By It is official President Obama wants to take away the current military retirement:
Included in the president’s deficit reduction plan unveiled Monday are plans to re-examine the military retirement system, calling the current 20-year requirement “out of line with most other government or private retirement plans.â€
The document calls for the creation of a commission similar to the controversial 2005 Base Realignment and Closure commission to look at broad reforms to the retirement system. In particular, it takes aim at the idea that troops must remain in the military for 20 years to receive any retirement benefits, giving “generous benefits to the relatively few members who stay.â€
The move comes just weeks after officials from the Defense Business Board outlined similar plans to changing how military retirees are paid, abandoning the 20-year service target. [Stars & Stripes]
I do find it interesting that the President is calling military retirement “out of line” when he is given a lifetime annual pension of $193,400, staff and office allowances, travel expenses, Secret Service protection and more for his retirement package for a minimum of four years of work. Why doesn’t the President set the example and turn his retirement package into a 401K?
I also don’t appreciate the class warfare like rhetoric of trying get Soldiers who serve less than 10 years to be jealous of those who serve the full 20. Those who only do one enlistment in the military receive the very generous GI Bill that pays not only for their college, but pays them room and board as well. These Soldiers are well compensated as it is. Like I have said before this is simply theft of the military retirement to keep Congressional defense pet projects going. It is better to steal military retirement than to lay off workers making defense systems that are not needed.
The big question is whether the ending of the 20 year retirement is going to include currently serving servicemembers? If current servicemembers are grandfathered it still doesn’t do anything to stop the biggest issue which is future retention. Without the 20 year retirement a decade from now is when the impacts will be felt when the US military has a hollow force. The very generous GI Bill actually encourages people to get out and thus unit leadership needs big incentives to retain people. Monetary bonuses and the promise of a 20 year retirement were two big incentives to get people to stay. Bonuses are now drying up and taking away the 20 year retirement will make retention extremely difficult especially after the economy improves. It will be difficult to convince quality servicemembers to stay in and subject their family to NTC rotations, multiple deployments, etc. for the promise of a 401k when their 59 years old instead of taking the generous GI Bill now.
Than who knows what will be left of your 401k after Wall Street gets a hold of it.
She hasn’t seen...
6:22 am on September 20th, 2011 1
My 401(k) turned into a 000(k) after the losses in 2008 and getting laid off in 2009…
The President is just blowing chunks because he finally realized no one likes what he has been doing and not even his kids believe the lies he has been spewing…
Gitmo, lobbyists in the White House, unemployment, etc… Must be that Bush guy is still sabotaging everything…
6:37 am on September 20th, 2011 2
Do 20 years and receive at least half your pay and medical benefits until you die. Plus the Post 9-11 GI bill that GI Korea says people who serve under 20 years should be content with. The U.S military retirement is out of line with all civilian retirement plans, not to mention other countries military pay structures. And cost the DOD 100 Billion Dollars per yer. A 38 year old E-7 that retires today at 20 years, and lives until they are 78 will cost the government over a million dollars in just retirement pay alone.
I personally believe the current retirement pay and benefit structure should stay in place for a whole host of reason, but my problem is with folks that are even against the examination by a commission or board to attempt determine if there is in fact a more cost effective/better way to possibly administer retirement benefits. It needs to be studied in depth from compensation, retention, readiness, and cost points of view.
6:43 am on September 20th, 2011 3
Getting shot at is out of line with most jobs that offer retirement, too…
What pompous bag of detestable flatulence thinks those who sacrifice their careers to serve 20+ in the Military SHOULD be in line with guys whose worst nightmare is having a presentation rejected by their supervisor?
