|
Post by gailkate on May 14, 2008 10:29:47 GMT -5
Yesterday I posted an article about possible 3rd party challenges to Mccain - but I put in in the potluck thread, which is getting overloaded. So this is for things relating not only to McCain, but to things generally conservative. We can try to keep that distinction for a little while at least. Two bills pertaining to GI Bill-type benefits are being debated in the Senate. McCain and Graham support one which they say encourages reenlistment, while most everyone else supports a bill that does not require reenlistment. I think everyone agrees that the old benefits are insufficient in this time of rising tuition costs. The issue is what's fair and whether the benefits are seen as a reward for service or an incentive to stay in service. At least that's how I'm seeing the differences. what do you on the right think of this?
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 14, 2008 19:23:20 GMT -5
Good idea on the thread, Gail, but there aren't many conservatives trekking though these woods. Truly, there is fodder aplenty, but the canons are running thin. Well, I can't think of any more awful metaphors.
I'm not familiar with the McCain-Graham proposal, but I can see the point of reenlistment as a contingency for added benefits. In the absence of a draft, we need to do whatever we can to retain quality, experienced troops.
Insofar as compensation is concerned, I'd fully support measures to increase the base pay 10% for all enlisted personnel and company grade commissioned officers. The only contingency is that the service membr has to be on active-duty status.
Additionally, I'd throw any unwed female soldier, marine, airman, or sailor out of the service if they became pregnant. Too much money is spent on dead weight.
That's it for now. Maybe later if/when the crickets quiet down.
|
|