Daily Kos

Tag: GI Bill of Rights

July 4th for Ron Kovic, Nadia McCaffrey, and wounded Americans

Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:25:05 AM PDT

Haven't we had enough Ron Kovics, Patrick McCaffrey...? In the 21st century, we need a peaceful productive army that builds not bombs nations.  The organizations named in People's Lobby's non-partisan American World Service Corps Congressional Proposals builds that productive army that has yanks compete on the field of sane, healthy development.  Push your Congressperson to cosponsor the AWSC, so we lose fewer legs and loving hearts.

Bush's Saturday Radio Address

Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:05:04 PM PDT

From today’s radio address by George Bush:

Congress will soon vote on legislation to fund our troops serving on the front lines of the war on terror.

...there is no reason for further delay...the bill must not exceed the reasonable and responsible funding levels I have requested... the time has come for them to support our troops in harm's way...Our men and women in uniform and their families deserve better than this...our troops are taking on dangerous missions with skill and determination...the men and women of our Armed Forces risk their lives to make sure their fellow citizens are safer...They've earned the respect of all Americans...Congress should pass a responsible funding bill that gives our men and women in uniform the resources they need -- and the support they have earned.

And what’s the main sticking point?  Senator Jim Webb’s G.I. Bill of Rights (pdf), a bill that has overwhelming support in the Senate and the House, to provide real educational benefits for those very men and women who are risking their lives every single day.  

So, who opposes it?  George Bush and John McCain.  They’re all for supporting the troops with guns and bullets, but when it’s time to support them after their service is through?  Not so much.  

Where was John?

Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:00:02 AM PDT

As reported here and elsewhere, while John McCain had time to throw a hissy-fit yesterday, he couldn’t find time in his busy schedule to show up in Washington to vote for funding his favorite war or to attend the confirmation hearing for the guy in charge of that war.  

Instead he spent the day fundraising in California, giving supporters in Atherton the chance to have their picture taken with him for a mere $25,000.  And if you’re going to charge $25,000 for a photo, Atherton is the place to go...median income, more than $200,000, average home, $1 million plus, more than 85% white...definitely much more worthwhile than worrying about educational benefits for veterans, food stamps, heating assistance for the poor, levee repairs in New Orleans, and so on.  

Of course McCain did oppose the Webb bill (and God knows there were no food stamp recipients lobbying him), so shoring up his less than stellar fundraising rather than showing up for work to vote "no" on veteran's benefits made a lot of sense.  For John McCain.    

McCain attacks "Black Eagle"Obama and the GI's.

Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:59:15 AM PDT

McCain admitted in his long screed and attack on Barack Obama recently what the real purpose of his alternative Senate bill was: It was to cripple any GI bill, to ensure that any sort of improvements and benefits in education amd retraining for GI's would be small enough and of little use to encourage GI's to make the service a career by default, especially the NCO's and lower ranks.  Token amounts for them. A fake bill.

 The attack on Obama, on Obama's history was to avoid discussion of lack of participation in this debate over what a modern "G.I." bill should be. It avoided casting a "NO" vote on Memorial day and the excuses for it. (more on jump)

McCain & the Republican leadership compromise the troops & first responders

Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:15:28 PM PDT

Earlier today, the Politico reported that:

With Memorial Day around the corner, Sen. John McCain and his allies are reaching out to Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb in the hope of finding a compromise on a GI Bill that would eliminate a potential embarrassment for the Arizona Republican’s presidential campaign.

But that spirit of compromise lasted as long as a John McCain straight talking talking point, because:

Republicans took the opportunity of a bipartisan bill this morning to try and attach a proposal by Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, that would somewhat improve GI Bill benefits currently offered to American service members.

First, let's look at the difference between the McCain bill:

Under McCain's plan, the GI Bill benefit for active duty soldiers who pay the $1,200 enrollment fee would jump from a max of $1,100 per month to $1,500 and to $2,000 for service members with 12 years of service.

...versus the Webb bill:

Increased educational benefits would be available to all members of the military who have served on active duty since September 11, 2001, including activated reservists and National Guard. To qualify, veterans must have served at least three to thirty-six months of qualified active duty, beginning on or after September 11, 2001.  [...]

Benefits provided under the bill would allow veterans pursuing an approved program of education to receive payments covering the established charges of their program, up to the cost of the most expensive instate public school, plus a monthly stipend equivalent to housing costs in their area. The bill would allow additional payments for tutorial assistance, as well as licensure and certification tests.

Bear in mind that the Webb bill has overwhelming support in both the Senate and the House, and has been endorsed by every major veterans group.  The McCain bill is supported by the White House, John McCain, and a few dead-enders in the Republican leadership.  

So, who did the Republicans try to throw under the bus today by attaching this poison pill?  First Responders.  Yes, in an effort to "eliminate a potential embarrassment" for John McCain, the Republican leadership willingly derailed a bill that would have provided collective bargaining rights for firemen, policemen and emergency medical technicians.  Said Ted Kennedy:

We have seen this parliamentary gimmick that has taken place offered by the Republican leadership that is a slap in the face to every firefighter and police officer and first responder in the country. [...]

