McCain Adviser Misleadingly Cites CBO Report, Says Webb’s GI Bill ‘Does Nothing To Address Reenlistment’
McCain Adviser Misleadingly Cites CBO Report, Says Webb’s GI Bill ‘Does Nothing To Address Reenlistment’
On Fox News’s America’s Election HQ yesterday, Nancy Pfotenhauer, a senior policy adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), disingenuously attacked Sen. Jim Webb’s “21st Century GI Bill,” in order to justify her boss’s opposition to the bill. Webb’s bill “does nothing to address reenlistment and retention,” charged Pfotenhauer.
Pfotenhauer cited a recent Congressional Budget Office report to support her specious claims:
Senator McCain has his own legislation, and by the way, he’s largely supportive of the goals of the Webb bill. The problem is, it doesn’t do enough — it doesn’t it quickly enough and it does nothing to address reenlistment and retention. In fact, CBO, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if the Webb bill went through, we’d see a reduction in reenlistment rates of 16 percent.
Watch it:
But, as ThinkProgress has noted, the CBO report cited by Pfotenhauer actually shows that Webb’s bill would increase enlistment to such an extent that it would completely offset the loss in retention:
Literature on the effects of educational benefits on retention suggest that every $10,000 increase in educational benefits yields a reduction in retention of slightly more than 1 percentage point. CBO estimates that S. 22 (as modified) would more than double the present value of educational benefits for servicemembers at the first reenlistment point — from about $40,000 to over $90,000 — implying a 16 percent decline in the reenlistment rate, from about 42 percent to about 36 percent. […]
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-AZ), a co-sponsor of Webb’s bill who is also a veteran of World War II and Korea, has said that the flip side of the impact on retention is that “putting a big piece of cheese out there will induce more qualified people to join just to get this.”
The Army is in need of new incentives like Webb’s bill in order to attract higher quality recruits. Thus far, in 2008, 13 percent of the Army’s recruits have been granted “conduct” waivers for misdemeanor or felony charges, which is up from 11 percent in 2007 and 4.6 percent in 2004.
Transcript:
HEMMER: Nancy, I want to get to the back-and-forth between Obama and McCain in the campaigns today. That got pretty sharp, actually, about the G.I. Bill. Senator Barack Obama, listen here, on his address to McCain.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BARACK OBAMA, D-ILL.: I have great respect for John McCain’s service to this country. I know he loves it dearly and honors those who serve, but John McCain is one of the few senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it’s too generous. He thinks it’s too generous. I could not disagree with him more.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEMMER: Pretty sharp words there. Nancy, your response?
PFOTENHAUER: Oh, talk about just flagrant political pandering. I mean, that was so - that is diametrically opposed to the truth. And let me just point out that about this time last year, Senator Obama voted against $94.4 billion that would help our troops in a time of war.
Senator McCain has his own legislation, and by the way, he’s largely supportive of the goals of the Webb bill. The problem is, it doesn’t do enough — it doesn’t it quickly enough and it does nothing to address reenlistment and retention. In fact, CBO, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if the Webb bill went through, we’d see a reduction in reenlistment rates of 16 percent.
The other thing that’s critically different with Senator McCain’s legislation is that he supports transferability of education credits, and the Webb bill doesn’t do that. And what I mean by transferability, if you’re a veteran and you have education benefits but you are, for some reason, unable to take advantage of them yourself, Senator McCain’s legislation would allow you to give that to your spouse, give that to your child, make sure that they’re allowed and your family is still allowed to benefit.
HEMMER: Nancy, not to split hairs here, but this an important here, from what I understand, McCain’s proposal would take longer for servicemen and servicewomen to qualify for education subsidies. Is that it in a nutshell?
PFOTENHAUER: That is not my understanding, Bill. My understanding is that we are more generous upfront but it’s a graduated scale. So that the longer you stay in the military, the more you are compensated. And that is absolutely essential for retention.
HEMMER: All right. One of the many issues we’re going to get into over the coming weeks and months ahead, OK? Nancy Pfotenhauer, good to have you on tonight, all right? Come on back.
