'President Bush has threatened to use his rarely flexed veto pen against this measure if it contains a bipartisan expansion of the GI Bill of Rights and other veterans benefits.

Bush says the benefits package shouldn’t be tied to supplemental military funding. And he says it costs too much: $51 billion over 10 years. That sounds expensive, yes. That is, if you stand it up beside the Tyrannosaurus that is the supplemental bill for Iraq and Afghanistan: $195 billion for not even one whole budget year.

By contrast we’re talking about $2 billion a year for veterans who have laid it on the line for what’s adding up as a $2 trillion enterprise.

The bipartisan “New G.I. Bill” legislation authored by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., would nearly double current benefits for college, tying them to cost of living and in-state tuition rates.

It also would end a $1,200 buy-in enrollment fee under current GI Bill.

Sen. John McCain has sided with the president in opposing it. Although he supports increasing education aid, McCain says this is too expensive...' www.wacotrib.com

Should the G.I. Bill of Rights be expanded?

Absolutely, positively, yes it should be passed. We're talking about the only group of Americans who did anything except shop. Except of course for President Bush. He gave up on golf.

The argument that it would encourage military people to leave the service is countered by the fact that this would spur new enlistments. Instead of brutal back-to-back deployments, these veterans could look forward to a brighter future.

Plus, they will pay for all this through increased tax payments as their earning power is enhanced through education. Better for them, better for the rest of us, too.

Dwight

Of course it should. But you have to remember that many Republicans today, especially ones in this administration, think supporting the troops means wearing a flag pin and voting for more money for Iraq. Once out of the service, the veterans get lousy health care and the benefits they were promised aren't aren't a reality.

Once again, McCain should be ashamed of himself. (The other guy saying it cost too much has no shame; that much has been made very obvious over the last 7+ years.)
--------

Note that McCain received a free college education courtesy the taxpayer, and bush came from a wealthy family who could easily afford not only college costs but private tutors. Anyone with a child in college in the last few years knows how much college costs have soared.

Well, darn it, how about not attaching the G.I. Bill to supplemental funding? It is strong enough in principle to stand on its own. With the magnifying glass on the G.I. Bill by itself, let the politicians stand up and be counted.

After years of complaints about America's youth, we have the makings of another great generation of war veterans. These people need the advantage of an education they are missing while putting their lives on the line.

(And anyone who is strong enough to be admitted to the United States Naval Academy can still attend for free, plus a salary from which to pay for books, uniforms and personal expenses.)

What about members of Congress who are opposed to the supplemental funding bill?

Must they, by default, vote against G.I. Bill funding?

Let it stand on its own.

This is a game that Republicans and Democrats play with each other all the time. There is some justice, however, in seeing the Republicans facing calls of not being patriotic because they wouldn't pass a bill. The Halls of Congress are not one way halls.

I've been paying attention to politics for 40 years, and the Congresses under the Republican Revolution were the worst I have seen with regard to compromise. Basically, a Democrat had to agree with everything the Republicans wanted to get a single issue passed. The pendulum has swung back again (and may keep on swinging for another two years), and I know that what is happening isn't right, and it isn't pretty. But it is understandable. If you are looking to place blame, start with Delay, Gingrich, and Lott. There are many others on both sides of the aisle that are to blame, but those three stand head and shoulders below the rest.

"I support the war in Iraq," Pence said on the House floor. "I have supported it from the beginning. But though I support providing the troops with the resources they need, I cannot support this war supplemental bill.... Higher taxes and higher domestic spending put on the backs of our soldiers is indecent." Mike Pence (R-Indiana), on why he voted against the war funding bill

Would anyone like to have a stab at explaining what he means by 'Higher taxes and higher domestic spending put on the backs of our soldiers is indecent'?

Meanwhile - 'A measure that would give veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan full four-year scholarships, dubbed a new G.I. Bill, also passed by a vote of 266-166, short of the two-thirds needed to override the promised veto by President Bush.

The added benefits would cost $52 billion over 10 years and would be paid for by a 0.5 percent surtax on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.

Calling the new tax a "patriot premium," Democrats argued that it was time for wealthy Americans to share in the sacrifice that troops are making in Iraq.' Republicans block Democrats' war funding bill

The Pentagon has rejected this bill because it would interfere with troop recruiting and reenlisting.

That's enough reason for me to say that Congress needs to leave this one alone.

Bravo to Bush for the threat. Democrats in Congress don't seem to care about the condition of our military during a time of war.

(By the way, I paid for, received and used the G.I. Bill. I would by far prefer what is good for the organization, not what is good for me.)