What GIs deserve

[babylonsister]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/06/09/what_gis_deserve/

What GIs deserve
June 9, 2008


MORE THAN six years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, it looked like the US House had found the elusive "sacrifice" that many Americans have wanted to make for their country. It was a request for the wealthiest taxpayers to help fund a new GI bill, offering full public college scholarships to US service members who joined up after Sept. 11 and have served at least three years.

Both House and Senate versions of the bill passed last month - the Senate's by a margin of 75-22. But the Senate stripped out one feature that annoyed the Bush administration and many other Republicans: a tiny surtax on top income-earners needed to fund the program.

Because the House adopted pay-as-you-go rules that require a revenue source for any new spending, its version included a .47 percent surcharge on incomes above $500,000 ($1 million per couple). Or, as Representative John Tanner of Tennessee said: "It comes from people in this country who have the most to give, to the people who gave the most." The Senate move has complicated ongoing negotiations, since many of the House's so-called Blue Dog Democrats - known for fiscal responsibility - won't support the program without a funding source.

snip//

The House bill is a window on how concentrated wealth has become at the top of the scale: a small minority of rich Americans making a fractional contribution can provide enough cash to finance the entire $52 billion (over 10 years) program. Does Bush really think they will miss a .47 percent surtax on income after their first $500,000?

Such stinginess didn't afflict Franklin Roosevelt, who in signing the original GI bill in 1944 said, "It gives emphatic notice to the men and women in our armed forces that the American people do not intend to let them down."

It's hardly too much to ask.