The new GI Bill is on the verge of being signed into law by President Bush after months of political theater by the Democrats holding it up in order to claim John McCain doesn’t care about veterans. With the political theater over a compromise bill that includes elements from both the Democrat and Republican plans has been ironed out that will significantly improve education benefits for US servicemembers.
Here is what active duty servicemembers will be getting out of the bill:
The bill gets rid of the current enrollment requirements, replacing them with language mandating at least three months’ service in the military since Sept. 11, 2001, for partial GI Bill benefits.
Anyone who has served at least three years on active duty since then is eligible for four years of tuition costs at their home state’s universities, plus about another $1,000 monthly for housing and living expenses.
Each year, the veterans will also be eligible for $1,200 in tutoring services and $1,000 more to cover books. Altogether, the benefit could top more than $25,000 a year in the most expensive states.
If troops or veterans attend state schools that are less expensive, they won’t get to pocket the difference. If they decide to go to a private school or out-of-state college, they’ll have to cover the difference between their higher tuition bill and the state-assigned reimbursement figure.
The benefit lasts for 15 years now, instead of 10, giving troops extra time after leaving the military to either use their benefit or pass it along. [Stars & Stripes]
The stipend for living expenses and book & tutors is a significant improvement on the old GI Bill. Here is the part of the new GI Bill that I especially like:
Under a provision backed by the Pentagon, troops who served at least 10 years on active duty will be able to transfer their benefit to a spouse or dependent child. Spouses can receive the money even sooner, if their servicemember has served at least six years and agrees to another four-year contract.
The transferred benefit only covers the cost of tuition, not the living stipend and extra cash for books. But beyond that the same rules apply: The measure promises a full four years of college bills at the most expensive in-state school, or any less expensive university.
Families can divide the benefit up however it benefits them most, as long as they don’t exceed those 36 months of college classes. For example, a retired soldier can use two years of benefits to pay for a two-year degree program, then transfer the last two years to a spouse or child.
And for long-serving servicemembers, the changes mean that their college-age children could get a free college education starting fall 2009, provided they attend a state-backed school.
This is an awesome improvement in the new GI Bill that addresses the Pentagon’s concerns about troop retention because many soldiers will stay in the service longer in order to transfer their education benefits to their family.
Read the rest of the Stars & Stripes article for further details but I have nothing really to complain about and for once the Congress has actually did something positive to support the troops. The only ones who appear unhappy about this is Code Pink of course.
Popularity: 2%
9:38 pm on July 1st, 2008 1
Fantastic, more government welfare for the rubes and bubbas. Who says America’s doesn’t have a genorous social welfare system?
9:53 pm on July 1st, 2008 2
Why does Americia allow the code pinkos to live? Why not round them up and make them into soylent pink?
12:17 am on July 2nd, 2008 3
Yes, they choose the life on their own, and there is pretty much nothing you could ever pay a servicemember that would ever be truly adequate.
There are people out there that think military members are paid too much… idiots.
2:09 am on July 2nd, 2008 4
That’s right Dan85, “they choose(sic) the life on their own…” Nobody forced them to enlist.
I admire those who choose to serve their country. I just don’t think that such a choice automatically entails someone to a special buffet of copious federal largesse. If you’re going to serve then go serve. But don’t sit there and tell me the nation at large owes you additional favors for a life you “choose(sic)..on their own…”
5:21 am on July 2nd, 2008 5
Today, the United States dispenses generous benefits to people who have done absolutely nothing to deserve them. With the new GI Bill, Congress simply recognizes that since the burdens of citizenship fall disproportionately on those who serve in the military, it’s probably fair to provide them a disproportionate benefit from time to time. Yes, they volunteered but thankfully policymakers recognize that providing the kind of person who volunteers to serve their country in wartime with additional educational opportunities is in the long term interest of the American taxpayer.
6:43 am on July 2nd, 2008 6
DMZ Dave is spot on. Gaetano Calabresi: Sounds like sour grapes. If you want some of the pie, then your choice is clear: Earn it!
I just wish the benefits were retroactive. I also wonder what pork was tacked on it without the average Joe knowing about it. Earmarks they’re called.
7:01 am on July 2nd, 2008 7
“Today, the United States dispenses generous benefits to people who have done absolutely nothing to deserve them.”
That’s an excellent point. Those individuals are no more deserving of federal largesse than the average American who enlists in the military.
As to the point of whether “the burdens of citizenship fall disproportionately on those who serve in the military”, I think this a red-herring. Yes, I grant than military service has with it it’s particular hardships and burdens. But to go from that and say that the sacrifices made by men and women in uniform are more worthy and commendable than the sacrifices of others who engage in other forms of public service is misguided.
According to the logic you employ, DMZDave, the Ivy League graduate who forgoes the six-figure salary at a Wall Street or high powered consulting firm and joins Teach for America to teach in some the U.S.’s most impoverished and dysfuntional schools is making a less worthy sacrifice than the Wal-Mart stock boy who joins the Navy simply for the signing bonus.
Now, as far as I know, that Ivy Leaguer who joins Teach for America doesn’t have at his disposal the vast amounts of federal largesse while in or after Teach for America. Despite the sacrifice he/she made, and the burdens they carried, their payback is relatively miniscule in comparison to military service personnel.
11:11 am on July 2nd, 2008 8
Teaching in an inner city school is not comparable to being shot at and blown up on a daily basis.
