama needs no Jewish vote, he has the Muslims rooted for him.

    -----------

    As Obama Heads to Florida, Many of Its Jews Have Doubts By JODI KANTOR NYT BOYNTON BEACH, Fla. -- At the Aberdeen Golf and Country Club on Sunday, the fountains were burbling, the man-made lakes were shining, and Shirley Weitz and Ruth Grossman were debating why Jews in this gated neighborhood of airy retirement homes feel so much trepidation about Senator Barack Obama.

    "The people here, liberal people, will not vote for Obama because of his attitude towards Israel," Ms. Weitz, 83, said, lingering over brunch.

    "They're going to vote for McCain," she said.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 05/21/2008 @ 11:27pm

19. Posted by Lillian at 05/21/2008

    Thanks. Sometimes the reverend gets a little too caught up in his worldview, and misrepresents the facts. Thrawn is among the sanest of the right leaning posters here, and it is unlike him to be so off base. But then again, it happens to all of us. We can't know everything, and a critic that can point out our mistakes is probably the best friend we've got - which is why I suppose make this right-left dialogue that goes on here occasionally useful.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/21/2008 @ 11:50pm

20. Posted by srjenkins at 05/21/2008 | ignore this person | warn it

    I actually happen to like and respect Thrawn. Most of the time, although we mostly disagree, at least his posts show thoughtful and well-reasoned consideration.

    Just not *this* time. :-)

    Posted by Lillian at 05/22/2008 @ 12:51am

21. Posted by HelenDAO at 05/21/2008

    he's an apostate from islam yet has the muslims rooting for him?

    operation chaos!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/22/2008 @ 01:44am

22. So, do make a better effort in your Republican apologia. Because this supporting McCain here is sad.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/21/2008

    The one consistency I've seen with Liv is that he's long on spewing forth the political talking points of the neocon view and small on listening to anything else.

    It's amazing. The guy gets sensitive over being hammered on for his political views when he postes hisneoconservative / religious dogma time and time again. He may place me on ignore, but if he wishes to converse with people in agreement with him here, he'll be placing everyone on ignore with the exception of about three or four people.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/22/2008 @ 08:21am

23. Posted by Lillian at 05/22/2008 |

    I feel exactly the same way.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/22/2008

    LVL is a complex person. I don't think he posts here because he's looking for agreement. However, I do think he is looking for a certain level of civil discourse, which occasionally disappears from this forum.

    That said, I think he has to accept some culpability for that because he says thinks like: "So who is against Veterans? It seems that the Democrats would rather kill Veterans benefits than let McCain get any political advantage...The truth once again reveals the Democrats to be the ones against our Veterans and not Rebublicans." Comments like these are both asserting what is false and partisan.

    I can tolerate partisanship. People can get fanatical about practically anything (sports, text editors, their nation, religion, whatever), but it is a different matter to assert what is false to support that partisanship. "I love the Phoenix Suns because they won the NBA championship 56 times!" or "Vanilla ice cream is the best because it's the only flavor that doesn't make me fat." That kind of tactic is just stupid.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/22/2008 @ 09:09am

24. The first to cultivate vanilla were the Totonac people, who inhabit the Mazantla Valley on the Gulf Coast of Mexico in the present-day state of Veracruz.

    According to Totonac mythology, the tropical orchid was born when Princess Xanat, forbidden by her father from marrying a mortal, fled to the forest with her lover. The lovers were captured and beheaded. Where their blood touched the ground, the vine of the tropical orchid grew....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/22/2008 @ 09:35am

25. Posted by frosty zoom at 05/22/2008

    Now, that might be a good reason to like vanilla the best. Make it a eurcharist and we can revive that old time Totanac religion.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/22/2008 @ 10:22am

26. Since you help people with their taxes, I will assume that you can count and you understand that bills are numbered sequentially. The Webb G.I. Bill is S 2. The Graham-Burr-McCain G.I. Bill is S 2938.

    Now, might we conclude that McCain wants to try to capitalize on his veteran credentials with a bill with his name on it - even if it was presented after 2936 other bills to steal the thunder of Webb's G.I. Bill? Who's making the raw political move that are using veterans as a tool for their campaign? Yes, that's right, it's McCain - another example of how the man has no integrity.

    So, do make a better effort in your Republican apologia. Because this supporting McCain here is sad.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/21/2008

    You do understand that it is the normal practice for competing bills to be submitted for debate and a possible vote?

    You accuse McCain of a raw political move but attach no political motive to the Democrats?

    That is either extremely naive (unlikely), or intellectually dishonest on your part.

    And I have no saddness about supporting McCain. As flawed a candidate as he is, he is light years ahead of Obama as to whom is better for the nation.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/22/2008 @ 11:13am

27. Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/22/2008

    I think Webb is geniunely interested in doing the right thing by veterans. I don't think he offered up this bill to get elected or to influence the current election - as is evidenced by the fact it was submitted 15 months ago, not too long after he joined the Senate.

    McCain, on the other hand, suddenly wants to support a competing bill - when it starts looking like it is going to go whether he's on the train or not. He was asked to co-sign Webb's bill. He decided he didn't want to do it. Then, he turns around, 15 months into the game and decides he is going to offer up a the new bill that just so happens to have his name on it. I might also add, Webb's version of the bill is called the "Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act". It doesn't have anyone's name on it.

    While I think it is obvious that the Democrats are using the situation to political advantage and while I think McCain is trying to address a real concern of troop retention and cost, McCain's position is quite a bit more tenious given his supposed support for the military. Further, your feeble attempts to try to paint it like McCain is the one looking out for veterans is a joke. McCain is trying to use this to support his pro-military position - and just like his supposed fight to stop torture (which actually legitimized it) - he is doing the exact opposite of what he says he is doing. In short, further evidence that McCain has no integrity. None. The nation need him like it needs a hole in the head.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/22/2008 @ 11:51am

28. he's an apostate from islam yet has the muslims rooting for him?

    operation chaos!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/22/2008

    Oh also don't forget he is not only a Muslim but he also sat in a CHRISTIAN CHURCH for 20 years. 20 years all political of course.

    Jesus you can't make up this stupidity.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/22/2008 @ 1:00pm

29. More for your reading pleasure LVL.

    http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/05/22/webb-wins-big-one-for-gis/

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/22/2008 @ 9:08pm

30. Why is McCain still relevant? is there something in the American intellect that keeps it from going beyond a certain depth? I admire his Viet Nam service. I also admire those who fell on grenades and those who came back without legs. Many of my buddies are still fighting the night mares. I can still see the picture on the cover of Life Magazine of the little girl running naked ahead of a napalm explosion. I still relive the Mylai nightmare. We have killed 750,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, we have displace several million citizens, and we have flattened the country. We have created enough world hate to last for centuries. I'm not against war, just stupidity. If we haven't reached the tipping point of self destruction we are damned close. This isn't the country our fathers and mothers left us. We have torched our constitution and sense of right and wrong, and we have legalized gluttony.

    Posted by julien38 at 05/22/2008 @ 11:00pm