Another Reason to Elect a Democrat

I made the point earlier that substantial differences exist between the two major political parties on investing in the United States and its people. The rebuilding of the Gulf region after Hurricane Katrina was just one example, here is another.

Bob Herbert, the best New York Times opinion columnist shows us at least one instance where Republican presidents are categorically inferior to Democratic ones.

Mr. Herbert's topic: a GI bill for the 21st Century, which, like much else, cannot seem to find its way out of the US Senate, despite bipartisan support. With a President Kerry, we would already have this law on the books, but, well, when our nation continues to elect GOP candidates to run the executive, well...

"It’s awfully hard to make the case that these young people who have sacrificed so much don’t deserve a shot at a better future once their wartime service has ended."

Yet the current administration, in one of their worst moments, tries. Now, if they had maintained a Coolidge record of spending, well, I could comprehend (if vehemently dispute) their rationale. Yet, Mr. Bush's big-government conservative CV makes his opposition to this bill untenable.

What I like best about this proposed Webb legislation is that it does not paint the returning men and women of our Armed Forces as victims, a mistake liberals have made with the military since Vietnam. Visiting former troops at VA centers and offering better benefits is nice, but most soldiers would dearly love for the Democratic Party to treat them as people making a sober decision to serve their country--especially in this era--but Dems cannot do this because it would mean admitting war has its advantages. So we refer to them as victims, or, even worse, as duped "kids."

Yes, it would prove expensive; yes, given the different parameters of our world it may not make as enormous of a footprint as in the late-1940s. So what?

"This is bogus. The estimated $2.5 billion to $4 billion annual cost of the Webb proposal is dwarfed by the hundreds of billions being spent on the wars we’re asking service members to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. What’s important to keep in mind is that the money that goes to bolstering the education of returning veterans is an investment (italics in original), in both the lives of the veterans themselves and the future of the nation."

Furthermore, given the incredibly small measure of the population that has actually served from 2001-08, absent conscription, and given the incredible increase in US spending power since 1944, we can easily afford this. Then again, we could afford single-payer national health insurance too.

Barack Obama should embrace this legislation more forcefully and charge that Republicans, by and large, do not understand the concept of investing in anything outside their stock portfolios. And given that Senator McCain sides with the administration here (and on Katrina spending), he is a charter member of such a stingy and unimaginative group.