Does Ron Paul support Jim Webb's GI Bill?

[Knightskye]

Ron says we should support our veterans when they come home, but would he vote for Jim Webb's GI Bill if it came up for a vote?

 

[colecrowe]

bump

 

[DriftWood]

Ron says we should support our veterans when they come home, but would he vote for Jim Webb's GI Bill if it came up for a vote?

Good question. I would hope he would not.

However good the intentions are with this bill, it is a form of social engineering and "positive" discrimination. If education is so expensive that veterans cant afford it, then it would be less sneaky (and less destructive to the private free market) to just give military personal a pay rise so they could afford more of whatever they need once they got home. If the govt starts giving favors to one group of the population, then it happens at the expense of the people that don't get such favors. Imagine a country where the easiest way to get into college or to get good medical service is by serving in a war and becoming a veteran. A payrise would be much better, instead of making these kind of crude interventions into the private market. We all know that public education is wasteful use of money when compared to the private sector.. and this is a step in the direction of making the public sector larger. No wonder Obama support the bill.

Cheers

 

[luke-gr]

Is that the bill that would proposes free college education to soldiers with three years on the job?

I certainly cannot speak for Ron Paul, but I disagree with the bill. That would be a huge burden on the taxpayers and would drive tuition up like has happened with all the govt education subsidies thus far. And, all it would do is promote new recruits to join up for three years then head off for their free ride.

Something that Michael Scheuer pointed out in his book Imperial Hubris was that we, as a country, need to accept the fact that soldiers signed up for the job to be soldiers. We are not a country of militiamen anymore. The soldiers are being paid to do their job just as firemen, policemen, and oithers who put themselves in harms way are. I dont think we have had a shortage of soldiers (and there sure would not be if we pulled them out of all the other countries). Please do not take my words as belittling the service of our men and women in the armed forces, but they do get a salary, meals, health care, etc. But, if we are having a shortage of willing new recruits the government should look at its policies and think about WHY young men and women are not signing up.

 

[jmdrake]

Driftwood, I couldn't disagree more. While some may go into the military for educational benefits others (such as Pat Tillman) actually give up lucrative careers out of their sense of duty. Sure the Iraq war is BS but Tillman thought he was signing up to fight "Al Qaeda". As far as "good medical service" are you kidding? Did you not read the reports about Walter Reed hospital? For the record veterans deserve good health care because the things our government asks them to do puts their health at greater risk than the general population. (Depleted uranium, PTSD, amputations, head injuries etc.) I've got nothing against greater military pay, in fact that is deserved. But to call taking care of veterans "social engineering" is beyond the pale.

Luke, I agree with the fact that the government needs to review its policies and certainly if the intent of a veterans bill is to "entice recruits" then it is misplaced. But that takes nothing away from the duty of a nation to take care of those who have sacrificed and put their lives on the line for this country regardless of how stupid our leadership has been. Here is a speech from Ron Paul taken from the Ron Paul Library.

Congress narrowly passed a budget last week that calls for the federal government to spend in excess of 2 trillion dollars in 2004, which is more than double what the federal government spent in 1990. Yet while Congress finds hundreds of billions to fund every conceivable unconstitutional program and special-interest pork project, it fails to provide adequately for our nation’s veterans. In fact, the budget passed by the House calls for cuts of $15.1 billion from veterans programs over the next ten years. These cuts will affect programs that provide education benefits, compensation for veterans with service-related disabilities, and pensions for disabled veterans.

We should understand that veterans programs, unlike so many federal programs, are constitutional. The Constitution specifically provides for Congress to fund armed forces and provide national defense. Congress and the nation accordingly have a constitutional obligation to keep the promises made to those who provide that defense. This is why I support increased funding for veterans, while opposing the bloated spending bills that fund corporate and social welfare, pork favoritism, and special interests at the expense of those veterans.

Unfortunately, the trust that members of our armed forces put in our government has been breached time and time again, and last week’s budget vote represents anther blow to veterans. Even as we send hundreds of thousands of soldiers into Iraq, Congress can’t get its priorities straight.

We should remember that Gulf War I and II will swell the ranks of our combat veterans, many of whom will need medical care as they grow older. Congress should immediately end the silence and formally address Gulf War Syndrome, which has had a devastating impact on veterans who served in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. As a medical doctor, I believe the syndrome is very real, and likely represents several different maladies caused by exposure to conditions specific to the Gulf region at the time. Congress and the Veterans Administration should stop insulting our Gulf War veterans and recognize that the syndrome is a serious illness that needs treatment. We can only hope and pray that our soldiers in Iraq today do not suffer from similar illnesses in the future. Congress must, however, ensure adequate funding for the medical care that today’s soldiers will someday need.

