hearts and minds

May 24, 2008

Support the Troops! Wisconsin’s Congressional Delegation and the New G.I. Bill

“The GI Bill gives emphatic notice to the men and women in our armed forces that the American people do not intend to let them down.”
(Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on signing the original G.I Bill for returning veterans)

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) is leading an effort to pass a new GI Bill of educational benefits for veterans. What is the bill, what will it cost, and where do Wisconsin’s U.S. Senators and Members of Congress stand?

The “New G.I. Bill” would improve the educational benefits available to veterans who have served since 9-11-01 by increasing them to match the highest public university tuition in a given recipient’s state and providing a monthly housing stipend. The intent is to make the benefits of the New G.I. Bill roughly equivalent to the benefits provided to returning veterans after WWII.

The WWII era G.I. Bill is estimated to have returned seven dollars to the economy (in increased productivity and economic activity, and increased tax receipts) for every dollar spent on funding. The New GI Bill is supported by all major veterans organizations.

Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of IAVA, says improving GI Bill benefits for veterans should not be a controversial issue. “Many people … say they support the troops, and we believe they do,” Rieckhoff said. “Now it is time for them to put their money where their mouth is.” Two billion dollars a year is needed for the program, which equals less than the cost of one week of the continuing occupation of Iraq.

To offset this cost, the legislation includes a surtax of just under half a percent, that would apply to adjusted gross income (AGI) over a million dollars for married couples and over half a million dollars for other taxpayers. New figures from Citizens for Tax Justice show that 3 out of 1000 taxpayers would be affected by such a tax. The total surtax would amount to only about 7 percent of the massive tax cuts on dividends, capital gains, large estates, and income those persons have received since the start of the invasion and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Robert S. McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, said “Lawmakers who oppose this proposal will prove that they really do value tax cuts for the wealthy over all else.” (I don’t know if this proves that those politicians value tax cuts for the wealthy over all else. But it sure proves that they value tax cuts for the wealthy during wartime over providing educational assistance to returning veterans.)

The U.S. Congress passed the New G.I. Bill (HR5740) with a vote of 256 to 166 on May 16. The U.S. Senate passed the New G.I. Bill (S22) with a vote of 75 to 22 on May 21. (Click on the links in this paragraph to see how your Senators and Representative voted.) All except two of Wisconsin’s elected delegation of ten U.S. Senators and Members of Congress voted for the New G.I. Bill. Which two voted NO?

ONE – Though he had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate his life-long pro-war beliefs with action, during the 12 years of U.S. combat in Vietnam, F. James Sensenbrenner has no military experience. He loves photo ops with troops in uniform and wears a flag pin in his lapel. Sensenbrenner’s web site has a passage that asserts, “During times of war and conflict, our nation has relied heavily on the men and women of our military to protect us and our allies… The very least America can do in return is provide our veterans, Reservists, and National Guardsmen with opportunities to find employment, so that they can take care of themselves and their families.” Sensenbrenner has demonstrated repeatedly that he intends to do just that – the very least he can for returning veterans. He supports tax credits for businesses that hire veterans. But when the G.I. Bill came up, F.J. Sensenbrenner voted against the New G.I. Bill.

TWOPaul Ryan is of a later generation, and he also has no military experience. Ryan declares on his web site, “We owe a continuing debt of gratitude to our nation’s veterans. Our thanks can be expressed in large part by how we care for them.” How did he express his “care for them”? Paul Ryan voted against the New G.I. Bill.

Senator Chuck Hagel’s web site has an op-ed co-written by Senator James Webb (VA) and Senator Chuck Hagel (NE) endorsing the new G.I. Bill. It’s really worth reading this article by two combat infantrymen who fought in the same war and have both become U.S. Senators. Chuck Hagel is a member of the Republican Party, while Jim Webb is a member of the Democratic Party.

Senator and presidential candidate John McCain did not vote on May 21, and he opposes it.
Senators and presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the New G.I. Bill.

Now that both the Senate and the House of Representatives have passed it by very wide margins, the New G.I. Bill (S22/HR5740) goes to President Bush for his signature.


  1. Why, pray tell, are we even discussing this? It is a disgrace that we do not extend the GI bill for those who serve our country, though it does not surprise me that Sensenbrenner and Ryan would vote against it. I’m sure they have other places they’d rather spend the taxpayer’s money.

    Comment by Jack Lohman — May 24, 2008 @ 2:44 pm | Reply

  2. I finally decided to write a comment on your blog.
    I just wanted to say good job. I really enjoy reading your posts.

    Comment by Jamie H — May 24, 2008 @ 6:20 pm | Reply

  3. On the surface, very disappointing that Sensenbrenner and Ryan did not support this bill. We have contacted Sensenbrenner’s office asking for his “position” on why he did not support the new GI Bill. I suspect it is the Bush “party line” of concern about retention in the military, which would be even more disappointing, given Bush got our troops into an unnecessary war (our view). Do you have anything from his office on his “no” vote position?

    May be time for folks to show Sensenbrenner what they think at this year’s 4th of July parade in Cedarburg….especially veterans….

    Comment by Lyle and Dianne — June 1, 2008 @ 12:21 pm | Reply

  4. I have no recent communication from Sensenbrenner. I imagine you are likely correct that his rationale is in line with Bush and McCain’s stated opposition.

    IAVA (see the links I provided in the text of the article) effectively rebutted that logic by asserting that a New G.I. Bill would enhance and improve flagging recruitment.

    The retention argument is not only (as IAVA and Senators Webb and Hagel maintain) illogical, it is immoral. Troops who have served since 9-11 should not be coerced into continuing service by making and keeping civilian opportunities unpromising, and withholding educational opportunities traditionally provided as a “Thank You” to returning veterans. Not while they are among the very few, and only Americans who have shouldered the burden and risk of this continuing occupation.

    Be aware that the vote was not alone party lines. Very large bipartisan majorities of both the Senate and the House approved the New G.I. Bill. The Senate vote appears to be veto proof. However, 34 more votes will be necessary in the House to override a veto. 13 Representatives did not vote. We will need to apply pressure to Sensenbrenner and some others in Congress to change their vote if Bush decides to veto. This can, and should be done in many ways, by many people.

    Comment by clyde "Hearts and Minds" — June 1, 2008 @ 1:38 pm | Reply

  5. … we may be more in agreement, than not, with your views, as we are historically independents who usually voted with the conservatives, however have become very disillusioned with them in the past few years and have supported Obama since last summer…(never voted for a democratic candidate for President before)

    Comment by Lyle — June 1, 2008 @ 8:26 pm | Reply

  6. I have never been a member of either major political party. I have voted for Republican, Democratic, and third party candidates for President in the past.

    But I’m more interested in the issues than in the personalities and the horse race, and I don’t know, have never even met the candidates. Candidates come and go. The problems remain and grow if they are not effectively and wisely addressed.

    I am really disappointed that none of the major candidates are discussing single payer comprehensive universal health care. It’s the only way to get better health care outcomes in America, and to cover everyone, and also cost less than the current apparatus. I have studied the issue quite a bit, and have written on it since 2003. Links to references and sources are provided in the text of my articles.

    Thanks for your interest and for taking a moment to comment.

    Comment by clyde "Hearts and Minds" — June 1, 2008 @ 8:39 pm | Reply

  7. Excellent web site you have here.. It’s difficult to find high-quality writing like yours nowadays. I honestly appreciate individuals like you! Take care!!

    Comment by www.fight-mesothelioma.com/asbestosis-survival-stories-beat-odds-living-mesothelioma-leaving-statistics-2/ — July 28, 2013 @ 2:33 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: