Three People Didn’t Vote On The G.I. Bill

Published May 22, 2008 in Military and Republicans.

Here is the roll call.

Ted Kennedy - who just got out of the hospital
Tom Coburn
John McCain

3/4 of the Senate voted for the bill. All the votes against the bill were Republicans.

30 Responses to “Three People Didn’t Vote On The G.I. Bill”

Feed for this Entry

1 Scratch
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm

McCain (and other Republicans, apparently,) believe that this version is constructed in such a way as to encourage people to leave active duty.

Why does Obama want to encourage people to get out of the military? Doesn’t he have any respect for the work they are doing?
2 Oliver Willis
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:17 pm

John McCain believes a lot of things. That doesn’t mean they are true, and its no reason for him to effectively vote against the troops.
3 Scratch
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Obama voted against the troops, effectively bribing them to leave military service.
4 SpiderJ
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm

The work our troops are currently doing is to maintain a holding pattern in Iraq until Bush is out of office. They cannot stabilize the place, they cannot stop the violence occurring against them and the civilian populace, and they cannot stop political interference from foreign parties.

The GI Bill is designed so that those who WANT to change careers from the military can do so with government aid. It does not FORCE those who wish to remain in the military to leave.

In fact, as I recall, the only bill that actually forces active military personnel to leave the military is Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (which Clinton signed, I know, but which Republicans are happy to keep around forever).

Soldiers are not required to stay in the military just because you say they should. If they’ve finished their commitment and want to get a degree in graphic design, they should be allowed to do so.
5 Oliver Willis
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Clearly voting for benefits for troops is voting against them. What is it like on Planet Stupid?
6 Rheinhard
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Republican philosophy in action: We support the troops in the field by making their lives so hellishly miserably when off the field, that they can’t wait to re-enlist! And then this is cited as proof that in fact the troops must love their pointless and Pyrrhic mission.
7 Dave in SoCal
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:36 pm

McCain clearly should have taken a page out of the Obama playbook and voted “Present”, thereby avoiding taking out a position on a controversial issue.
8 SpiderJ
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Dave, lesson one of linking to stories is to read them first. The article you provide isn’t the attack-piece you want it to be, and in fact offers a number of legitimate reasons for Obama’s “present” votes.

Epic fail.
9 Scratch
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:49 pm

SpiderJ…

Of course they should be able to leave if they want to! But a sensible benefits plan should be constructed in such a way as to provide for them when they decide they have served as much as they wish, WITHOUT providing them an incentive to get out. We also spend quite a bit of money encouraging people to stay in, don’t forget. Would Obama support increased funding to provide educational programs to people still on active duty? There are programs for young enlisted personnel to attend college while on active duty, for example, and others for providing graduate degrees to older members.

And for those who don’t know–and I suspect that most don’t–it’s not just a matter of keeping the total force above some threshold number. When one person gets out, you are then obligated to spend the money required to train a new person up to that level of experience.

I think Dave in SoCal sees what is going on here.
10 Dave in SoCal
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm

I did read it. From the link:

“There’s a saying in Springfield that there’s a reason why the present button is yellow,” Miller says.

But Miller says that not all “present” votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama.

[He doesn't state, in his opinion, how many of those 129 Obama votes were]

“After having put some thought into it, I don’t think that Barack Obama was necessarily a coward for voting present on those bills. In fact, I think he believed that he was doing the right thing, because something, in his mind, might have been unconstitutional,” Miller says.

[Those are some incredible mind-reading skills he demonstrates in the last sentence]
11 SpiderJ
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Would Obama support increased funding to provide educational programs to people still on active duty? There are programs for young enlisted personnel to attend college while on active duty, for example, and others for providing graduate degrees to older members.

Not sure, Scratch. Maybe you should ask him. Also, has McCain stated explicitly that he’s against the current bill because it doesn’t include increased funding?

All told, your argument is just an offshoot of the idea that Obama doesn’t support a strong military. And you make it sound like people who join the army can be so easily swayed by the GI Bill that they’ll run, en masse, from the military.

If they do, it has nothing to do with the GI Bill, it has to do with the clusterfuck they’re being asked to keep on the simmer.
12 SpiderJ
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm

And Dave, you demonstrate some incredible psychic powers of your own by assuming that Obama’s votes were cowardly.
13 Andrew
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:09 pm

I’ll tell you what’s an incentive for leaving the military: not getting your ass wasted fighting some BS holding action to prop up a failing regime. I’ll leave it to you to decide which regime.
14 Dave in SoCal
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm

Sorry SpiderJ, no psychic powers here. To get insider’s take on what voting “present” really means in Illinois, I’m just taking the word of “Rich Miller, who writes and publishes The Capitol Fax, a daily newsletter and blog on Illinois politics” when he says that “There’s a saying in Springfield that there’s a reason why the present button is yellow”.
15 Duros62
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Obama voted against the troops, effectively bribing them to leave military service.

You know what? Fuck you and the bandwidth you rode in on. And take Dave with you.

The only ones consistently against our troops are you asshats who want to keep them in harm’s way forever with as little reinforcement as possible.
16 Duros62
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:25 pm

At least Obama bothered to show up.

There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.”
17 SpiderJ
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Rich Miller also says that just because there’s a jokey saying in Springfield doesn’t mean that a “present” vote implies cowardice.

He says that he doesn’t believe Obama’s “present” votes imply cowardice on Obama’s part. You believe that they do. But Rich Miller, your venerated insider, reads minds, and you do not.
18 Dave in SoCal
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Spider, Miller didn’t call it a “jokey saying”, you did.