Oh yeah. The pusillanimous so-called “Democrat” who appears to want to destroy the economy so they can’t get a job when they get back home…
6:58 am on September 20th, 2011 4
of course the retirement benefits are out of line with most other government jobs. the demands and strains on service members and their families are out of line with most other government jobs as well. not to mention it’s a job that may well ask you to give your life in service to the country. that’s a very unique requirement that i think the rest of the country forgets about.
the way i look at it, the country is having tough times right now. almost everyone is going to have to suffer at least a little bit, but if you are the president or a member of congress, you should be looking at EVERYTHING else before you consider stripping away from benefits from the troops.
i am sure there are ways to cut from the defense budget without compromising total force strength OR veterans’ benefits. we have all seen instances of fraud waste and abuse. it’s not something you can really report when it’s the SOP for the military to be wasteful with its funding and resources. maybe some good will come out of the budget constraints, as far as the brass having to come up with creative ways to accomplish the mission with less expenditures.
8:36 am on September 20th, 2011 5
Who knows…maybe the GI Bill is next on the chopping block.
Seems like I read somewhere that statistics show retired Army personnel die at an alarmingly young age.
Just sayin…
8:46 am on September 20th, 2011 6
If the commission analyzes it solely on the rules of macros economics (supply and demand) and free markets (that people will make rational self-interest decisions), then they may come to the conclusion that cutting incentives to join or stay in the military won’t have any significant effect, in the near future, while the economy sucks.
But it’s always very difficult to model and predict human behavior. And I hope they build into their models what happens when the economy is booming. If that becomes too much of a head-scratcher, they can always revert to the draft and stop-losses.
11:23 am on September 20th, 2011 7
I love this blog and the points made in it, but PLEASE, learn some basic grammar rules. Just learning the difference between than/then, your/you’re, and their/there/they’re would boost your credibility.
(If you read carefully, all three of these mistakes are here in this one post!)
1:25 pm on September 20th, 2011 8
I agree, Bob.
Your right that now and than, it is better to have you’re input instead of there constant mistakes here and their and everywhere.
2:45 pm on September 20th, 2011 9
Out of line with most other government or private retirement plans?
The president is an imbicile and failed to recognize the current 6-12 month deployment every 24 to 36 months, the constant roadmarches endured by the infantry, the airborne operations, the months spent in the field training. I’m not a genius like BO, but I would bet the 20 year retirement is there for a reason and not just convience. I am proud I did not vote for this imbicile.
I’m still waiting for change and there is no way this idiot will ever produce. And I thought there couldn’t be a worse president than GW – boy was I wrong!
2:50 pm on September 20th, 2011 10
Bob, your comment was pointless. If you can’t understand then go somewhere else.
2:56 pm on September 20th, 2011 11
What does Obama Know about the Military? Nothing. He never served. Oh and a PS, (Sorry Bob, I know that offended you, not that I give a rat’s a$$) I learned yesterday that my GP nolonger excepts Tricare. Would have been nice if he would have sent me a letter or other notification. After 5 years I would have thought I deserved that. But it would seem not.
3:06 pm on September 20th, 2011 12
@10
My thoughts exactly.
3:24 pm on September 20th, 2011 13
Lets see. Am I getting too much from the government. You know, that government that I gave 20 years and 13 days of my life to serve. In less than ideal conditions. During two wars. During peace time I ran two miles three times a week for 20 years. Push-ups, sit-ups. Did I mention the less than ideal conditions? I forgot the low Pay.
I get 50% of my active duty Pay. That is $1,400.00 USD. I Earned it! It is not “welfare” or an entitlement. It was in the contract that I and the Federal Government signed.
Now, what do I get for food? Nothing. What do I get for Housing? Nothing.
I get $1,400.00 dollors per month. Who thinks I don’t deserve it? Show of hands. (post and explain)
Oh—oh, I don’t pay taxes on $100.00 dollars. Why? Because my knees are shot form jogging for 20 FRIGGING YEAR! 10% disabled. I could get it increased. It would help if I were a woman. I’m not. So I will not go thru the process.
I get $1,400. dollars. Well, I decided to go back to college. The VA and post 9/11 GIbill are paying for it. Also giving me $1000. per month while in college. After about 60 dollars a week in gas, there is some left over.
Tell me why I do not deserve to have the Federal Government honor their contract with me. I want to hear it.
