DISQUS

Forgive me, because I'm a relative newcomer to this site. Given the stated mission of the Center of Independant Media, I had hoped that those posting to this site had higher aspirations for "citizen journalism" than slanted partisan cheapshots. As a military member, I take the subject of Iraq seriously, and it pains me when people like Mr. Ackerman try to oversimplify a complex problem. That kind of "journalism" simply drowns out the voices of those who are actually doing serious reporting.

Mr. Ackerman - perhaps I misunderstand your role on this website. Do you expect to be taken seriously as a journalist, or are you content to be just another hack blogger? Your sarcasm does not make a very good substitute for your lack of serious analysis.

Perhaps I am naive in the ways of Washington, but it seems that the statement issued by the Whitre House is the usual to-and-fro with the Congress over policy differences. It is not, as your headline implies, a veto.

There is a reason why some elected representatives (and some of the armed services) are opposed to this bill. Proponents liken the current bill to the post WWII GI bill, but the situation today is very different. In WWII, we had achieved a clear military victory, and we had millions of men in uniform who were soon to be demobilized. Today, we have an on-going conflict, an all-volunteer force, and the cost of training soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines...especially in highly technical career fields....is substantial. The Air Force, in particular, spends a lot on training and has very high retention goals. If an education benefit is offered after only 3-4 years of service, it makes it more difficult to retain experienced people beyond their first enlistment.

This in no way denigrates the men and women who have served in wartime in recent years...but the services have very valid concerns about the effects this bill could have on retention rates.

There is a reason why some elected representatives (and some of the armed services) are opposed to this bill. Proponents liken the current bill to the post WWII GI bill, but the situation today is very different. In WWII, we had achieved a clear military victory, and we had millions of men in uniform who were soon to be demobilized. Today, we have an on-going conflict, an all-volunteer force, and the cost of training soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines...especially in highly technical career fields....is substantial. The Air Force, in particular, spends a lot on training and has very high retention goals. If an education benefit is offered after only 3-4 years of service, it makes it more difficult to retain experienced people beyond their first enlistment.

This in no way denigrates the men and women who have served in wartime in recent years...but the services have very valid concerns about the effects this bill could have on retention rates.

$55K for dumping hazardous waste in a landfill might seem like a stiff fine...until you consider that last year, NMED levied almost $500K in fines on the Air Force alone at Kirtland AFB for what amounted to paperwork errors. These fines seem to be based mostly on the NMED regulators assessment of how much the offending party can pay.

$55K for dumping hazardous waste in a landfill might seem like a stiff fine...until you consider that last year, NMED levied almost $500K in fines on the Air Force alone at Kirtland AFB for what amounted to paperwork errors. These fines seem to be based mostly on the NMED regulators assessment of how much the offending party can pay.