He says that he doesn’t believe Obama’s “present” votes imply cowardice on Obama’s part.

Miller said that “not all “present” votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama”, implying that if not all of them, then at least some were or could have been.

And he said he didn’t believe that “Barack Obama was necessarily a coward for voting present on those bills.

He really went out of his way to qualify those statements.
19 Sean D. Martin
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Option 1:
Provide good benefits for those who serve while they are serving (active members of the armed forces should not be needing food stamps) and provide decent benefits for once they get out.

Then you have a significant incentive for people to join in the first place and a large group of people able to continue to benefit society once their service ends.

Option 2:
Provide crappy benefits for for soldiers while in the service and minimal, if any, support for once they are out. Indeed, Force them to stay longer than they originally agreed to, and then make sure to not diagnose them as having any problems once they finally get out.

Then you end up with a far larger portion of those serving who are lacking in motivation, can’t wait to get out, and are a larger burden on society once they do.

Yeah, let’s stick with Option 2.
20 Dave in SoCal
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:23 pm

You know what? Fuck you and the bandwidth you rode in on. And take Dave with you.

Stay classy, Duros.
21 Jay
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Oh please give me a break with the “voting against the troops” sophistry. McCain and others supported a different version of the GI Bill. One that stood on its own and wasn’t added to another bill loaded with earmarks and other pork barrel spending.
22 Mike
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:58 am

McCain and others love the military, Jay; like you, however, they don’t care about the actual people who serve in it.
23 WTN
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:11 am

You conservatives want to know what is discouraging military retention?

SENDING US TO DIE FOR NOTHING WHILE THE WAR PIGS GET RICHER!

Give us our damn benefits.
24 SpiderJ
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:34 am

Dave, I find that your ability to parse your linked article into something worse than it actually is an astounding feat of forensic chicanery. Bravo.

You do, however, remain wrong. I suppose I’ll just have to live with that.
25 Repack Rider
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:46 am

McCain and others supported a different version of the GI Bill. One that stood on its own and wasn’t added to another bill loaded with earmarks and other pork barrel spending.

Think how much less that pork barrel spending would have been if we hadn’t invaded Iraq and given hundreds of billions to Haliburton et al. How much would our energy costs have been if we has spent that invasion money on renewable energy?

That is why “conservatives” are morons.
26 C.S.Strowbridge
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:48 am

Scratch: “McCain (and other Republicans, apparently,) believe that this version is constructed in such a way as to encourage people to leave active duty.

Why does Obama want to encourage people to get out of the military? Doesn’t he have any respect for the work they are doing?”

“Obama voted against the troops, effectively bribing them to leave military service.”

Dear Republicans,

Please, please, please run ads stating this. I want Obama to win 300 or more EC votes, and a ad like this would be the quickest way to get there.

Love,

C.S.Strowbridge
27 C.S.Strowbridge
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 am

“Stay classy, Duros.”

See! It’s a plan by some people here to act like morons till you snap at them so they can laugh at you.

Fortunately, that will never work on me.

… Okay, you can stop laughing.

Seriously, stop it. I’ve never snapped while posting here. This is just how I am; I can calmly call someone a retard and ’shout’ fuck several times in one sentence without ever having my blood-pressure rise. If someone says something that is worth of insult, I will insult them.
28 Dkelsmith
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:35 pm

As a military Officer I see the obvious benefit to the plan proposed in regard to helping troops transition to lucrative civilian careers. I think this is very necessary in light of how many veterans end up poor or homeless. The fact that they do doesn’t indicate that they are low-browwed or shiftless, it just shows that there has not been a lot of recognized parallels between military leaderships and administrative skills and civilian equivalent.

I am for this bill, but I do recognize the rationale behind McCain voting against it and proposing the benefits based upon years of service. Awarding huge benefits to someone with 12 years or more in makes it much less likely they will accept it. If you are only eight years from a full military retirement you are probably not going to jump out of the service and go to school full time. By that time you have probably married and had children to keep you focused. If you offer these accelerated incentives to a 22 year old that just finished four years in the Infantry, undoubtedly he is going to take the money and run. Before there is a rabid backlash, I reiterate that I “recognize the rationale”, not that I “agree with the rationale”. Since we have switched gears from standing in the Fulda Gap to hold off Ivan and moved toward Counterinsurgency Warfare a number of truisms have emerged. Airland Battle with mass on mass is a thing of the past. The worst threats are not superpowers. Nuclear weapons are not scary anymore. Services, and components within a service need to be plug and play, because you may have to be able to get somewhere quickly to set up operations. Above all of that, we see that the E-5 through the E-8 are the most vital ranks for command and control, therefore you want to retain your best and brightest. E-4 and below are the worker bees that take the brunt of the sweat and blood spillage. If you can’t keep the E-4 and below ranks up, with good E-5 thru E-8 leadership it won’t matter if you bring McArthur, Audie Murphy, Chesty Puller, Abrams, Patton, and Leonidas back from the dead. High top end leaders can’t do it all. The squad, platoon, and in small cases the company level are where the rubber meets the road as well as where the metal hits the meat.
29 Duros62
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Stay classy, Duros.

Yeah, bite me, Dave.
30 freedomguy
May 26th, 2008 at 5:36 am

The fact that there is no way to securely remotely vote indicates that Congress is about 20 years behind the technological ball. Idiots!