Having served in the U.S. Air Force for five years, I feel an obligation to our veterans and current armed forces. Congress wastes so much money that only a small portion of that waste could make a huge difference in the lives of our veterans. Depending on what the Senate does, Congress may have a chance to revisit the 2004 budget and find the resolve to fully fund needed veterans programs.

There you have it. Ron Paul is spoken. Special programs for veterans are constitutional.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ron says we should support our veterans when they come home, but would he vote for Jim Webb's GI Bill if it came up for a vote?

How does his GI Bill differ from the current one?

I read something above that will offer them free educations. But don't they currently receive free educations in the military?

 

[DriftWood]

Double post.. sorry

 

[DriftWood]

Driftwood, I couldn't disagree more. While some may go into the military for educational benefits others (such as Pat Tillman) actually give up lucrative careers out of their sense of duty. Sure the Iraq war is BS but Tillman thought he was signing up to fight "Al Qaeda". As far as "good medical service" are you kidding? Did you not read the reports about Walter Reed hospital? For the record veterans deserve good health care because the things our government asks them to do puts their health at greater risk than the general population. (Depleted uranium, PTSD, amputations, head injuries etc.) I've got nothing against greater military pay, in fact that is deserved. But to call taking care of veterans "social engineering" is beyond the pale.

Luke, I agree with the fact that the government needs to review its policies and certainly if the intent of a veterans bill is to "entice recruits" then it is misplaced. But that takes nothing away from the duty of a nation to take care of those who have sacrificed and put their lives on the line for this country regardless of how stupid our leadership has been. Here is a speech from Ron Paul taken from the Ron Paul Library.

Congress narrowly passed a budget last week that calls for the federal government to spend in excess of 2 trillion dollars in 2004, which is more than double what the federal government spent in 1990. Yet while Congress finds hundreds of billions to fund every conceivable unconstitutional program and special-interest pork project, it fails to provide adequately for our nation’s veterans. In fact, the budget passed by the House calls for cuts of $15.1 billion from veterans programs over the next ten years. These cuts will affect programs that provide education benefits, compensation for veterans with service-related disabilities, and pensions for disabled veterans.

We should understand that veterans programs, unlike so many federal programs, are constitutional. The Constitution specifically provides for Congress to fund armed forces and provide national defense. Congress and the nation accordingly have a constitutional obligation to keep the promises made to those who provide that defense. This is why I support increased funding for veterans, while opposing the bloated spending bills that fund corporate and social welfare, pork favoritism, and special interests at the expense of those veterans.

Unfortunately, the trust that members of our armed forces put in our government has been breached time and time again, and last week’s budget vote represents anther blow to veterans. Even as we send hundreds of thousands of soldiers into Iraq, Congress can’t get its priorities straight.

We should remember that Gulf War I and II will swell the ranks of our combat veterans, many of whom will need medical care as they grow older. Congress should immediately end the silence and formally address Gulf War Syndrome, which has had a devastating impact on veterans who served in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. As a medical doctor, I believe the syndrome is very real, and likely represents several different maladies caused by exposure to conditions specific to the Gulf region at the time. Congress and the Veterans Administration should stop insulting our Gulf War veterans and recognize that the syndrome is a serious illness that needs treatment. We can only hope and pray that our soldiers in Iraq today do not suffer from similar illnesses in the future. Congress must, however, ensure adequate funding for the medical care that today’s soldiers will someday need.

Having served in the U.S. Air Force for five years, I feel an obligation to our veterans and current armed forces. Congress wastes so much money that only a small portion of that waste could make a huge difference in the lives of our veterans. Depending on what the Senate does, Congress may have a chance to revisit the 2004 budget and find the resolve to fully fund needed veterans programs.

There you have it. Ron Paul is spoken. Special programs for veterans are constitutional.

Regards,

John M. Drake

All I'm saying is that the best way to help veterans (or any other group that does a service to their country) is to simply pay them more, not create special rules and quotas that only apply to veterans. That way you don't create this weird economy where everything has two prices. One that is denominated in dollars (that none-veterans pay), and another denominated in some kind of special rules quota system (that veterans use). These kinds of dual economies and price fixing has been tried in the past and they are very destructive, because prices are no longer set exclusively by the market and genuine supply and demand. Prices are in some way controlled by govt, that has no idea about reality. So i say if you want to help veterans just pay them more. Thats a much better idea. I don't mean to disrespect veterans, but in the name of equality shouldn't all public service men then get these kinds of benefits. What about the police, the firemen, even the street sweepers. They are all doing their country and the public a service in one way or another.

Also as a veteran would you not rather get the money and be able to choose on what to use it for, that way you would use it to get what you are in most need of. Instead veterans are forced to use this money for education even if that is not what any individual veteran need the most. Politicians are deciding what veteran most need even though they cant know what every individual veteran most needs (that is what i referred to as social engineering). Money is in some way being wasted on things that are not need the most. Money is misdirected and supply comes out of sync with actual demand. That is destructive to the whole society. Money is not being channeled to where it is most needed.

