GI Bill Debate

[Toledo Prophet]

Here is an issue our Senate is facing. Its about a modern version of the GI Bill. Curious as to what people think of, not to mention their are some pretty important names involved in the debate. I have cut and pasted an article in today's Politico, and in the second post, a write up from military.com. The third post is from The Hill. Interesting are the dates of the articles. Military.Com is 3/6, Hill is 4/22 and Politico is 4/30. Are we seeing coverage of this at all in our mainstream media? Anyway, happy reading and discuss the issue.

GI bill sparks Senate war
By DAVID ROGERS | 4/30/08 4:33 AM EST


From Annapolis to Vietnam and back to the Pentagon, John McCain and Jim Webb trod the same paths before coming to the Senate. Iraq divides them today, but there?s also the new kinship of being anxious fathers watching their sons come and go with Marine units in the war.

So what does it say about Washington that two such men, with so much in common, are locked in an increasingly intense debate over a shared value: education benefits for veterans?

?It?s very odd,? said former Nebraska Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey, a mutual friend. And that oddness gets greater by the day as the two headstrong senators barrel down colliding tracks.

An Arizona Republican, McCain has all but locked up the Republican presidential nomination and is preparing for a fall campaign in which his support of the Iraq war is sure to be a major issue. Yet the former Navy pilot and Vietnam POW makes himself a target by refusing to endorse Webb?s new GI education bill and instead signing on to a Republican alternative that focuses more on career soldiers than on the great majority who leave after their first four years.

Undaunted, Webb, who was a Marine infantry officer in Vietnam, is closing in on the bipartisan support needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate, where the cost of his package ? estimated now at about $52 billion over 10 years ? is sure to be an issue. But McCain?s support would seal the deal like nothing else, and the new Republican bill, together with a letter of opposition Tuesday from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, threatens to peel off support before the Democrat gets to the crucial threshold of 60 votes.

?There are fundamental differences,? McCain told Politico. ?He creates a new bureaucracy and new rules. His bill offers the same benefits whether you stay three years or longer. We want to have a sliding scale to increase retention. I haven?t been in Washington, but my staff there said that his has not been eager to negotiate."

?He?s so full of it,? Webb said in response. ?I have personally talked to John three times. I made a personal call to [McCain aide] Mark Salter months ago asking that they look at this.?

?Hell, no,? Webb bristled when asked if there had been an implicit message that he would attack McCain if he didn?t come on board.

"John McCain has been a longtime friend of mine, and I think if John sat down and examined what was in this bill, he would co-sponsor it,? Webb said. ?I don?t want this to become a political issue. I want to get a bill done.?

The debate will soon come to a head when Congress takes up the administration?s request for new emergency funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The current plan is for the House to take up a 2008 military construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations measure, strike its content and then layer in a series of three amendments that would include not only war funding but also very likely the Webb bill.

Mindful of this, the Gates letter represents a first shot by the Bush administration. Even as it went out Tuesday morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) attended a noon rally on the Capitol steps to support the Webb package.

McCain?s name never came up directly, but his old pal Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) joined with Webb. McCain?s absence fed into ongoing efforts by the Democratic National Committee to drive a wedge between the Republican and his supporters among veterans. ?It?s two birds with one stone,? said a Democratic aide.

?We have a lot of issues to debate in the campaign this year, but this really should not be one of them,? Webb told the Senate last week, in a warning to McCain.

?I don?t think Jim Webb is seeking political advantage,? McCain said. ?He?s sincerely dedicated to improving education benefits.?

But McCain?s camp has its back up and complains of being bullied by what it says are Webb?s demands to ?sign on? to the bill without being given the needed time ? and, some would say, due deference ? to make changes. The Gates letter, sent to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), echoes many of McCain?s arguments, and beyond politics, the fight underscores a real policy divide over how the nation views its professional military.

Iraq has been the most prolonged conflict for that military since the all-volunteer force was created after Vietnam. And while Gates, like McCain, focuses first on those willing to re-enlist for longer service, Webb believes the nation owes a debt to those who rotate out after one enlistment, which can often include multiple tours in Iraq.

?I?ve been doing veterans law for 30 years. The GI bill is designed as a readjustment benefit for people who leave the military,? Webb said. For the Marines and the Army ? which account for the brunt of the fighting ? he estimates as many as 70 percent to 75 percent rotate out after a single four-year enlistment.

Webb?s new GI education benefits would apply, then, to anyone who has served up to 36 months of qualified active duty beginning at the same time as or after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. ?These are the people who answered the call,? Webb said at the rally Tuesday. ?These are the people who moved willingly forward toward the sound of the guns.?

In private life, Webb is known as an officer who kept in touch with the enlisted Marines who served under him in Vietnam. And his rhetoric is a throwback to another era, when military service was seen less as an ongoing career than something undertaken for a shorter period, whether defined by the draft or enlistment during a war.

By contrast, Gates wrote in his letter that ?our first objective is to strengthen the All-Volunteer Force? and ?re-enlistments (and longer service) are critical to the success of the All-Volunteer Force.? From this vantage point, a too-generous GI Bill is counterproductive, and the defense secretary warns that ?serious retention issues could arise? if the benefit were extended above the average costs for a public four-year college.