It’s not like I’m getting rich over here.
I’m not sitting on my a$$ smoking dope and drinking 40s.
I can only assume that those here that complain about taking care of those that served believe we should be rolled over into a ditch, stick a flag up and be done with us.
(I notice that the Government types are not taking any pay cuts) So much for we will all have to suffer some. (no one is cutting welfare for the eaters either. I guess they deserve their free cash) But lets go rip the military retirement! YEAH
YOU PEOPLE, want to put me out in the street — or under it.
Liberals can lick my nads.
4:39 pm on September 20th, 2011 14
The military is not like other jobs. If the retirement package was so much sweeter than so much else, you’d see a heck of a lot more people joining the military and staying until retirement. How much of a turn-over do you see in other cushy federal or state government jobs?
GI Korea noted something interesting: If you want to cut costs like this, why not go after the GI Bill? Why should tax payers pay for the college of someone who only did 4 years of service? I have no problem with the GI Bill, but it would make more sense to attack that program than to attack the benefits of those who have made a career out of the military – which is not an ordinary occupation.
4:41 pm on September 20th, 2011 15
I forgot to add, the reason Obama won’t attack the GI Bill is that taking college away from people would not sit well with some in his party but going after people stupid enough to think the military is worth a career plays well enough…
4:58 pm on September 20th, 2011 16
Here’s the plan. The paragraph “Establish a commission to review military retirement benefits” ends with the sentence, “The Administration believes that any major military retirement reforms should include grandfathering provisions that ensure that the country does not break faith with military personnel now serving, including those serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.” The next paragraph is, “End the overpayment of Federal contractor executives.” I’m confident that all ROK droppers will base their criticisms on the actual plan, not journalistic summaries.
5:13 pm on September 20th, 2011 17
This was all complicated by the change from draft to all volunteer force.
What is not fair is some REMPF desk jockey/clerk gets the same retirement package.
This is just an example, numbers may change:
All retirees get 30% base pay and medical. Combat Arms receive a Tax Free one time allowance of 100,000 on retirement.
What % in the Military actually put their neck on the line in the course of duty?
10%, 5%????
Again, the few sacrifice for the many.
5:32 pm on September 20th, 2011 18
@13 “It’s not like I’m getting rich over here.”
I totally understand where you are coming from, and it is not the average 20 year retired enlisted soldier that is driving up the cost of retirement payouts to over 100 billion dollars. There are people getting rich off military service. To put it in perspective General Petreus(or insert retiring 4star general with over 36 yrs of service) will be paid 4.5 Million dollars in retirement payments over the next 25 years or almost 6 million for Adm. Mullen over the same 25 year time period. These sort of paymentunassailables are not sustaiable forever. These sort of cost are not unassailable and need to be reviewed.
7:30 pm on September 20th, 2011 19
@18,
I agree, its not the enlisted who are driving up costs. If you look at the pay tables, a retiring 26yr SGM will cost the military considerably less then a retiring 20yr MAJ. TSP style contributions are not the answer considering the government isn’t contributing anything to them like they do for the GS’s.
For current service members NOTHING should change, or at least those past their first enlistment. They’ve already entered into the agreement with the government, 20yr retirement paycheck for sacrificing their youth and health.
It wouldn’t be unethical to have a different system for new service members, that is the government prerogative. Whatever system the government comes up with is theirs, provided they make it plain and upfront to new recruits.
7:46 pm on September 20th, 2011 20
GI Korea, Great Post! President Obama who knows next to nothing about the military (he pronounced corpsman as “corpse man”) is trying to make the military into some PC social engineering experiment. Today is the day that DADT is repealed. If he really cared about the military perhaps he could have waited at least UNTIL THE NUMEROUS WARS THAT WE ARE FIGHTING NOW in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya (more ground troops are going to be going there) have ended or at least subsided but his Hollywood pro-gay campaign contributors can’t wait. Any changes in military retirement will cripple enlistment and retention. I’m not saying this out of self-interest since I’ve already retired. I do hope that any changes don’t effect current troops since I have a son who is active duty Navy who just re-enlisted for 6 years on top of his current 5 years. I’m afraid that they will go back to the draft which those of us who are old enough to remember the Vietnam war protest don’t want to happen again.
