Past time to repay our troops' courage, sacrifice

Ripped from the wires ... In an editorial Tuesday, the Miami Herald called for a more generous GI Bill of Rights:

In 1940, during the Battle of Britain, Prime Minister Winston Churchill celebrated the daring crews of the Royal Air Force with stirring words: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.'' Today, something similar could be said about the men and women wearing the uniform of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never have so few U.S. soldiers been asked to sacrifice so much while so little was asked of the rest of us.

A good way to begin to set things right is for Congress to approve an update of the G.I. Bill of Rights. The original G.I. Bill was a way of saying "thank you'' to the generation that fought and won World War II. Enacted in 1944, it extended help for education, unemployment and the purchase of a house to returning veterans. Historians hailed it as a landmark piece of legislation. Over time, 8 million WWII vets signed up for the benefits and helped to make postwar America a better place to live. We need its modern equivalent today.

Rarely have U.S. soldiers been asked to do as much as is being asked of them in today's wars. The combat tours are longer, the equipment -- at least initially -- was inadequate, the size of the force was too small for the mission requirements and the political leadership of the Pentagon was not always spot-on. But even so, the troops have soldiered on without complaint.

They deserve something better than the current version of the G.I. Bill, which was crafted in 1985 and sharply limits benefits. The $1,100 cap on monthly checks for education was little enough 23 years ago, and it's even more insufficient today. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., and others have proposed to do more, but their Post-9/11 Veterans Act has been stalled in Congress by threats of a filibuster, despite widespread support in both chambers.

Now Democrats have tacked it onto President Bush's emergency spending measure for Iraq and Afghanistan. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the proposal would cost $51.8 billion over 10 years. That's expensive, but meeting the needs of veterans should be seen as a cost of the war.

It seems the least we can do for those who went to fight while others obeyed the president and went shopping, but the administration and some in Congress have balked because of the cost. Good thing they weren't around in 1944. The original G.I. Bill was expensive, too, but it was worth it.

The White House fears better benefits will make soldiers choose a college education instead of extending their enlistment. Not so, say supporters. If anything, better benefits might attract new recruits and offset any loss in enlistments. A better G.I. Bill is a reward for sacrifice, not a handout. It's time for Congress to act.

-- Miami Herald

Comments?

Comments

[PREFAB SPROUT]

Not only is this action long overdue, it has the support of Barrack Obama. And what of John McCain you ask? Mr. "I never met a war I didn't like" McCain DOES NOT agree with the premise that that soldiers deserve these benefits! So much for the tired old cliche about the GOP caring about the troops......

[Denney Clements]

Why did I list this piece in the "economic development" category? Because money invested in educating returning soldiers, sailors, airmen and women and Marines packs a powerful payoff down the line. The GI Bill of the 1940s sent many, many people who might not otherwise have received an education to college, including my father, a returned Navy veteran. The semi-generous GL benefits of the 1960s also helped get me through school (and buy my first house).

An education boost one's earning power, juicing up the economy. And people who earn more pay higher taxes. So it could be argued that if Congress and the president gut it up and pass this bill, the money spent will be returned to the taxpayers many, many times over.

This is the least we owe to the brave folks we've sent to the Mideast to fight for us, as we continue to live the good life, without much sense of sacrifice, here at home.

dc

[JoeAtHome]

Prefab,

McCain has issues with our military. He has voted against our military on numerous times in his history in DC. Don't blame the GOP, it's McCain "the maverick" alone in the pile on this one.

My .02,
DanielC in SC

PS. I say up the HE double toothpicks out of the benefits for our brave military personnel that have to deal with the task the "dogs of war" send them off to perform!!!!!!

[Mad Max]

I'm a soldier and I think I may vote Libertarian this time around.
I don't want, nor need a socialist fascist liberal, and I can't stand a RINO. So, I'm looking at Mr. Barr, the libertarian. Maybe Neal Boortz has it right.

[PREFAB SPROUT]

Anyone who uses the terms "facist" and "socialist" to describe the same person or party obviously knows the meaning of neither word!

A "socialist facist" would be like a "fat anorexic" or a "tall midget".

Keep listening to the right (wrong) wing talk radio propaganda Max!

[Nick]

Boortz?

*roll-eyes*

We need smilies on here.

[Richard L. Wolfe]

Prefab, the words may mean different things but a socialist and a facist do have one thing in common. They both want the state to transcend individual rights.

[Richard L. Wolfe]

There is one reason I like cigarettes so much. At least the cigarette knows it's a butt!