« Bill Moyers admits bias
Feeding the Hungry: You Can Help, Get Out Your Green Thumb Baby, Put Your Wig-Hat on Your Head »



The New G.I. Bill Revisited

June 8th, 2008
By DORIAN DE WIND

Print Print

Now that the drama of, and the headlines-grabbing by, the Democratic primaries are over, perhaps Americans can focus again on the other important issues facing us. Issues such as the economy, the war in Iraq, and vital legislation languishing in Congress.

One of these pieces of important legislation is the new G.I. Bill. That is the upgraded G.I. Bill sponsored by Senators James Webb, (D-Va), and Chuck Hagel, (R-Neb). A bill that enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House, and one that would begin to restore educational benefits to our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, similar to the benefits that were enjoyed by our World War II veterans under the original 1944 GI Bill.

While 75 U.S. Senators have voted for this bill–neither Senator McCain nor my Texas Senator Cornyn were among them–and while an overwhelming majority of Representatives, including my Representative Lloyd Doggett, have voted in favor of it, “support-the-troops” President Bush continues to threaten that he will veto this bill.

Hopefully, this bill will come up for a final vote this week of June 9th. Hopefully, patriotism and our debt and duty to truly support our troops who are sacrificing, and who have already sacrificed so much will prevail over partisanship, petty and misplaced penny-pinching, and disingenuous opposing arguments.

As a Vietnam war era veteran who has benefited so much from the previous G.I. Bill, I wrote a piece on TMV a couple of weeks ago on Memorial Day weekend. That article, “Let us truly honor our fallen heroes this memorial Day,” perhaps reflected more my passion to get this better G.I. Bill passed than the cold hard facts, and the raw politics being used by those who oppose it.

Fortunately, a few days ago, I came across a column written by none other than Edward Humes, which more than makes up for my lack of facts and more than fills-in-the blanks when it comes to the politics involved.

I say, none other than Edward Humes because Mr. Humes is a journalist and prolific author who in 1989 received the Pulitzer Prize for specialized reporting for several investigative stories he wrote about the U.S. Military. In 2006, he literally “wrote the book” on the G.I. Bill with his “Over Here: How the G.I. Bill Transformed the American Dream.” A book that tells how the post-World War II G.I. Bill ” revolutionized higher education, created suburbia, brought us the scientists, engineers, doctors, artists and teachers who built most of what is good in America today.”

While Humes mainly questions Senator McCain’s opposition to the G.I. Bill (”Why would a Vietnam War veteran and former prisoner of war, a man who is personally acquainted with the difficulties vets can face in returning to civilian life, join President Bush in opposing a popular bipartisan bill to support the troops?”), he offers many other thoughts and compelling arguments. Here are some excerpts from his May 30 column in the Los Angeles Times, “McCain’s Attack on Vets– His respectful rhetoric isn’t matched by his votes“:

“Isn’t fixing the education benefit in the bill — one that has shortchanged far too many veterans for years — a political no-brainer in an election year? The 75 senators who recently voted for it certainly thought so”

“The original GI Bill — signed into law in 1944 — was one of the most important laws every adopted by Congress. It transformed the nation after World War II in epic fashion, with generous college benefits, stipends, subsidized mortgages, business loans and job training and placement.”

“Veterans got free rides to any college that would accept them. Tuition, books, housing and living expenses were all covered, giving rise to a new generation of scientists, inventors, teachers, doctors, civic leaders and artists. Low-interest, no-money-down home loans backed by the government made it cheaper to buy than to rent. Suburbia, widespread homeownership, college as a majority aspiration, the middle class — all were built on the back of the GI Bill.”

“Today’s GI Bill, however, is a pale shadow of the original, particularly when it comes to college, as Congress has not kept the benefits in line with the rising cost of higher education. The World War II-era living stipend is gone; in its place, members of the military must agree to a $100 monthly payroll deduction to receive the college aid. An education benefit that sent WWII vets to Yale now won’t cover four years at the average public university, though many recruits don’t understand this when they sign up.”

McCain and others who oppose the Webb-Hagel version of the G.I. Bill have said that too-generous education benefits will hurt retention as enlistees will leave for college after their initial enlistment commitment rather than continue to serve. This is what Humes has to say about that:

“McCain’s position makes sense only by overlooking the fact that the main retention (and recruiting) problems facing the military are the Iraq war and the scandals plaguing military and veterans healthcare.” “The inadequacy of the military’s prime recruiting tool — subsidized college educations — is hurting recruitment too, and Webb argues this can be fixed only by fixing the GI Bill. He says McCain, a friend, ‘is missing the boat’ by siding with the Bush Pentagon rather than veterans groups. Webb points to a Congressional Budget Office analysis that found any possible losses in retention caused by his bill would be balanced by the increases in recruitment it would generate.”