The Webb bill shoots higher, promising payments up to the cost of more expensive state schools plus a monthly housing stipend equivalent to costs in the same area. The government could even match, dollar for dollar, any contribution a private college might make, if its tuition is more than that of the state schools.

This creates a new, more complex, multi-tiered system, which critics contend would be an administrative nightmare. By contrast, the Republican alternative backed by McCain seeks to build on the current benefits system dating back to 1985. All levels would be increased but not to the degree of Webb?s bill; the greatest benefits ? including the ability of career noncommissioned officers to transfer their benefits to their children ? would be extended to those who remained at least six years.

Warner, for one, is skeptical of the retention argument against the Webb bill. ?I think this argument that it?s going to hurt retention is very thin and tenuous, very thin and tenuous,? said the former chairman. ?The flip side of that is, putting a big piece of cheese out there will induce more qualified people to join just to get this. It should be a tremendous incentive for recruitment.?

?This happens in Washington. You have competing proposals side by side,? said McCain. ?We need to increase benefits. We share that same goal completely.?

 

[Toledo Prophet]

DoD Sweats Webb GI Bill
Tom Philpott | March 06, 2008
Webb's GI Bill Tagged as Threat to Volunteer Force

Defense officials are alarmed by the very real prospect that Congress this year will enact the robust GI Bill education plan designed by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). One Defense official, who declined to be named, described the bill as a "retention killer" for the all-volunteer military.

Webb reintroduced his bill, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (S. 22), last week with changes that attracted strong bipartisan support, including the endorsement of Sen. John Warner (Va.), former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"I'm just going to go full bore on this thing," Warner told Military Update in a phone interview.

That's a worrisome vow for Defense officials who believe enhanced post-service education benefits, particularly if enacted while troops face multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, could trigger an exodus severe enough to put the viability of the volunteer military at risk.


No one disputes Webb's claim that his enhanced GI Bill would boost recruiting sharply. But a Defense official said it also would encourage thousands of young service members, trained at great expense, to separate after completing their initial service obligation to attend college fulltime.

Webb, in an interview, described such arguments as "absurd."

The Department of Defense, he said, "is doing a very good job managing its career force, given the strains that are on it. But it's doing a very poor job of taking care of the people who don't come in for a career."

Raising GI bill benefits nearer to those offered to veterans returning from World War II, Webb said, will give every volunteer, particularly those with no intention of making the military a career, "a proper reward for their service" and a great tool for transitioning to civilian life.

Defense officials have to understand, Webb said, that a volunteer military is "only a career system to a certain point." The current system isn't properly rewarding those who enter "because of love of country, or family tradition, or the fact that they just want to serve for a while," he said.

The services, he said, "have got this one demographic group they keep pounding on and throwing money at. Yet there's a whole different demographic group that would be attracted to coming in and serving a term."

Webb declined to describe either demographic group in more detail.

His enhanced GI Bill would be available to any member, active or reserve, who has served at least three months on active duty since Sept. 11, 2001. The level of benefits would be tied to length of service. The $1200 member buy-in under the current Montgomery GI Bill would be returned.

The bigger change would be in the value of benefits. Maximum benefits, earned for 36 months' active duty, would cover tuition for up to four years at a level to match tuition at the most expensive in-state public school. The average across states is about $1900 a month. MGIB pays $1100.

Webb's bill also would pay a monthly stipend to cover living expenses. The stipend would reflect local housing costs near school and would be set to equal military Basic Allowance for Housing for married enlisted in grade E-5.

A feature added to win Warner's support would encourage private colleges to make their schools affordable to veterans. Schools that agree to pay half of their tuition in excess of the most costly state schools would see the government cover the remaining half. Thus academically qualified veterans could attend some of the best schools in the country. Warner said it's the kind of opportunity he got after World War II using the GI Bill.

The Defense official said that was a different era when the government was worried about long-unemployment lines from millions of returning draftees. A robust GI Bill now would make it difficult to keep careerists.

"Why would anybody stay for another deployment when they can go out on a four-year free ride, with guaranteed rent and utilities at the E-5 standard, which by long-standing DoD policy is a two-bedroom townhouse?"

Given current conflicts, this official continued, even volunteers who like service life might decide "to sit out for a year or two, in a large rented townhouse, and come back when things are more hospitable."

Such concerns can't be dismissed, Warner said. But he's still ready to give Webb's plan "a try." Today's veterans, he said, deserve it.

Senior defense officials declined to be interviewed. But Bill Carr, deputy under secretary of defense for military personnel policy, said in a written statement that DoD's top personnel initiative for Congress is to allow members with unused MGIB benefits to transfer them to spouses or children.

President Bush endorsed the idea in his State of the Union address. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he heard spouses ask about MGIB transferability at a town hall meeting with Army families. Transferability, Carr's said, "is clearly what those in uniform have clamored for."

Webb and Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), who introduced companion GI Bill legislation in the House (HR 2702), don't like the concept of encouraging service members to trade away earned education benefits. Too many veterans, Webb said, could come to regret the decision years later when they want to go to school or even after a divorce.

