Did George Will just endorse Obama?

I think that he sorta did (emphasis added).

"It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?"

Go ahead...throw your vote away!

Dr. Paul issued a very interesting statement on his blog the other day declaring that when it comes to Obama and McCain, any distinction drawn between the two candidates is a "charade of great proportion." Strong words, Dr. Paul.

Ron believes that we all bear a moral responsibility to "[r]eject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues."

Interesting though. But as far as voting third party...I think this issue was pretty much closed by Kang and Kodos years ago (towards the end of the video, but the whole thing is worth watching).

Musings on the GI Bill

27 May Edit: Here are a few more links to flesh out the story, particularly with respect to the CBO study that McCain cites:

Link 1: NYT editorial
Link 2: Army Times article
Link 3: Think Progress blog

This article gives a fairly decent run down on the recent kerfuffle regarding the new GI Bill. To summarize:

McCain et al: The new bill will hurt retention and drive Sergeants out of the service after one tour. Make it a sliding scale that rewards multiple tours (Which is an argument worth considering, in my opinion)

Webb et al: One tour (3 years minimum) kinda sucks to begin with, and they're leaving anyways--we owe 'em this money. The current GI Bill never adjusted for inflation, so it doesn't pay nearly enough. (Which is also a compelling argument, even if it leaves out retention...)

Obama: I don't get how this McCain character could vote against vets going to college. (Which is just political sloganeering, something McCain is engaging in as well--"Obama hasn't served so he can't talk!")

And that's about as deeply as the issue is being discussed (from what I've seen, at least).

The Pentagon is having a hard time wrapping their brain around this one. Every bonus/benefit currently on the books, with the exception of the badly outdated GI bill, rewards extended service. Commit to an extra X years and receive Y dollars. Let the Army pay for your grad school and give them back 3 days for every day you spent on campus.

The GI Bill rewards you for simply signing up and serving honorably. So basically, what you're left with is this:

There WILL be a hit on retention with a beefed up GI Bill. It's intellectually lazy to ignore this effect outright. But it's also intellectually lazy to ignore the fact that there WILL be a boost in recruitment and there WILL be an incremental boost to the quality of the individuals recruited.

Neither side of the debate has, to my satisfaction, presented their model to support whatever impact (or lack thereof) the two bills will have on retention***. McCain is hinting at a model (he cites a 16% hit on retention) but I want to see the analysis to back that up. Obama makes a blanket statement that retention won't be harmed. Really?

All things being equal, I tend to lean towards McCain's proposal--improve the base line benefits, sure, and then tack on additional benefits for additional time served. Max it out at 6 or 8 years, maybe accelerate the rate you accrue the benefits based on the number of combat tours and/or stop-losses you serve through.

Or something like that.

***If anyone has seen analysis that supports either argument, please shoot it my way.