We're saying to the firefighters of this nation and to the police officers of this nation and the first responders of the nation: Your interest, the safety and security of our communities across the nation, should be put aside in favor of some political gimmick by the Republican leader here in the United States Senate.

We're all used to the Republican Party using "support the troops" as a slogan, but it's the first time that they've attempted to screw over the men and women who risk their lives every day, both at home and abroad, at the same time.  Thankfully, this maneuver went down in flames, 42-55, but it should serve as a lesson as to the true nature of the Republican leadership's idea of "compromise."

Blue Dogs or Red Dogs, Part II

Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:05:38 AM PDT

Today is the day to take action on H.R. 5740.  As I outlined on Friday:

It's time to draw a line in the sand. There are forty-seven members of the Blue Dog Democrats, and we need to know which ones support the U.S. troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and which ones agree with Rep. John Tanner that they are nothing more than deficit-enhancing debris. This is what Mr. Tanner had to say when announcing the plan by a segment of the Blue Dogs to block a vote on the GI Bill of Rights:

Some of us oppose creating a new entitlement program in an emergency spending bill, whether it’s butchers, bakers or candlestick-makers.

A group that has voted time after time to support George Bush's war, at a cost of over $500 billion dollars, now dismisses the men and women who risked their lives as candlestick-makers who don't deserve money to go to college? The Blue Dog's reason? Because their budgetary rule of pay-as-you-go has "been ignored one too many times." Yes, these champions of fiscal responsibility are fine with George Bush's twice-a-year $100 billion "supplementals," they are fine with billions going to Halliburton and Blackwater, but when it comes to providing a benefit to the people who fought in the war that the Blue Dogs supported, well, to hell with the troops.

This week House Democratic leaders will once again to try bring the Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 up for a vote and we need to know which Blue Dogs plan to join John "candlestick-maker" Tanner in blocking educational benefits for the men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

Bear in mind, the only reason to block this vote is because they are too cowardly to stand up and publicly oppose this bill.  If they don't want to support the troops, they should have the guts to come out and say so instead of trying to hide behind a procedural maneuver.  

So please, take a few minutes to call a Blue Dog and ask if they intend to block H.R. 5740 or if they will support educational assistance for veterans.  And tell them that supporting the troops isn't just a slogan...at least it shouldn't be.

And for more action items, go to Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA).

Mike Arcuri (NY): (202) 225-3665
Joe Baca  (CA): (202) 225-6161
John Barrow  (GA): (202) 225-2823
Melissa Bean  (IL): (202) 225-3711
Marion Berry  (AR): (202) 225-4076
Sanford Bishop  (GA): (202) 225-3631
Dan Boren  (OK): (202) 225-2701
Leonard Boswell  (IA): (202) 225-3806
Allen Boyd  (FL): (202) 225-5235
Dennis Cardoza  (CA): (202) 225-6131
Christopher Carney  (PA): (202) 225-3731
Ben Chandler  (KY): (202) 225-4706
Jim Cooper  (TN): (202) 225-4311
Jim Costa  (CA): (202) 225-3341
Bud Cramer (AL): (202) 225-4801
Lincoln Davis  (TN): (202) 225-6831
Joe Donnelly  (IN): (202) 225-3915
Brad Ellsworth  (IN): (202) 225-4636
Gabrille Giffords  (AZ): (202) 225-2542
Kirsten Gillibrand  (NY): (202) 225-5614
Bart Gordon  (TN): (202) 225-4231
Jane Harman  (CA): (202) 225 8220
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin  (SD): (202) 225-2801
Baron Hill  (IN): (202) 225-5315
Tim Holden  (PA): (202) 225-5546
Steve Israel  (NY): (202)  225 3335
Nick Lampson  (TX): (202) 225-5951
Tim Mahoney  (FL): (202) 225-5792
Jim Marshall  (GA): (202) 225-6531
Jim Matheson  (UT): (202) 225-3011
Mike McIntyre  (NC): (202) 225-2731
Charlie Melancon  (LA): (202) 225-4031
Michael Michaud  (ME): (202) 225-6306
Dennis Moore  (KS): (202) 225-2865
Patrick Murphy  (PA): (202) 225-4276
Collin Peterson  (MN): (202) 225-2165
Earl Pomeroy  (ND): (202) 225-2611
Mike Ross  (AR): 1-800-223-2220
John Salazar  (CO): (202) 225-4761
Loretta Sanchez  (CA): (202) 225-2965
Adam Schiff  (CA): (202) 225-4176
David Scott  (GA): (202) 225-2939
Heath Shuler  (NC): (202) 225-6401
Zack Space  (OH): (202) 225-6265
John Tanner  (TN): (202) 225-4714
Gene Taylor  (MS): (202) 225-5772
Mike Thompson  (CA): (202) 225-3311
Charlie Wilson  (OH): (202) 225-5705

Which Is It?  Blue Dogs or Red Dogs?

Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:00:24 PM PDT

It's time to draw a line in the sand.  There are forty-seven members of the Blue Dog Democrats, and we need to know which ones support the U.S. troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and which ones agree with Rep. John Tanner that they are nothing more than deficit-enhancing debris. This is what Mr. Tanner had to say when announcing the plan by a segment of the Blue Dogs to block a vote on the GI Bill of Rights:

Some of us oppose creating a new entitlement program in an emergency spending bill, whether it’s butchers, bakers or candlestick-makers.

A group that has voted time after time to support George Bush's war, at a cost of over $500 billion dollars, now dismisses the men and women who risked their lives as candlestick-makers who don't deserve money to go to college?  The Blue Dog's reason?  Because their budgetary rule of pay-as-you-go has "been ignored one too many times."  Yes, these champions of fiscal responsibility are fine with George Bush's twice-a-year $100 billion "supplementals," they are fine with billions going to Halliburton and Blackwater, but when it comes to providing a benefit to the people who fought in the war that the Blue Dogs supported, well, to hell with the troops.  

The Blue Dogs only need 15 votes to block a vote on this measure which scheduled to come up next week, and when asked if they had enough members opposing the bill, Blue Dog leader Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL) said:

"There’s 47 of us, what do you think?"

I think that out of the 292 co-sponsors of the bill , 36 are Blue Dog Democrats, which means one of two things:  either Tanner and Boyd plan to join forces with Republicans to kill this bill, or there are at least 4 Blue Dogs who don't have the courage to stand by their convictions and do the right thing.  
It's time to find out where the Blue Dogs stand.  Do they stand with the troops or do they stand with George Bush, John McCain and the Blue Dogs who dismiss the troops as "candlestick-makers" who don't deserve benefits when they return from war?   Call and ask if they intend to help block H.R. 5740.

Mike Arcuri:  (202) 225-3665
Joe Baca:  (202) 225-6161
John Barrow:  (202) 225-2823
Melissa Bean:  (202) 225-3711
Marion Berry: (202) 225-4076
Sanford Bishop:  (202) 225-3631
Dan Boren:  (202) 225-2701
Leonard Boswell:  (202) 225-3806
Allen Boyd:  (202) 225-5235
Dennis Cardoza:  (202) 225-6131
Christopher Carney:  (202) 225-3731
Ben Chandler:  (202) 225-4706
Jim Cooper:  (202) 225-4311
Jim Costa:  (202) 225-3341
Bud Cramer:  (202) 225-4801
Lincoln Davis:  (202) 225-6831
Joe Donnelly:  (202) 225-3915
Brad Ellsworth:  (202) 225-4636
Gabrille Giffords:  (202) 225-2542
Kirsten Gillibrand:  (202) 225-5614
Bart Gordon:  (202) 225-4231
Jane Harman:  (202) 225 8220
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin:  (202) 225-2801
Baron Hill:  (202) 225-5315
Tim Holden:  (202) 225-5546
Steve Israel:  (202) 225-4669
Nick Lampson:  (202) 225-5951
Tim Mahoney:  (202) 225-5792
Jim Marshal:  (202) 225-6531
Jim Matheson:  (202) 225-3011
Mike McIntyre:  (202) 225-2731
Charlie Melancon:  (202) 225-4031
Michael Michaud:  (202) 225-6306
Dennis Moore:  (202) 225-2865
Patrick Murphy:  (202) 225-4276
Collin Peterson:  (202) 225-2165
Earl Pomeroy:  (202) 225-2611
Mike Ross:   1-800-223-2220
John Salazar:   (202) 225-4761
Loretta Sanchez:  (202) 225-2965
Adam Schiff:  (202) 225-4176
David Scott:  (202) 225-2939
Heath Shuler:  (202) 225-6401
Zack Space:  (202) 225-6265
John Tanner:  (202) 225-4714
Gene Taylor: (202) 225-5772
Mike Thompson:  (202) 225-3311
Charlie Wilson:  (202) 225-5705

Without an American World Service Corps, we will continue stumbling into dumb, uninvolved, costly pu

Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:29:44 PM PDT

If the populace of the nation, which spends on its military industrial estate more than all the other nations combined, were more directly involved in experiencing and doing public policy, would the Global Village be safer and healthier?

People's Lobby's citizen-initiate American World Service Corps Congressional Proposals will give us the opportunity life safer and healthier for all.

Poll

Support PLI's citizen-initiated American World Service Corps Congressional Proposals?

14%1 votes
0%0 votes
14%1 votes
14%1 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
14%1 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
14%1 votes
14%1 votes
14%1 votes

| 7 votes | Vote | Results


::

Advertise on the Liberal Blog Advertising Network.

Hate ads? Subscribe.






Support Bloggers' Rights!
Support Bloggers' Rights!


On Mothertalkers:

Conservative Dicks in the News

Don't You Love Corporate Welfare?

Balancing Work and Children at Home

When You Drown Government in a Bathtub

Celebrity Gossip Break: Bette Midler

On Street Prophets:

Coffee Hour with Pastor Dan

Why Not Evangelicals?

Stand Up Guy of the Day – Nas

The Prayer Closet, a daily prayer request thread

Building Momentum For Change: Ending the Maze of Injustice