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.

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” . . .

sarc OFF!

Regardless, good news may be in sight my friends:

McCain reaches for GI Bill compromise

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10331.html

Pfotenhauer served in Bush I’s administration in various capacities that selected political appointees to Interstate Commerce Commission and Federal Trade Commission.

Bush II appointed Pfotenhauer to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women

Former director of Washington office of Koch Industries [major polluter fined by EPA but settled out of court with Ashcroft for a fraction]

Well 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.

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.

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.

Who’s this “instant expert”?
The leather version of Dana Perino?

– - Pfotenhauer’s pfalse and her pfaux claim is pfradulent. Pfist-her.