So all I'm saying is that paying veterans more is a much better way to help them. That way you get the market and the price system to work for you instead of against you.

Cheers

 

[Knightskye]

not create special rules and quotas that only apply to veterans.

Dude, they fight to defend our country. They're risking their lives. They deserve some special treatment when they come home. Mailmen get barked at. Businessmen type at computers and answer the phone. Presidential candidates lie about getting shot at by snipers. People in the military get shot at, and sometimes hit. There are just some jobs that require "special rules".

 

[DriftWood]

Dude, they fight to defend our country. They're risking their lives. They deserve some special treatment when they come home. Mailmen get barked at. Businessmen type at computers and answer the phone. Presidential candidates lie about getting shot at by snipers. People in the military get shot at, and sometimes hit. There are just some jobs that require "special rules".

Dude, why not pay them more money? That way no special rules are neccessary. Its just the method im against. Im all for veterans getting all they need. Risking your future and whole life, should correspond to a very high pay.

Cheers

 

[Knightskye]

Dude, why not pay them more money? That way no special rules are neccessary. Its just the method im against. Im all for veterans getting all they need. Risking your future and whole life, should correspond to a very high pay.

Cheers

1. How much would it cost to "pay them more money"?

2. How much would it cost to fund their education?

 

[DriftWood]

1. How much would it cost to "pay them more money"?

2. How much would it cost to fund their education?

I guess you have a point, "the root problem" is that people are willing to join the army even at these low wages. The people are not demanding to be payed for the high risk involved. One might say that the wages do not make business sense. As long as people are joining at these low wages the military or state will have little reason to voluntarily make them higher. I guess the low wage comes down to a feeling of duty, and self sacrifice.

Even if the veterans are rewarded with benefits instead of money, the Govt still has to figure out how much benefit veterans will need, how much it will cost, and how much it can afford. However doing it this way is more inefficient because it involves more central economic planning, instead of just letting the market figure it out. If soldiers knew that there where no benefits, they would probably demand a higher wage and the market could take care of their needs.

Cheers

 

[Pauliana]

He's really strong on veterans affairs. He got this question on NPR the other day and said he considered the GI bill part of their pay for serving the country. I agree.

If it came up by itself, he would probably seriously consider voting for it I bet. But its more likely to be tucked into some other obnoxious bill he can't support. Then he'd vote no.

 

[Knightskye]

However doing it this way is more inefficient because it involves more central economic planning, instead of just letting the market figure it out. If soldiers knew that there where no benefits, they would probably demand a higher wage and the market could take care of their needs.

Cheers

Well, they could get a pay raise and then get screwed because of rising educational costs, or they could have the government foot the bill for their education and not worry. If someone's fighting to protect my country, I'd want them to be worry-free about pursuing an education when they get back.

Here's some of the text of the bill (H.R.5740):

`(A) An amount equal to the established charges for the program of education, except that the amount payable under this subparagraph may not exceed the maximum amount of established charges regularly charged in-State students for full-time pursuit of programs of education by the public institution of higher education in the State in which the individual is enrolled that has the highest rate of regularly-charged established charges for programs of education among all public institutions of higher education in such State.

`(B) A monthly housing stipend in an amount equal to the monthly amount of the basic allowance for housing payable under section 403 of title 37 for a member with dependents in pay grade E-5 residing in the military housing area that encompasses all or the majority portion of the ZIP code area in which is located the institution of higher education at which the individual is enrolled.

`(C) A yearly stipend for books, supplies, equipment, and other educational costs in the amount of $1,000.

Explain the "central economic planning" thing that you keep repeating.

 

[hrdman2luv]

Our combat troops should get, because they deserve it, the very best pay, medical benefits, college education, and retirement that money can buy.

But, if Congress is going to pass a bill about education for Soldiers, then they should pass a bill just about education for soldiers. And not put all the other stuff in it.

 

[qh4dotcom]

Here's what Ron had to say about the veterans' bill

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst052508.htm

I have to respectfully disagree with RP on this one....what happened to his strict adherence to the Constitution? The Iraq war is unconstitutional so all expenses related to the war like this GI Bill are therefore unconstitutional. There is a reason why RP has voted against funding of the war. The Founding Fathers never had troops in 130+ countries...the last thing they would do is steal from the taxpayers, print money or borrow from China to pay such extravagant, unconstitutional, military expenses. Troops that disrespect the Constitution and fight in unconstitutional wars without a Declaration of war from Congress as required by the Constitution don't deserve a penny. If Bush is a war criminal, then why do the criminal's accomplices who carry out the crime (the troops, generals, etc) deserve be rewarded?

Troops who do obey the constitution are another story.....those deserve what the Founding Fathers would have deemed as appropiate.