8:04 pm on September 20th, 2011 21
From OP:
Maybe I’m misreading this, but it sounds like the idea is to give better benefits (than now) to those who stick around for less than twenty years, though those who stick around for the full twenty will not get the full thing they get now.
Assuming it’s the 20-somethings that are mostly getting shot at or risk being blown up every time they go to work, and not the late 30-somethings or 40-somethings, this seems fair, if they really do that.
Oh, and “out of line” full stop does not mean the same thing as “out of line with …”
8:05 pm on September 20th, 2011 22
Oh, and I should add that no one in the current system should be hurt financially if it changes. If you’ve been putting in for your twenty years, you deserve to get what you’ve been working for, but if it turns out that after any change is made then being in for ten years gives you a better deal than waiting until twenty, then you should be able to avail yourself of that instead.
11:31 pm on September 20th, 2011 23
what he wants to do is take all the military pay and benefits and dump them into programs for minorities and illegals who dont want to work or contribute to society
again we have tried these left wing lib loons in the past but somehow every 15-20 years elect them in and get surprised at how ineffective and horrible they are as leaders.
11:53 pm on September 20th, 2011 24
How many years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes or seconds did Obongo put in any of the services ?
11:54 pm on September 20th, 2011 25
Just correcting first name.
12:20 am on September 21st, 2011 26
Buddha,
“what he wants to do is take all the military pay and benefits and dump them into programs for minorities and illegals who dont want to work or contribute to society”
This is where you misunderstand.
The military is a relatively small and shrinking population facing future cutbacks so they require fewer services and entitlements.
Minorities, illegals, and those who don’t wish to work are a GROWING segment of society and are therefore entitled to a larger and more fair share of national resources.
I hope this cleared things up for you.
1:10 am on September 21st, 2011 27
The big issue for me here-is that all of these ideas orginate from within DOD. Remember Davis S.C.Chu? He was banging the drum to screw service peope out of their retirement all through the Bush adminstration-while all the while people were saying that Bush “supported the troops”. Put the blame where it really belongs-on the folks inside DOD. They wrote this script-and others are simply repeating the lines.
Where are the FOGO’s who are speaking out about this? Oh right-there are none.
4:37 am on September 21st, 2011 28
@21 – I recommend you read my prior posting on this.
Basically this is trying to be sold as being fair because by giving everyone a 401k everyone leaves service with some money. The fact is that everyone leaving the service already does get money with the GI Bill. Also servicemembers that see more combat and deployments like SF units receive enlistment bonuses, combat pay, and tax free benefits. So a guy seeing a lot of deployments is already getting paid a whole lot more than a guy that never deploys.
6:53 am on September 21st, 2011 29
Glans wrote: “I’m confident that all ROK droppers will base their criticisms on the actual plan, not journalistic summaries.”
Actually, our critiques will be based on past performance of similarly-worded missives…
7:30 am on September 21st, 2011 30
@16 – I think you missed the part where I said if currently serving people are grandfathered than the effects will be felt 10 years from now.
@18 – Very good points. Maybe a retirement reform of 50% base pay no matter what your years of service is would be something worth looking at?
8:46 am on September 21st, 2011 31
#24, 25 Mr Dudkiewicz. For a minute there I thought your first name was Avenue, lol. To answer you query (perhaps not the correct word considering what happened yesterday) the answer is zero. Wow what a coincidence, zero is the percentage of success of President Obama’s economic policies.
3:22 pm on September 21st, 2011 32
It’s all simple math.
We can feed 2 (TWO) crack Ho’s with rugrats for what we pay a retiree.
Go Democracy!! How many people will vote to cut retirement? How many will vote to keep it?
Same logic with the “tax the rich”, demagoguery(sp).
