McCain’s opposition to new GI Bill proven bogus by Gov’t Report
McCain refused to show up and support the new GI Bill because he has said that it will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment.
However, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report that stated any reduction in retention would be made up for by an increase in high quality recruits:
Educational benefits have been shown to raise the number of military recruits. Based on an analysis of the existing literature, CBO estimates that a 10 percent increase in educational benefits would result in an increase of about 1 percent in high-quality recruits. On that basis, CBO calculates that raising the educational benefits as proposed in S. 22 would result in a 16 percent increase in recruits.
Sen. John Warner (R-VA) has said that despite a reduction in retention, the new bill will induce more qualified people to join. “It should be a tremendous incentive for recruitment,” he said.
A far bigger threat to military retention are the military contractors who pay employees up to 10 times the amount that our soldiers are paid to do similar work. The Bush administration always tend to side with the contractors instead of the troops, since they are war profiteers.
UPDATE: I excluded McCain from the previous accusation of war profiteer. That is more the territory of the Bush family.
….like a fiddle.
like a fiddle
Yea, like my friend Tracy?
In your initial article you suggested McCain just doesn’t want to help the troops, just put money in his own pocket while ignoring the fact that he had his own bill.
You may not like or agree with McCain on why he sponsored his own bill, but he did in fact have another solution. Senators who propose their own bill often vote against similar bills. That’s nothing new.
By the way, can you show me a link or credible story that McCain owns stock in companies that are profiting from this war? He has his tax returns from the last two years posted online and I haven’t been able to find it yet.
If he owns stock in those companies, ok, he should be accountable for that…..but I haven’t found any proof yet. I’m going to keep looking.
In the mean time, this is what I have found…
John McCain’s tax return summary, published by the New York Times, April 3, 2008:
2006 2007
Senate Salary: $161,675 $161,708
Book Royalty Income: $80,390 $176,508
Social Security Income: $22,104 $23,157
US Navy Pension *: $56,496 $58,358
That’s all I’ve found, chief. Anywhere else I should be looking?
Cameron:
Look under McCain, Cindy.
I did.
Cindy McCain- $4.5 mill last year, $28-$36 mill in holdings, but I haven’t seen anything from her portfolio that supports there is profiteering on account of the war.
Most of Cindy McCain’s money is locked up in Hensley & Co. or blind trusts. Anything in these trusts has to be approved by a Senate sub-committee, and there is not any way for the holder to know in which stocks they are invested.
Even upon release of the stocks in the some of the blind trusts after they were dissolved, none of the stock was in companies profiting from the war.
If McCain was indeed profiteering, this campaign would already be over and the Senate Committees would be relentlessly pounding away in hearing, after hearing, after hearing.
I seriously doubt the veracity of the claims that he is profiteering. I do not dispute the evidence that he is filthy rich though.
and my unwillingness to accept William’s assertions should not be taken that I am supporting McCain. I’m not. I’m still weighing options.
Maybe the Whig party will re-band.
In case the smiley didn’t make it clear, I was kidding.
McCain has many faults, but I’m not ready to declare that war profiteering is one of them.
How ’bout some Bull-Moose?
Of all the nose holders I have voted for since 1988, McCain is the most difficult to vote for. If he is for enough ahead in Tennessee, I may not do it.
It really is difficult. Let’s see..do I like socialism or fascism more? Hmmmmmm
I know, tgirsch, I just want William to come on here on prove his statements instead of stringing together whole sets of declarations with nothing but emotion writing the article.
Not like William has credibility at all, it’s just that he’s got the opportunity to gain some if he can prove his diatribes are correct.
Most of Cindy McCain’s money is locked up in Hensley & Co. or blind trusts. Anything in these trusts has to be approved by a Senate sub-committee, and there is not any way for the holder to know in which stocks they are invested.
Because she’s married to the senator?
That doesn’t smell right, to me.
.
Then go look it up instead of stating your feelings on the matter.
“Cindy McCain also has a blind trust managed by Merrill Lynch that holds between $500,000 and $1 million in assets. Approved by the Senate ethics committee, the trust allows her to own stocks without any knowledge of what she is investing in. The trust is also revocable, which means it can be dissolved at any time.”
I don’t make this stuff up as I go along, unlike the author of this post.
Just so you know, Jeffraham, no one is allowed to sit on any Senate or House committee or sub-committee without first putting their stocks in a blind trust. Their spouses, siblings, parents, and children are also mandated to do the same if they intend to invest any more than $25,000 in any given stock.
Does that “smell right” to you? A member of congress, who sits on a committee and hears loads of confidential information, including commodity and economic forecasts, gets to turn around and invest their monies, or family’s monies, in what would be considered a massive abuse of power and corruption of government ethics without any kind of guideline or regulation to deal with that?
William almost verbatim posts what Think Progress had on this story. You’d think an academic would at least cite his sources, especially those he’s near-plagiarizing from.
For a site called “Think Progress”, those who frequent it and repost from its pages do very little original thinking.
Academic is an awfully generous term when you’re talking about a music professor. They have lots of talent and are probably well versed in music history, but they aren’t trained to get their mind around a whole subject and analyze data in a objective manner. It’s more free-thinking and emotion.
Dr. William has yet to come on here to seriously challenge any conclusions made about his reasoning and his writing after his lackluster assertions. It speaks volumes about this man’s intentions and cognitive comprehension.
“Bogus” opposition? I guess the CBO is infallible now? John Warner, too?
William almost verbatim posts what Think Progress had on this story. You’d think an academic would at least cite his sources, especially those he’s near-plagiarizing from.
Elitist don’t have to cite sources. They are special. When you get that Ph.d you are bona fide.
It’s not a PhD, they would have trained him better. He holds a “Doctorate of Guitar Performance” from Florida State. Had to play music real pretty for them, not necessarily defend a scholarly dissertation. And it shows.
Yes, he’s an “academic” if you broaden the definition to those who work in and around a school….that would include the grounds crews and janitorial staff.
Actually I did have to defend a dissertation and comprehensive exam, thank you. That is, in addition to the 5 recitals that PhDs in other disciplines don’t have to do. I understand your need to attack the messenger. It is the authoritarian thing to do.
You’ve thrown around your education to boost your claims in the past. I’m making a case that the facts themselves, which are few, should argue the point.
Your education carries no weight in the subjects on which you are asserting your opinion.
I “throw around my education” - that a crock of BS. Where have I ever mentioned my degrees in any post? Why are you lying about this Cameron? Why do you feel the need to denigrate my education? No one who knows me including my students calls me “Dr ….” , if they do, I tell them my name is Bill. (Unlike your fellow conservative commenter here who calls himself “Doc“)
It doesn’t really matter, but DM’s and PhD’s work on two totally different skill sets, including the difference between a thesis and a treatise. No one is arguing you are not EXCEPTIONALLY talented; just a hack.