« Sarah Palin Divorce Denial and Salmon
GUEST VOICE: A Wish About Invective on This Day of Obama’s Birthday — and Mine »
The New GI Bill Is Now in Effect
Aug 4th, 2009 | 18 responses
As a Vietnam War era veteran, I received most of my higher education using the (“old”) G.I. Bill—with extensions—and with the help of other military educational programs and assistance.
So, on Monday, I was delighted to hear President Obama welcome the extension of GI Bill education benefits to our post-9/11 veterans with these words:
While so many were reaching for the quick buck, they were heading out on patrol. While our discourse often produced more heat than light, especially here in Washington, they have put their very lives on the line for America. They have borne the responsibility of war.
He also said that helping our veterans with educational and housing assistance is more than “a moral obligation.”
During the heat of last year’s elections, the debate on the new GI Bill at times became more of a political football than a moral obligation, with—founded or unfounded—concerns being expressed about the cost of the program, about the possibility that many troops would leave the military to use the educational benefits, etc.
Fortunately, eventually our debt—and moral obligation—to our military and veterans prevailed and In July of 2008 President Bush signed the Post-9/11 GI Bill into law.
The Post 9/11 GI bill that went into effect on August 1, 2009, creates solid education and other benefits programs, and becomes the most robust and comprehensive education program since the World War II “GI Bill.”
The legislation is expected to cost up to $70 billion over the next decade, but as President Obama said Monday about the previous GI bill, “[it] paid for itself many times over through the increased revenue that came from a generation of men and women who received the skills and education that they needed to create their own wealth,”, and “it produced hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers, doctors and nurses, the backbone of the largest middle class in history.”
According to USA Today:
First signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944, the GI Bill helped provide college educations for up to 8 million veterans from World War II, creating a social and cultural revolution in the Baby Boom years that followed.
According to AP’s Kimberly Hefling in, “New GI Bill sending veterans to school this fall,”:
Many veterans who served after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks are eligible for full tuition and fees for four years at a state university, a monthly housing stipend and up to $1,000 annually for books. Among those covered are members of the Guard and Reserve who spent three months or more activated for war service, giving them vastly improved benefits.
If they opt to attend a private institution or graduate program, they can receive aid up to the cost of a public college in the state. About 1,100 schools and colleges are offering additional scholarships for veterans that the VA is matching under a Yellow Ribbon program.
And,
It’s anticipated that 485,000 veterans or their family members could participate in the first year. About 112,000 claims have been processed so far, and more than 1 million callers have flooded a VA call center this year with questions. About 25,000 service members have applied to use the transfer benefit.
There are several sites on the Net that contain excellent details on the New GI Bill benefits.
Perhaps the best one is Military.com, where one can find details on:
Up to 100% Tuition and Fee Coverage
A Monthly Living (Housing) Stipend
Up to $1000 a year for Books and Supplies
A One Time Relocation Allowance
The Option to Transfer Benefits to Family Members
Other Benefits
Basic Eligibility Criteria
Other sites are:
Veterans Affairs Department: http://www.gibill.va.gov/
Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil/gibill
Nonprofit Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America: http://newgibill.org/
But, as Military.com cautions, “Only the VA can verify your personal eligibility for GI Bill benefits. Be sure to call them at 1-888-GIBILL-1 if you have any questions about your eligibility status.”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
18 Responses to “The New GI Bill Is Now in Effect”
This isn't surprising from people who aren't to be believed when they claim a need for reform of entitlements and fiscal savings, while planning to vastly increase public health care and related costs (a vast increase in entitlements and expenditures as well as taxes) and make token political cuts only.
Of course, with the health care evolving-fiasco-and-even-nightmare continuing, this bill will be small news.
Bravo, It's nice to see that our government occasionally does right by the men and women that did so much and gave so much for their country.
It's especially nice to see that the National Guard and Reserve Units, that did so much more than they 'signed on' for, will now receive benefits on par with the active duty troops.
SteveK -
100% in agreement with you on this one.
DLS:
I really don't know hot to take your comments, but, after spending over $900 billion (to date) on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (not to mention the 5,000 U.S. troops killed and over 30,000 seriously maimed and injured), I honestly don't think that spending $70 billion over the next ten years on the education of those who served us there, and sacrificed so much, is unjustified.
But that's just my opinion.
Dorian
This is heartening, certainly. Education funding is one thing that has shown again and again to pay off in the long run. Half a million newly educated people will be a great boon to everyone in a few years.
SteveK -
I just realized I should have warned you that I was about to agree with you.
The shock of that happening may have caused you cardiac arrest, and you without ObamaCare yet!
Thanks AustinRoth… Though we don't often agree let's all hope that the occasional agreement won't have adverse effects on either of us.