I’m waiting for the latest CNN poll,”Most Americans believe that Military retirees make too much money and benefits.”
6:37 pm on September 21st, 2011 33
Anyone ever notice how those who want to cut military pay and perks are the same ones who will threaten to kill people if union thugs may have to pay an extra $1 in health insurance premiums?
7:20 pm on September 21st, 2011 34
#33
No. I never noticed that. Can you point to an example?
8:06 pm on September 21st, 2011 35
#34 I hate doing other peoples’ homework. But here is a start:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903703604576584881282113572.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
Notice the first quote from Obama praising unions. Note further down about thugs getting obscene compensation packages. Here comes the hard part…what part of the federal government has been tooling around with the idea of watering down military retirement? That’s right, the Obama administration!
If that isn’t enough Google “Wisconsin” and “union”. Really nice, reasoned behavior going on there…
8:30 pm on September 21st, 2011 36
Hmmmm… Supporting unions is a far cry from “threaten to kill people if …”
9:14 pm on September 21st, 2011 37
A little context is need here. This article starts:
There was another similar such commission called for in the previous administration, for those with short memories. Here are some of the results:
Commissions make recommendations. If the recommendation calls for changes in compensation, that can only be enacted by Congress.
So, check fire until you are sure you know what you are shooting at.
11:41 pm on September 21st, 2011 38
#31-Tom; That was a real genius reply. I enjoyed how u used query and yesterday’s declaration. I guess the next edict will be a new camouflage pink uniform. I mean lavender or purple or whatever they call their color.
4:01 am on September 22nd, 2011 39
@30 Have you finished reading the actual plan?
2:45 am on September 23rd, 2011 40
My 401k is doing just fine….. in the coffers of Goldman Sachs!!!
2:52 am on September 23rd, 2011 41
#40
Good thing we bailed them out. Since we socialized their losses, do you plan on sharing any of your earnings?
3:28 am on September 23rd, 2011 42
You misunderstand. Due to the financial crisis caused by Goldman Sachs and their ilk that was funded by the U.S. Government misuse of taxpayer money I have been given the privilege of participating in a transfer of wealth from my 401k into the coffers of Goldman Sachs.
But hey…. at least I can still buy an Escalade with 24″ Spinners!!! (if I had any money)
3:42 am on September 23rd, 2011 43
When you’re chained to someone who walked off a cliff and is barely holding on to the edge, you have to pull them up. You could watch them fall, but you’ll soon realize you’ll be having an up-close view the whole way down.
Sad to say, the satisfying thing to do — let them choke on their own hubris — would have brought all of us down with them. The only real choice is to rescue them and then put in place the mechanisms to prevent them from doing what they did to walk off the cliff again.
Of course, with those who think that the economic crisis started on January 20, 2009, or those who don’t realize mixing high-risk loans with low-risk loans and pretending they are all good, this is a lost cause.
3:43 am on September 23rd, 2011 44
We have a serious problem in our country where the brightest minds are recruited not to make invent or develop better goods and services but more exotic financial instruments aimed at shuffling large sums of money around without actually creating anything.
7:05 am on September 23rd, 2011 45
Kushibo,
Too Big To Fail is a myth brought on by powerful and connected groups that…
…wait for it…
…don’t want to fail.
And their campaign contribution takers, their university alumni, their think-tank partners, their future board members, etc., who control the tax dollars and can sell anything to a dumbed-down public are more than happy to help them spread the word.
The Little People buy into this and make all sorts of rationalizations, and fake chained-to-someone analogies, as to why risk should be privatized but loss should be socialized.
So the scam keeps rolling.
Here is the deal…
When a company “fails”, it doesn’t go away.
The investors who did not demand accountability from corporate management, the creditors who didn’t do their due diligence before making loans, and stockholders who insisted on manipulated short-term gains over long-term growth are rewarded with the financial failure they deserve. They lose the investment they did not manage correctly or force the professional managers to manage correctly.
But the company does not go away.
