Revamped GI Bill worries Pentagon but still has wide support in Senate
The New York Times this morning has a good piece on the ongoing Senate debate on a revamped GI Bill, which would provide more money for college tuition to war veterans. The impact of the GI Bill has been diminished by inflation, increased tuition and other costs. Once, veterans could earn a college degree with their GI benefits. That’s not true today.
Some senators want to increase the benefit, but the bill faces stiff opposition. Some people, especially those in the Pentagon, fear a mass exodus of military members, who still are desperately needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places. It’s politically sensitive for politicians, who want to be seen as doing everything possible for the troops. President George W. Bush has threatened a veto. The bill pending in the Senate passed the House with a veto-proof margin.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has authored a different version that he says addresses the Pentagon’s concerns about military staffing.
Read the NY Times story here.
Do you think the United States owes its war veterans an education when they return? Are you concerned about draining the military of active members?
Jamie Riley is the P-D letters editor and gatekeeper of the letters blog. Before joining the editorial page in May 2005, she was a reporter and page designer. Jamie lives in University City with her husband, Charles, daughter, Elise, and the world's best Jack Russell terrier, Logan, better known as Stinky. 
Like all others, this issue will become a political football and tool in the “gotcha” partisanship game. Why can’t the supposedly smart people we elect overcome the partisan one-upmanship and sit down and compose a logical approach.
Perhaps some combination of active duty education; length of service and combat time pro rating of benefits; transfer of benefits, etc. How about actually sitting down with some service members and see what their needs, preferences, and ideas might be rather than leaving it to politicians and bureaucrats to dictate?
We “Owe” them quality pay, health care benefits that actually cover their medical/mental expenses. If they would like to go to college, then it should be decided on case-by-case basis. How many years they served would determine how much the government would pay for their college education. If there is a mass exodus of military personnel, then obviously they don’t want to belong in the military anymore and do we really want unwilling soldiers???
“We “Owe” them quality pay, health care benifits that actually cover their medical/mental expenses.”
First of all, I think we owe them a whole lot more than that. But even so, our government is not even meeting this low benchmark of gratitude.
Second, do any of the politicians think that providing an attractive educational opportunity might actually entice more young people to join the services to begin with?
Third, the GI Bill that provided funds for college education was first employed for the veterans of WWII. This program literally changed the educational demographics of the country like nothing before and made the national economy stronger. Today’s soldiers deserve nothing less.
Fourth, a military career isn’t for everybody so don’t expect every person who enlists to stay in for 20 or 30 years. And yet, the American military’s “non-careerists” have proven to be the best fighting soldiers in the world. The American soldier has been known for over 200 years to be a citizen soldier. He’ll drop his plow don a uniform and beat the hell out of any enemy you can throw at him. But when it’s done, he’s ready to come home and return to his normal life. That’s been the American way. After 3 or 4 tours of Iraq, I say any soldier has earned the right to say it’s done. Let him come home and give him an opportunity to succeed in his “normal” life by granting him an education. He’s earned at least that.
I am offended by the idea that combat time would be tied to benefits.
I am also offended by the assumption that a true educational benefit to servicemebers would adversely effect recruitment.
Rentention, on the other hand, should not be at the expense of lackluster educational benefits that have been used to trick millions of volunteers into service. Nor should these benefits, that need repair, become a retention tool. All that would do is offset NCO’s leaving later in their career anyway…essentially 6-14 YOS would have greater reason to cut their career short. The trick is that the Pentagon knows these members arent going to leave anyway. Their true motivation is to retain first or second term NCO’s by ensuring opportunity for them on the outside is dismal. They should be ashamed. I hope that this news is making it to all the deckplates, airfields, and forward deployed units; this will make them think twice about what voting Republican does for their checkbooks.
By the way, even the new bill falls short of feeding or providing insurance for veterans performing roles as full time students.
Before we talk about how generous the bill is we should instead expose how little it still offers.
It is a glorified welfare check that I consider nothing but a supplement to student loans and part time work.
The GI bill should either pay for school, or their should be a law against the military recruiters claiming it does.
Yes, but SEn. Reid refused to allow McCain’s version which had the option of transfering the benefits to a spouse or child which is a good idea if the soldier did not want to use the benefit. The left-wing media failed to report this.
Instituting a draft would give everyone an equal opportunity/commitment to serve and would raise the consciousness of every citizen.
Imagine the stakes if everyone had something personal to risk. In that light providing an education would not seem so much to ask.
What kind of profit margins did the contractors get? Do you think they would be willing to share the wealth?