On some of McCain’s other positions and arguments:

“Before the Senate voted on Webb’s GI legislation, McCain offered what he called a compromise bill, but it was rejected. Webb pointed out that there really was no compromise in McCain’s proposal because it would have excluded most veterans by offering full education benefits only to those with multiple enlistments, even though 70% to 75% of enlistees leave after one tour.”

Humes also takes a look at McCain’s record on “legislation supported by major veterans organizations” which he records as follows:

* On Webb’s GI Bill, he expressed opposition, and he was AWOL when it was time to vote on May 22.

* Last September, he voted against another Webb bill that would have mandated adequate rest for troops between combat deployments.

* On a badly needed $1.5-billion increase for veterans medical services for fiscal year 2007 — to be funded through closing corporate tax loopholes — he voted no. He also voted against establishing a trust fund to bolster under-budgeted veterans hospitals.

* In May 2006, he voted against a $20-billion allotment for expanding swamped veterans medical facilities.

* In April 2006, he was one of 13 Senate Republicans who voted against an amendment to provide $430 million for veterans outpatient care.

* In March 2004, he voted against and helped defeat on a party-line vote a $1.8-billion reserve for veterans medical care, also funded by closing tax loopholes.

As to the “it costs too much” argument, I will quote myself from my May 30 piece, “The bill is estimated to cost $45 billion [update: $52 billion] over the next 10 years. At the present rate of expenditures for the Iraq war–including the billions of dollars wasted, fleeced and not accounted for–we are talking about an amount equal to what we spend in Iraq in about six months. Is this too much to spend on our troops who are getting shot at, injured and maimed every day?”

As I first mentioned, Congress will hopefully have a final vote on the new G.I. Bill this week. I sincerely hope that Senator McCain will be present, and that he and others who are presently opposed to this good bill will have a change of mind and of heart and vote “Aye.” Our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans deserve nothing less.



This entry was posted on Sunday, June 8th, 2008 at 1:46 pm and is filed under Bush Administration, Military Affairs, Jim Webb, Veterans, Afghanistan War, Iraq War, World War II, Columnists, George W. Bush, Legislation, John McCain, Senate, Chuck Hagel, Congress. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 21 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    The inadequacy of the military’s prime recruiting tool — subsidized college educations — is hurting recruitment too,

    The GI Bill is not the prime recruiting tool. In an all voluntary army, the prime recruiting tool is that there is a career path and upward mobility. Also, active duty service members get educational benefits such as tuition assistance while on active duty.

    Given that Senator Obama wants to give free tuition to everyone and free healthcare to everyone, it does not seem that the Democrats really believe in giving service members any special benefit. The Democrats will not do the proper thing and give the military a bigger pay raise than civil servants get. If you want to increase retention, pay better than the GS-9 budget analyst sitting in a cubicle at The Social Security Administration in Baltimore.
    • ^
    • v
    Your right it doesnt make any sense. So lets look at the facts.

    From ABC News.

    The White House is signaling that President Bush could sign the hotly contested and long overdue war funding bill if the benefit transferability provision is added to the 10-year, $52 billion improvement to GI Bill college benefits proposed by Democrats and many Republicans.

    Additonally.

    John McCain has indicated that he is not in favor of the current bill as it stands and wants to ensure that the proper benefits are passed on to the families of the veterans which the current bill does not do.

    Officials in charge of Pentagon personnel worry that a more generous and expansive GI Bill would create an incentive for troops to get out of the military and go to college.

    Additonally from Military.com

    President Bush is quoted as saying in his radio address.

    War funding: “Congress needs to pass a responsible war funding bill that puts the needs of our troops first, without loading it up with unrelated domestic spending.

    And

    GI Bill expansion: “Congress needs to support our military families by passing an expansion of the GI Bill that makes it easier for our troops to transfer unused education benefits to their spouses and children. It is critical for this legislation to support the all-volunteer force and help us recruit and retain the best military in the world.”

    You see Bush Jr and Mini Bush are on the same page which I happen to agree with in this instance. Not only will lavish GI bill benefits threaten the integrity of the military but Bush and McCain are both holding out for even more and better benefits then Obama and Hillary voted for. They both additionally want to add a feature that will help to keep people in the military while making it more beneficial to do so.

