Senators, veterans promote GI Bill to send veterans to college

Senators, representatives, veterans, and other public figures gather at a rally in front of the Capitol to promote a new GI Bill that will cover the full cost of college education for veterans.


Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA)


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)


Veteran Lupe Saldana, Former National Commander, American GI Forum of the U.S.

Rally promotes new GI bill to send vets to college

Today various members of the House and Senate along with several U.S. veterans held a rally outside the Capitol to call for immediate legislative action on the “Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act.” Senators and representatives that included Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) addressed the crowd to rally support for the new GI bill that will cover the full cost of college for veterans, along with many recent U.S. veterans who were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11 and are now facing the difficult task of paying for a college education. Many older veterans also attended the rally to show support for the bill and the younger veterans.

Many of the veterans said that although Americans are often under the impression that the government fully provides for veterans’ education, it pays only a meager amount that still leaves them struggling to make ends meet through student loans, grants, and part-time jobs. Many also said they felt unappreciated because after the service they gave to to their country at great personal sacrifice, they received not even the means to a decent education in return. Pelosi said that America needs to “thank our veterans by sending them to college.”

The long, darn tunnel of recession

By Ellen Ratner

It's been a long time since Capitol Hill politics starting looking a lot like they used to: Personal animus is out and deal-making, pork and problem solving are back in fashion. That's the way it should be – our country currently faces some major problems that, for once, aren't the creation of some candidate's oppo research department.

America is looking down the long, dark tunnel of recession, or possibly worse. Rumors abound about deal-making on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, and of even greater importance to more Americans, a second stimulus package. Bush and his fellow corporate cowboys want the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, and the Democrats are eager to take care of their own, which are the folks most likely to be hurt in the current blizzard of bad economic news. House Speaker Pelosi managed to shrewdly kill the Colombia deal, but not because she dislikes either Colombia or free trade. Rather, it gives her something to swap with the Republican corporate cowboys in exchange for advancing part of the Democratic economic agenda.

These days things move at warp speed, and economic woes are no exception. The Democrats agreed with the first stimulus package; this time, the checks really are in the mail. But in the meantime, everything made out of or from petroleum has soared even higher, and it's an open question whether we'll spend our $600 windfall on gasoline, fuel oil, credit cards or mortgage payments. One thing is certain: $600 don't buy what it used to (starting from a month ago), and they surely aren't going to ease the pain as the promised blizzard of bad news turns pink from all those slips telling Joe and Sally, "You're Fired!" In short, if things were doing any better, the economy would only be terrible.

Last Thursday, several U.S. senators gathered with union leaders to figure out a second stimulus package. This was down and dirty – up for discussion were tax rebates, an increase of food stamps and adding more time to unemployment insurance eligibility. (Welfare reform was a great idea when the economy was booming; we'll see how many reformers are left if unemployment increases to 7 or 8 percent.)

Of all the proposals served up, extending unemployment benefits would likely help more people more effectively. The Joint Economic Committee's Democratic staff members agree, and they point to history: During the last two economic troughs into which the nation tumbled (1991 and 2001), Congress approved and a Republican president agreed to extensions of employment benefits. This is almost a bipartisan response to employment crises, and the only arguments usually revolve around how long to extend and how much to increase benefits.



Consider this: By this June, an estimated 1.3 million Americans will have exhausted their unemployment benefits, and this with a recession likely to be just beginning. People will find it tougher to get a job. And economists figure that nothing stimulates the economy or stitches the social safety net tighter than in providing adequate unemployment benefits.

Naturally, Bush is stalling. He argues that it's too soon for a second stimulus package because the first one needs time to work. Just as he was too slow to react to changes in Iraq, Bush is too slow on the economy – things are simply changing faster than his ability to convincingly procrastinate or argue that we should wait and see. In short, events are overtaking reaction time. There must be help before the job market turns ugly. There must also be more targeted help – and unemployment insurance does the trick.