You speak of the hardships and burdens, but you really have no idea what those hardships are. People like you will never understand.
The veterans that went to school on the original GI Bill helped build the nation into what it is today.
12:48 pm on July 2nd, 2008 9
“Teaching in an inner city school is not comparable to being shot at and blown up on a daily basis.”
Well said Dan85. And since the two aren’t “comparable” stop comparing one form of service over another by saying that one is more valorous than the other and therefore merits large quantities of federal assistance.
You know, I really wish those in the military would simply cut the bullshit and call a spade when it’s a spade. I’m sure that for many who decide to go into uniform patriotism does plays a factor. But from the individuals I’ve talked to and the studies and accounts I’ve read, those who enlist mostly do it for economic reasons.
As for those who went to school on the original GI Bill, I think that your missing one crucial difference between today’s GI Bill and the one that was implemented after WWII. In the case of today’s GI Bill, the legislation is for those who knew full well of the hardships and burdens that they would have to endure should they VOLUNTARILY enlist. In the case of the original GI Bill, the intitial impetus of it was to recompensate those individuals who had NO CHOICE but to put their lives and careers on hold in order to come the nations defense.
12:09 am on July 3rd, 2008 10
Gaetano brings up an interesting comparison. First of all, no 18 year old knows full well the hardships and burdens of military service when they volunteered.
I have a nephew in Iraq and a niece in the Teach for America program and have a pretty solid basis to compare as I have spent much time with both. The niece taught in New Orleans during Katrina and then in Houston and eventually in inner-city Washington. Throughout, she lived in a very upscale apartment, ate in nice restaurants and generally enjoyed a high standard of living for a recent college grad. She has been given some very generous educational benefits by the Teach for America Program but more importantly, as a Teach for America volunteer, she was both heavily recruited by graduate schools and offered additional scholarships and assistance. The majority of people in her orientation group quit the program in the first year - which is not an option for a soldier in Iraq. Teach for America is a good program but you can’t seriously compare the level of sacrifice and risk.
My nephew serving in Iraq will get the new GI Bill but you should know that young people who volunteer for four years and train in a shortage specialty can’t really count on going back to college after four years. No one is heavily recruiting my nephew because the educational establishment generally shares Mr. Calabresi’s ignorance of and even contempt for the worth and character of our soldiers and believe they are a bunch of WallMart stockboys driven to the military for economic reasons and not patriotism or valor.
In my nephew’s case, his original 4-year contract was up soon after he was sent to Iraq so he gets to add on nearly another year to his original obligation. Then when he gets back to college, he will still be subject to recall to active duty for 4 years as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve and he knows there is every chance that will happen. So on top of his 4 years plus 10 months involuntary service, he can probably look forward to one more involuntary tour of Iraq. I’d say we owe him big time.
These kids serving today deserve every benefit we can give them and we do so because it’s in our nation’s long term interest to do so.
4:11 am on July 3rd, 2008 11
To begin with, DMZDave, I can only give you my personal assurances that I no way look upon with contempt or derision at those who serve in uniform. To reiterate, I have nothing but admiration and respect for those who choose such a path. Whether it’s out of pure economic reasons or out of true patriotism, I see service as being service. Nothing more, nothing less.
But the main point that I want to really stress, again, is that this service is a CHOICE. While I’ll grant that there are 18 year olds out there who don’t have a complete picture of what enlistment will entail, they nevertheless have that information at their disposal. To be frank, it’s really incumbent upon them to research and reflect thoroughly the sort of things joining the military will entail.
If we’re going to apply your logic to it’s conclusion, DMZDave, then there should be a panalopy of bailouts and subsidies for all sorts of personal choices made because of imperfect information.
As for your comparison of Teach for America and military service, I have to say that what you provided is at best an incomplete picture. Yes, it’s true that those who join Teach for America or the Peace Corps are usually afforded nice amenities. But then again so are military personnel. How else do you explain the PXs, the signing bonuses, and generous housing allowances? Even in active war zones such as Iraq, U.S. military personnel are afforded the sort of luxurys that the average Iraqi could only dream of. Why else would they call Al-Asad Airfield “Camp Cupcake”?
Futhermore, your assertions that the job prospects of former Teach for America volunteers far out pace that of former U.S. military personnel is also flimsy. It seems to have elided you DMZDave, but from my understanding the United States has a huge military industrial complex made up such companies as KBR, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northup Gruman and Booze Allen Hamilton. I have many friends and acquitances who work at these companies and have personally done subcontracting work for Booze Allen Hamilton, and I can assure you that these places actively recruit from not only the office ranks but the enlisted ranks as well. And to boot, these companies pay and give competitive wages and benefits. Even when you look outside of the military industrial complex there are all sorts of companies that value former military personnel for their experience and maturity level.
6:22 am on July 3rd, 2008 12
As a vet (81-95) I do like what I see about the new GI bill. One thing to consider here is that not everybody has the chance to take college classes while they are in the military due to their particular field. This legislation would allow vets to go to school once they are out of the military.
Under the old system, you had to contribute money to your education which didn’t help some of the lower ranked married folks. Those people usually had money problems due to the fact that getting base housing was very hard.
8:24 pm on July 28th, 2008 13
Gaetano Calabresi, commenting on the new GI Bill in comment #1 of this thread:
Gaetano Calabresi in comment #11 of this same thread:
The “rubes and bubbas” who choose such a path, you mean?