I've started a blog that complements this article. Its about helping our soldier's earn their degrees and take advantage of the G.I. Bill.
Looks like a good site, mmuehle. Good, useful links, too.
Thanks
Dorian
“I really don't know how to take your comments”
I'm not against the bill in and of itself, but reminded once more with its passage of the hypocrisy and misconduct of the Dems in Washington, including Obama. Also, that health care is such big news now this bill will be, as I wrote, likely “small news.” I.e., neglected and quickly passed by. I might add that normally the federal government should not engage in large new expenditures in order to try to “stimulate” the economy, the concept was worth trying, and arguably better than Iraq (and some will say Afghanistan); my criticism of the stimulus efforts so far have been with their incorrectness and impropriety, but I have given them a chance at the outset rather than resisted from the outset.
I could also add the observation that a broadly-accepted “New GI Bill” and the passage of it could have been timed to appeal favorably to the emotion of the public to assuage the public about, and to assist the Dems with, their ever-more-problem-ridden health care effort.
“I'm not against the bill in and of itself, but reminded once more with its passage of the hypocrisy and misconduct of the Dems in Washington, including Obama.”
This is the definition of ad hominem. You agree with the bill, but are against the people who passed it. Also, how is it hypocritical for the Dems to do exactly what they said they would?
“I could also add the observation that a broadly-accepted “New GI Bill” and the passage of it could have been timed to appeal favorably to the emotion of the public to assuage the public about, and to assist the Dems with, their ever-more-problem-ridden health care effort.”
So nobody should do anything good because it's somehow wrong that doing good things make the good-things doers look good?
The “New GI Bill” is merely a continuation (with modifications) of the old “New GI Bill” that passed LAST year under President BUSH.
Remember the old “New GI Bill”? It was in all the papers… LAST JUNE!
It was on the “Internets”, too:House OKs war funds, unemployment benefits
DLS says:
“I'm not against the bill in and of itself, but reminded once more with its passage of the hypocrisy and misconduct of the Dems in Washington, including Obama.”
and
“I could also add the observation that a broadly-accepted “New GI Bill” and the passage of it could have been timed to appeal favorably to the emotion of the public to assuage the public about, and to assist the Dems with, their ever-more-problem-ridden health care effort”
DLS :
For your information the GI Bill was passed last year during the Bush adminstration by an overwhelming bypartisan vote.
It was signed by President Bush (a Republican, I believe), in July 2008.
The implementation date of the bill was set for August 1, 2009.
President Obama had nothing to do with it except supporting it as a Senator last year, and celebrating its implementation as an American (and as president), on Monday.
It has aboslutely nothing to do with the “Dems ever-more-problem-ridden health care effort.”
Thank you for commenting, however.
Dorian
“I could also add the observation that a broadly-accepted “New GI Bill” and the passage of it could have been timed to appeal favorably to the emotion of the public to assuage the public about, and to assist the Dems with, their ever-more-problem-ridden health care effort.”
As others have noted, most legislation states when it will go into effect at the time it is passed, and it was passed and signed by President Bush in 2008. There's no way it could have been timed back then to coincide with the issues now. Of course, if they could look into the future and see what the debate of the day is, that would be quite a trick!
“This is the definition of ad hominem”
No, it's not. It's reacting critically (as well as logically) to past and present Democratic misconduct, which is normally triggered even when what is widely seen as good news can be announced.
“So nobody should do anything good because it's somehow wrong that doing good things make the good-things doers look good?”
No, obviously. (Of course, I needn't worry, because I never made such a claim…)
* * *
“President Obama had nothing to do with it except supporting it as a Senator last year, and
celebrating its implementation as an American (and as president), on Monday. [NOTE]
It has aboslutely nothing to do with the 'Dems ever-more-problem-ridden health care effort.'”
Announcing something positive at the same time the Dems have serious problems elsewhere did not go unnoticed by me — the contrast and the history making _all_ rightly subject to (_earned_) cynicism.
I don't “have” to feel “guilty” if others failed to notice this, and be cynical about this (and the Dems), too.
“'This is the definition of ad hominem'
No, it's not. It's reacting critically (as well as logically) to past and present Democratic misconduct, which is normally triggered even when what is widely seen as good news can be announced.”
Uh, yes. Yes, it is. You are reacting to the person, not to the idea. That is exactly what ad hominem means. Look it up. If your argument is that past and present Democratic misconduct means that no idea that comes out of a Democrat will ever be ok will you, that's fine and dandy (we all have our prejudices), but call it what it is: an ad hominem argument.
“I don't 'have' to feel 'guilty' if others failed to notice this, and be cynical about this (and the Dems), too.”
Cynicism and contempt, cynicism and contempt. These certainly are your primary qualities, and you certainly seem proud of that. Each to hir own, I guess.
some times they get it right. . .good news!. . . .