The more one scratches the surface here, the more dangerous things appear. While the official unemployment rate remains low, the employment rate (those who actually have jobs) is lower than during the recession of 2001. That year 32 percent of people took the full amount of unemployment insurance. But now, even before we've officially entered a recession, 36 percent of those on unemployment have already exhausted their benefits. Today, many economists consider the employment rate a better indicator of job health than the unemployment rate. Hard to believe, but unless something is done soon, and if a recession takes hold, the American public may once again be facing the prospect of bread lines and soup kitchens.

More reliable and frequent data now allow analysts to understand the concept of "employment" far better than in former downturns. For example, "work" can mean full-time employment or a mere part-time job. Many unemployed people will take part-time jobs as a way to put food on the table; they may count as "working," but part-time doesn't pay the rent, mortgage or car payment. One fifth of today's part-time workers say they took their jobs because they could not find full-time jobs. In fact, the Department of Labor admits that the unemployment rate would be a whopping 9.1 percent if it included people who were marginally or part-time employed or those who needed and wanted to be fully employed.

The public should not be fooled. When government officials bloviate about the economy's overall health, look behind the numbers. There is a far greater crisis with employment than the gross numbers suggest and that the corporate cowboys would like to admit.

In the end, even die-hard Republicans come around to support increasing the length and amount of unemployment insurance. During past recessions, extending unemployment benefit eligibility had a direct effect on the GDP: For every dollar of paid benefits, demand was stimulated by $1.64.

I say let Pelosi play her political games. If that's what it takes to extract another stimulus package from the Republicans, so be it. In this political game, for once, the winner will be the American people.

Clinton Campaign: Obama thinks that the Democratic process is not in his best interest

The Clinton campaign held one of it's regular conference calls with Neera Tanden, senior policy advisor for Hillary Clinton, Howard Wolfson Communications Director and Phil Singer Deputy Communications Director.

Tanden started off summarizing Clinton's economic speech and her commitment to creating new jobs in the energy sector. A big emphasis of this was education and job training for workers to change into new, growing sectors of the economy and access to Pell grants for people who are working and studying.

When questioned about when the Clinton's tax returns would be made available Wolfson said that he had full confidence that the media would have everything they need to evaluate the Clintons within a week. When pressed about the delay, Wolfson said that Obama had delayed too when asked to produce tax returns.

When asked about Clinton's previous statement comparing the credentials for commander in chief to John McCain (i.e. Clinton saying I have experience in the senate and foreign policy, John McCain has experience in the senate and foreign policy, Obama has a speech he gave in 2002) the Clinton campaign reps said that there John McCain has credentials for foreign policy but he is wrong on the biggest foreign policy question of the day and that is the war in Iraq.

When asked about whether Hillary's comparisons to her credentials and John McCain's were a factor in recent Gallup polls that suggest that 28 percent of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain were the race to be between McCain and Obama. Wolfson answered that no, her comments have nothing to do with those numbers, which they discount because they are so close to the margin of error, and that the party will united around the Democratic nominee in the end.

The issue of the letter sent by Clinton donors to Nancy Pelosi came up. The letter told Pelosi to clarify her comments about superdelegates and emphasized the Clinton campaign's line that superdelegates should vote for whomever is best for the party and the country. The campaign reps on the call said that they did not help in drafting the letter and only received a heads up about it being send to the Speaker of the House.

The biggest criticisms of Obama from this conference call were:
-That Obama is not a creative thinker and he is a follower. He simply piggy backed on Clinton's $30 billion second stimulus idea.
- Obama believes that voter participation in the Democratic process is not in his best interest and he is the one standing in the way of the voices of Michigan and Florida voters being heard. Obama is the obstacle, not the legislatures or Democratic parties of these states.
- Obama, because he can not distinguish himself on policy matters, is resorting to pointed, intentional personal attacks on Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. The media is turning a blind eye to the hypocrisy of Obama's positive message about hope and unity.