Scott said it also would be unfair to put members in a situation where they would be perceived -- or would perceive themselves -- as selfish if they withheld their earned education benefits from a spouse or a child.

Warner said he views transferability favorably, as a good retention tool. But he agreed with Webb, he said, not to include it in GI Bill legislation.

 

[Toledo Prophet]

Sen. McCain seeks cover with GI bill
By Roxana Tiron
Posted: 04/22/08 08:14 PM [ET]
Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) on Tuesday unveiled an overhaul of the GI bill to defend himself from veteran-group criticism and steal a bit of thunder from Sen. Jim Webb (Va.), a potential Democratic vice presidential candidate.


The move comes after McCain, a former Navy officer and prisoner of war, was heavily criticized by thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans for not supporting Webb?s bill. The criticism was unusual for McCain, who has relied on his military credentials during the campaign.



McCain?s bill is designed to enhance the existing Montgomery GI Bill, but will compete for Senate votes with Webb?s measure, which already has 57 co-sponsors, including Democratic presidential hopefuls Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).


Webb?s bill, which covers the full cost for veterans to attend a state university, also has the support of Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), McCain?s predecessor as top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Webb had been pressing McCain to sponsor his bill for weeks, but McCain refused.


Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close ally of McCain?s and co-sponsor of the bill, told The Hill it is not meant to compete with Webb?s measure.


?I hope we can just have a marrying of interests,? Graham said. ?We need to get this done.?


At the same time, McCain and other supporters of the new bill touted it as an improvement over Webb?s measure. Some military officials have worried the Webb bill?s wouls provide such an incentive for active-duty military to attend school that it would make it hard for the military to retain soldiers.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blasted the GOP bill as a ?pale shadow? of the Webb measure, and criticized McCain for having ?no problem spending $12 billion a month on an open-ended civil war in Iraq.? He said the McCain bill would shortchange veterans.


The McCain-sponsored bill aims to increase the $1,100 per month active-duty service members now get for educational expenses to $1,500. The sum would increase to $2,000 per month for a member who served on active duty 12 years or more.


In addition, under the McCain bill, members of the military could transfer half their benefits to their spouses and children if they serve for six years and all of their educational benefits if they serve 12 years.


Members of the National Guard and Reserves who have been called to active duty since Sept. 11, 2001, would receive $1,200 a month, an increase from $880.


Those who have entered the military through the Reserve Officers Training Corps programs at universities across the country would also be eligible if they continue to serve past their ROTC commitments, and would also be eligible to transfer benefits to their families. Graham said this would keep larger number of officers in the military.


?We should encourage service members to remain in the military, and they should be rewarded with additional benefits if they do,? McCain said in a release announcing his proposal.


Webb?s bill is the top legislative priority for several veterans? groups, including the nonpartisan Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). Its projected cost to the federal treasury is about $4 billion per year.


Webb has argued his bill is necessary because the current GI bill cannot pay for today?s cost of higher education.


The most a veteran can receive now is approximately $9,600 per year for four years. Those who served combat tours with the National Guard or Reserves are eligible for even less ? typically just $440 per month, or $5,280 a year.


By contrast, the College Board reports that the average four-year public college costs more than $65,000, or about $16,250 a year, for an in-state student. A private university costs on average about $133,000 for four years.


McCain and Graham have criticized the Webb bill as difficult to administer, and as hurting military retention.


Webb countered that assertions that his bill is too difficult to administer and too generous and would harm services? retention ?are wrong.?


?S. 22 is hardly too generous, unless these senators are prepared to say that the World War II GI Bill was too generous,? Webb said in a statement. ?To the contrary, during 15 months of daily cooperation with all of our major veterans? groups and many members of Congress, we have refined this legislation in many important ways. It is our best collective, bipartisan effort to mirror the type of benefits given to those who served in World War II.?


Statistics show that up to 75 percent of Army soldiers and Marines who enlist return to civilian life at or before the end of their first enlistment.


?The military is already doing a very good job of managing its career force,? Webb said in a statement. ?It is not doing a very good job of assisting this large group of people as they attempt to readjust to civilian life. A good GI Bill will increase the pool of people interested in serving, lower first-term attrition, and would have a negligible effect on retention itself.?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

T.P. They've increased it a little from the $340 a month I got

Wouldhave to see both plan comparisons to make judgement.

I do agree that guard and reserves are not entitled to same benefits as active unless they put in combat zone.

I also think anyone who serves in combat zone during time of war and is honorably discharged should receive tuition for 4 years--however should be some stipulations on grades. I know several (including myself) that took 12 hour minimum and skated for most part and squandered a good opportunity.

 

[IntenseOperator]

I have a very limited knowledge of this subject. The GI bill is something that is constant? I thought it was applied to the service in times of battle etc. One thing not in any of the articles....weren't most of the previous troops that took advantage of the GI bill drafted and not volunteers as in todays make up? I've also heard in the past the return via the higher tax base on the money invested with this bill in the past was very very good. The government ends up making out very well with this "subsity". :shrug: