CBO Report Proves McCain Wrong on GI Bill
Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:35:02 PM PDT
John McCain and George Bush’s opposition to Jim Webb’s GI Bill is clear. McCain’s primary rationale for opposing Webb’s bill is that it hurts retention rates. Bush is threatening to veto for that very reason. To bolster his argument, McCain cites a CBO report that indicates a potential decline of 16% in retention rates in a press release from his campaign.
At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.
Maybe McCain should actually try reading the whole report. He would find through careful reading that the CBO report shows the new GI Bill offsets lost reenlistments with more recruits. That's right, Webb's GI Bill is expected to INCREASE active duty troop levels.
McCain is playing with words to mislead the public and omitting information contained in the CBO report that contradicts his rationale for opposing the bill.
McCain misleads by touting a 16% decline in retention rates. A quick reading might suggest 16% fewer service members would reenlist at the end of their active duty commitment if the new GI Bill were in effect. But McCain is actually referring to retention RATES, not retained PERSONNEL. The CBO indicates that reenlistment would fall from 42% to 36%. This is a 16% drop in the retention rate, but actually represents just 6% fewer personnel reenlisting.
You may be wondering, why are you making a big deal about this. The basic argument stands that there would be fewer people reenlisting in the military. Which leads me to my second point about the information McCain is failing to tell the American public about the CBO report. The CBO expects that the new GI Bill would lead to an increase of 16% in enlistments.
Sixteen percent more people enlisting.
Sixteen percent more enlisting as opposed to 6% fewer reenlisting.
Surprise, surprise. The CBO numbers suggests that the new GI Bill would actually increase the size of the military.
In an organization that is looking to maintain relatively static active duty troop rates year over year, the number of new recruits should equal the number of troops leaving active duty (in other words, not reenlisting). In this equation, 16% more recruits obviously outweighs 6% fewer service members reenlisting.
There are other benefits, too. According to reports in the New York Times and the Boston Herald, the Department of Defense has encountered trouble maintaining the quality of its recruits as it strained to meet its recruiting goals. The DoD has accepted more high school dropout and granted more moral waivers to convicted felons in an effort to meet recruiting goals.
"The across-the-board lowering of the standards is buying problems in the future," said John D. Hutson, a retired rear admiral, dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, and a former judge advocate general of the Navy. "You are going to have more people getting in trouble, more people washing out" of the service before finishing their tour of duty.
The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon rushed recruits through at the end of 2007 to show they were meeting recruitment goals, short-changing 2008 recruiting.
"It's a very difficult environment" for recruiting and 2008 will be "a challenge," Freakley said. The Iraq war is unpopular, with parents and mentors increasingly worried about the dangers of combat. As a result, young people are less likely to serve, Freakley told defense reporters.
Webb's GI Bill would go a long way toward getting a higher quality applicant pool by attracting more people who have aspirations of going to college as well as serving their country.
McCain's refusal to support Webb's bill is effectively saying that he wants to populate the enlisted ranks with people who feel they have no other place to go. McCain doesn't seem to understand that not everyone wants to make a career out of military service. Many answer the call to serve with the expectation answering other calls in life after their active duty commitments have been fulfilled.
I guess if all you have to offer for foreign policy is endless war, then it makes sense that you don't want your troops to have any alternative to military service.
As for the economic argument put forth by McCain and the White House that this benefit is too costly relative to the service commitment required to qualify, they need to think again.
Someone entering the Naval Academy today would have $351,800 invested into his or her education (source) with 5 year active duty and 3 year reserve duty commitments after graduation. Under the new GI Bill, the vast majority of soldiers who would qualify for the benefit have 4 year active duty and 4 year reserve duty commitments. The CBO estimates the present value of the new GI Bill to be $90,000. That works out to a cost of $70,360 per year of minimum active duty for a USNA grad and $22,500 per year of minimum active duty for someone going to school under the GI Bill.
Where's your fiscal prudence argument now, Sen. McCain? Tell me, what is your real motivation for not supporting this bill?
And President Bush, who do you help by vetoing this bill?
Permalink | 9 comments