PFOTENHAUER: Thank you, Bill.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
29 Responses to “McCain Adviser Misleadingly Cites CBO Report, Says Webb’s GI Bill ‘Does Nothing To Address Reenlistment’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
I’m so very sick and tired of these LYING scumbags…
May 13th, 2008 at 6:16 pmGood lord, before anyone thinks of voting for McCain, they should imagine nutty McCain campaign employees like Pfotenhauer receiving top level jobs within our government.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:21 pmGood lord, before anyone thinks of voting for McCain, they should imagine nutty McCain campaign employees like Pfotenhauer receiving top level jobs within our government.
After Bush administration incompetence, the bar’s set pretty low. I think incarcerated felons are about the only ones disqualified from republican service, now.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:26 pmWell anyone reenlisting certainly are not paying attention to what Bush’s crime family has been up to, as well as anyone enlisting…is it worth getting killed or maimed to satisfy Bush’s blood lust? I don’t think so.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:29 pmSince the Pentagon is currently crowing about high retention rates, this republican talking point is nonsensical.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:30 pm“Sen. John Warner (R-AZ)”
Damn me! When I went to bed last night in Arizona the Senators were Kyl and McCain. How did I wake up in Virginia?
May 13th, 2008 at 6:31 pmPfotenhauer needs to take this up with the American Legion. According to them, she’s full of crap.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:33 pmFolks, they lie. McSame has nothing to work with. No issues - except more of Bush, no new ideas, no good advisors, no good strategies for America, nothing but war and more loss of prestige and standing in the world. His well is empty, just like his campaign.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:40 pmUtter and completely unadulterated bullshit.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:42 pmNancy Pfotenhauer, a senior policy adviser to Sen. John McCain
- - Pfotenhauer’s pfalse and her pfaux claim is pfradulent. Pfist-her.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:45 pmAnd, my friends, please note the complete ‘get out of scrutiny’ card being played in the last paragraph of the ‘reporter’ (sic) dialog.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:46 pm“…Nancy Pfotenhauer, a senior policy adviser to Sen. John McCain…”
Who’s this “instant expert”?
May 13th, 2008 at 6:48 pmThe leather version of Dana Perino?
McCrazy’s campaign theme: Total Disinformation and Brain Farts!
May 13th, 2008 at 6:56 pmYou can bet the ranch that if this kind of inaccurate information was peddled by a Clinton or Obama campaign insider, it’d be plastered all over prime time news! Where is the equality? I know where it is - it’s attached to the huge “payoffs” and bribes going around the complicit whoring media, that’s where.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:57 pmSorry OT, but
May 13th, 2008 at 6:58 pmThinkProgress won the 2008 Sidney Hillman award for Best Blog. The announcement of the award appears in today’s New York Times.
The Webb bill always is more generous than the McCain bill. The McCain bill sets a uniform amount per month that is not indexed to actual college expenses. The McCain bill does not grant any benefits until a six year enlistment. Note, it takes twenty years to receive retirement benefits. Thus, one would have to spend a quarter of their time towards career status to obtain any benefits. Full benefits are not achieved until the 12 year point, more than half way to retirement. Thus we are asking recruits to either make the military a career or give up 6 to 12 years of retirement benefits (they will not be at a company or have a 401k) from the military.
We do know that we will get a substantial increase in the qualifications of recruits under Webb’s plan. You know you can serve your country, gain an education and still have a long, productive life in the military. A recruit would be likely to supplement their retirement benefits after using the Webb educational benefits by remaining in the reserves. (Note that one could remain in the reserves under the McCain approach to partly offset the loss of work years towards retirement in the civilian sector - a poor trade considering fewer benefits at the six year point and full benefits at the twelve year point.)
We know that many of these recruits would be available past their initial enlistment to be recalled with a reserve or national guard unit, stop loss or under individual reserve commitment programs. However, they would be adequately recompensed for those risks with the new benefits.
The CBO report does not mention the benefit to the economy. It was estimated that the return to the nation of those WWII GI Bill was $7 for each $1 spent on the veteran. It is what gave the United States a vibrant middle class as well as a superior workforce.
Today, we are seeing declining enrollment of our youth in the economy. One of McCains economic advisers states that a lot of outsourcing of jobs to overseas location is as the result of a poorly educated work force. Hmm, seems like an economic and national security issue to build a well educated, disciplined work force. You know, like we did with the original GI Bill.
We can expect McCain and his surrogates to lie on this issue just as they will on many others. We need to have Democratic surrogates who will raise these facts as well as the retention neutral impact of the bill on retention rates. However, this is unlikely to happen.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:59 pmSay ‘hello’ to the folks at Stepford Nancy.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:00 pmTo the author:
We must let the public and veterans know of the severe insufficiencies of McCain’s bill.
Here is a video where I presented Sen. McCain with the FACTS regarding retention and his bills inability to cover tuition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yp4prYtBWw (I know, it’s a little long, but this is a serious topic and deserves more than a one-liner question)
Key points against McCain’s bill:
For the average four and out servicemember McCain’s bill would still leave that vet with $20,000 in student loans over the course of a degree. What’s the point of transferability to dependents when it won’t even cover their college costs?
For someone who serves the 12 years and receives the full benefit they would still have $5,000 in student loans over the course of a degree, and that is without adjusting for the astronomical inflation of college tuition or the probability of increased expenses due to dependents that someone with 12 years in would have.
Bottomline, McCain’s bill only covers 70% of a college education for the typical veteran.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:07 pmNevar Says:
“…Nancy Pfotenhauer, a senior policy adviser to Sen. John McCain…”
Who’s this “instant expert”?
The leather version of Dana Perino?
Ja, Wohl!
One o’ dem NAZZY mamas for McNazzy!
Looks a bit ARYAN, no??
May 13th, 2008 at 7:09 pmHere’s some background on the GI Bill. Brilliant writing, I must say.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:14 pmThis really doesn’t matter that much because, by all reports, the media will scrutinize McCain much more after the general campaign begins.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:18 pmYou surely don’t expect a Republican to tell the truth, do you? That hasn’t happened in the last 8 years so it is expecting an awful lot for it to start happening now.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:23 pmIt’s Fixed News and she’s a rupuglican…what do you expect? The truth! HA! LOL…..
May 13th, 2008 at 8:06 pmWell she is somewhat of a feminist [Pfotenhauer is/was? president and CEO of IWF [Independent Womens Forum]] Well, the Anti-feminist/ERA Schafly supporters wont be thrilled about that.
She was formerly with Koch industries [Which funneled soft-money to Bush in his defeat of McCain thru ‘issue oriented’ commercials. Well, whatta u kno bout dat?
Yupp, definitely more of the McSame.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:52 pmthat lady is creepy looks like someone left her remote control in the dishwasher…
May 14th, 2008 at 3:32 amGiven her apparent lack of knowledge concerning McCain’s bill, I wonder how many of these “experts” have even taken the time to read the legislation?
Regardless, good news may be in sight my friends:
McCain reaches for GI Bill compromise
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10331.html
May 14th, 2008 at 7:12 amYe Gods! If these asshats had their way, the GI Bill would be cut in half, and veterans would only be able to use it ONLY after serving 40 years active duty.
sarc OFF!
May 14th, 2008 at 9:45 amMcSame Team:
ANOTHER “Expert” that can only bullshit the “facts” along . . .
Guess she joins Carley (his “Economic Adviser”) who took HP from a “contender” to near bankruptcy until the Board forcefully removed her . . .
McSame seems well on course to exceed the disaster of the Failed Bush Administration in “BushIII the Sequel” . . .
May 15th, 2008 at 2:11 amTo say that providing a better education to separating veterans is a draw on reenlistment is right.
But what of the system now?
There argument, in all actuality, is that it is more important to deprive 1st or 2nd term NCO’s of the number one recruitment tool used to convince them to join in the first place… Make no mistake of that!
Second, it is gross that they, as does the DOD and the JCOS, believe that a greater priority is the transferability of benefits. That is a good way to reward career servicemembers that don’t have the time or need for a degree (and the latter is being phased out), but their family members did not enlist (though it may feel like it). The spirit of this benefit should first cover those who were in harms way, those in the uniform, and when it does that satisfactoraly, then we can devise new strategies to make a military that offers opportunities that compete with leaving to go to school.
McCain is willing to punish those that leave by not supporting the Webb bill, It is very surprising that he of all people hope that they wont leave out of fear of transitioning back to civilian life (taking that unlike his Father and Grandfather he left the military). It is a common tactic I found to be used while they tried to retain me, and it is a despicable way to treat Veterans.
If you are near access to military members ensure that they know McCains position, they will be sure to pull their support of him this November.
May 25th, 2008 at 11:23 pm