The New G.I. Bill — From Someone “on the Ground”

June 30th, 2008
By DORIAN DE WIND


I have written several articles in support of the New G.I. Bill, which–after much unnecessary, partisan wrangling–has finally passed Congress and is now on its way to the President, hopefully for his signature.

Having been retired from the U.S military for a long 30 years, there is the possibility that my views may be somewhat dated, or politically slanted.

It was thus very bolstering, to come across an opinion piece on this very same issue written by someone who should really know, a member of our military serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In an article, “New GI Bill ensures promises are kept,” published today in that great little military newspaper, the Stars and Stripes, Sgt. William A. Treseder addresses the bread and butter issues that affect those who we refer to as being “on the ground,” our fighting troops.

For example, referring to the original G.I. Bill, Sgt. Treseder writes:

The original GI Bill offered a variety of impressive benefits, but the first on that list — in Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s words — was “[i]t gives servicemen and women the opportunity of resuming their education or technical training after discharge … with the right to receive a monthly living allowance while pursuing their studies.” That is the first benefit listed in the original Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944; along with the home loan program, it is widely credited with helping usher in one of the longest periods of economic growth in our country’s history.

And, referring to the current G.I. Bill (the one that hopefully will be replaced by the “New G.I. Bill”):

But does our current GI Bill meet these goals? Can someone recently separated from the military afford to live on his or her own, possibly with a family, while paying for tuition, books, insurance and food while receiving a monthly check for about $1,100? Of course not, even with a job on the side. We are no longer giving service members the opportunity FDR spoke of.

With respect to those in the Pentagon (and in the administration) who–after their “it costs too much” excuse miserably flopped–claimed that the new G.I. Bill would hurt retention, here it is, from “the horse’s mouth”:

Many in the defense community fear this bill, primarily because of the projected impact on retention. They rightly wonder where the incentive is for a young man or woman in the military to stay knowing they have significant financial support for four years of “the easy life.” The answer is quite simple: There isn’t one. But has there ever been much of a fiscal draw to the military? Has the senior leadership stuck around simply because the pay was so good? What is it keeping people in the service?

And,

People join the American military for a variety of reasons; many young recruits would probably stumble through an answer if you demanded one on the spot. One thing they would definitely tell you: Almost no one joins for the pay.

As I have mentioned in my posts before,

“When [the argument that the new GI Bill would cost too much] didn’t fly, they [the administration, and others such as John McCain] postulated that the bill would hurt retention–a claim the was quickly countered by 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.”

Sgt. Treseder concludes his opinion piece with an argument–and a plea–that needs no further amplification or commentary:

Like all great ideals, the just compensation for those who voluntarily risk their lives to preserve our way of life cannot be measured in dollars and cents. It cannot be reduced to terms like “incentives” and “retention.” The costs are paltry compared to the trillions of dollars stacked up in the federal budget. As a country, we have asked the members of our military to be all things at once — enforcer, protector, humanitarian, teacher and friend — and only now recognize the demand it has placed on them. This bill must be signed into law; it is the right thing to do.

Are you listening, Mr. President?

To read Sgt. Treseder’s entire piece, please go here.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 30th, 2008 at 3:21 pm and is filed under Veterans, VA, Iraq War, Pentagon, Bush Administration, Congress, George W. Bush, Military Affairs, Politics. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


Update — The New G.I. Bill »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.