    And now you know the REST of the story.
    • ^
    • v
    As a USAF MSgt (retired) with 26 years (81-07) service, I have far more exposure to enlisted people and their concerns than a couple of pilots whose career did not involve experience in the enlisted force, and no, photo ops don't count. The benefits are not "lavish", nor does history support any G.I.Bill based "exodus". Better benefits would increase the quality of first-termers as well as allow those re-enlisting to be able to serve knowing that they would be able to retire and not have to choose between working to support their families and educating themselves to get a fresh start in the job market. Veterans organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars support the Webb G.I. Bill. Are THEY Democrat moles undermining the military??
    "The GI Bill is not the prime recruiting tool. In an all voluntary army, the prime recruiting tool is that there is a career path and upward mobility. Also, active duty service members get educational benefits such as tuition assistance while on active duty."
    In what alternate military universe is this true? Career path is a RETENTION tool. Most recruits don't even know rank structure let alone "career path"! The educational benefits for active duty are decent, but disruptive deployment and training schedules as well as "unconventional" work hours are a huge barrier to off-duty education for those at the tip of the spear. McCain should have been LEADING the charge for a G.I. Bill as good as he got. Neither Bush nor Bush Lite have any track record of actually making life better for enlisted personnel. I'm a Republican, but I resent them dropping the ball on this issue.
    Please ask some actual G.I.s who are not officers how THEY view the Webb bill, and web search some veterans organizations before forming an opinion. In my experienced opinion the opposition to the Webb bill is completely misguided and reflects think-tank bean counter input rather than an evaluation of the enlisted force.

    http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&di...
    http://www.legion.org/whatsnew/publications/new...
    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/02/military_...
    • ^
    • v
    From a retired officer--who is proud to have been enlisted for five years-- Amen to the reired USAF Master Sergeant who tells it like it is.

    The "additional feature" of tranferabilty of benefits--brought up by the "photo-op" critics--is a smoke screen, part of an attempt to get the inferior, cheaper Bush-McCain version of the GI Bill passed. Proponents of the superior Webb-Hagel bill would be more than willing to accept this provision, provided Bush and McCain do not strip other, more beneficial features from the bill, in order to pinch pennies at the expense of our troops and veterans whom they "support" so much.

    As far, as "Officials in charge of Pentagon personnel worry that a more generous and expansive GI Bill would create an incentive for troops to get out of the military and go to college." HOGWASH, that has been disproven by our own Government Accounting Office and many other experts and organizations.
    In the same column by Edward Hume:

    "McCain argues that making the education benefits too generous will hurt retention, as enlistees will leave for college after three years rather than reenlist. McCain's position makes sense only by overlooking the fact that the main retention (and recruiting) problems facing the military are the Iraq war and the scandals plaguing military and veterans healthcare. (The most recent outrage: In a Memorial Day speech, Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peake downplayed the seriousness of brain trauma suffered by tens of thousands of servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, calling many of their diagnoses "overblown" and likening them to youth football injuries.)"

    Read and quote the facts, not GOP talking points.

    And now you really know the truth of the story.
    • ^
    • v
    I knew there was a reason I preferred the "prior enlisted" sort of officer. Not only do they have a broad perspective, they are immunized against BS from either direction. :-)
    • ^
    • v
    Neither Bush nor McCain are opposed to the GI bill. Even the enhanced version.

    Talk about talking points. What they are opposed to as am I is parts of the failed immigration bill tagged into the bill in disguise and then laid on the tax payers. In addition built into this bill is the precursor for a national ID as well as electronic monitoring of births and deaths.

    In additon it lays out amnesty for Illegal aliens if they can provide verification of their status prior to 1997. McCain is just waiting for the sheet to hit the fan. That is why he and Bush are opposed to this unless some of this stuff is removed.

    However the real smoke screen is that its the GI bill and any opposition to this bill appears to be opposition to the troops and their education. Bush is actually asking for pork to be cut out of this bill and an additional 10 billion added to the GI bill amount making it even more lucrative.

    This is a classic example of the Democrats working things in such a manner as to box Bush in and make him look bad by passing a bad bill that has good intentions.

    Again for clarification. I am not at all opposed to a very generous GI bill for our troops. I am opposed to the junk that congress has added to this bill making it a bad bill.
    • ^
    • v
    -Where is this better, more generous, bill Bush tells ABC about? Has he crafted one or encouraged his Party members to do so? Why is he talking to ABC, but he's not talking to Congress? His rediscovery of veto power seems to emerge around election time. This couldn't possibly be a political move to prevent a Democratic Congress from earning credi, could it? Who, Bush?
    Has McCain proposed the appropriate amendment to this bill or his own, perfect bill?
    Words thrown out, like sand in your eyes,. That's all.
    Sure, I would like to see benefits extended to family members. But I'm not going to see that, judging from the activities, not words, of those 'holding out'.
    I'll take what I can get now, as soon as possble.

    We've seen this movie before. We've been told to hold out on all proposals to address global warming, because we don't yet have the perfect solution. So we stay on hold year after year, wasting precious time, doing nothing.

    By now, I think I can pretty well translate 'holding out' to mean 'forget about it."

    Denying benefits to those who don't re-enlist is just plain cruel. When is enough, enough? How many years of putting your life on the line are enough years?
    I can't believe we're talking about our military personnel as if they were inanimate, disposable chess pieces.

    There is something in the policies of both Bush and McCain that I find jarring. Count pennies and play delay games whan it comes to honoring the military, but simultaneously hold tax breaks for the rich to be sacred.
    That tells me something about values.
    • ^
    • v