Somebody else scrapes together money from new investors and buys the assets from the old investors at a great price… and builds a new company to fill the corporate niche that, presumably, learns from the mistakes of its predecessor… guided by management that does not wish to be shamed… and backed up by investors who don’t want to lose out like the last group.
If the financial companies knew this was the deal, they would be taking care of business instead of realizing that grifting government money with a To Big To Fail excuse is just the latest trend in short-term financial gimmicks to “make” money so everybody gets a bonus this quarter, the stockholders get a dividend, and management who should be in jail is seen as clever heroes among their peers.
The myth of To Big To Fail simply encourages fraud, waste, and abuse on a growing scale… and eventually leads to true failure.
8:49 am on September 23rd, 2011 46
#36: Given the fact liberals won’t give folks like myself the slightest bit of slack when those who purport to be in agreement with me go off the deep end, I don’t see why I should. It helps greatly with the lefts’ refusal to ever criticize their flock. Union members have made death threats during heated negotiations and the left is silent. Therefore everyone on the left is guilty by association.
#37: True enough. George H W Bush’s Administration tinkered with military retirement. I think the Reagan Administration might have looked into it also. But at least in these instances the decision makers don’t come from a subculture who tend to assume people in the military are sponging off government largesse when they aren’t out killing women and children (usually of the brown skinned sort). Makes a big difference in outlook…
11:39 am on September 23rd, 2011 47
ChickenHead wrote:
No, what you mean is TBTF is a concept actively supported — in the short term — by those powerful and connected groups because they don’t want to fail. Those are the same that, once the TBTF bank, corporation, etc., gets pulled from the brink, starts screaming about over-regulation of the industry so they can remain large.
There are plenty of genuine concerns about TBTF, but they are two-sided: we have to prevent them from failing lest we throw everyone else into a tailspin from which even the sound and solvent often cannot recover, creating a ripple effect, BUT then when we’ve stopped reeling from the current crisis we have to go in and ensure that this company or that is no longer too big too fail and no new too-big-to-fail entities take their place.
7:17 pm on September 26th, 2011 48
@47,
Agreed. They really should of broken up any financial institution who received financial aid from the US Government. Force them to divine into several smaller institutions with no single one having anything resembling the power of the original.
6:50 am on October 16th, 2011 49
Private and civilian sector do not require their employees to get shot, blown up, maimed, receive questionable vaccines, be separated from their families every other year. Oh, and be on call after the retirement in the event of another big war.
1:50 pm on October 16th, 2011 50
I have two comments:
- The GI bill is the only compensation my son will receive when his contracted time is up. The lowest ranking individuals, i.e., lowest paid rank higher in the numbers that are facing front line fighting. They walk away with memories and nightmares, that will stay with them for life. And if you think they walk away with compensation for wartime issues that will affect them for the rest of their lives, you really don’t get it and really don’t know. I don’t find the educational benefit nearly enough compensation for the time he was deployed or for the days that he would think ‘I woke up today, maybe I’ll wake up tomorrow’. The life they live on base is no picnic either. Unless you have been there, you can say it should be examined, but you really have no right to say it’s TOO much. Of course it’s out of line with other retirement programs, it should be.
- Secondly, financial aid for institutions, if you are referring to the TARP money, do your homework. You know some of the story, obviously not all of it. It was not a handout. It was a process for financial institutions, that felt a responsibility to their community, to take funds to make loans to individuals/companies to get the economy moving. The risk of making loans belonged and still belongs to the financial institution. There were high interest payments for use of the funds, which the government loved. The repayment of those funds was stalled. Yes they were delayed. By who, the Government. Most financial institutions were not in a situation of needing the money, rather, they felt it their responsibility to assist in rebuilding our economy. In many cases, millions of dollars in interest payments were made to the government while the banks were working with the government to obtain permission to pay it back. That’s right, permission. Look at some of the annual reports for those banks, it’s all there. They, for the most part, were not in need or anywhere near it.
5:38 pm on October 18th, 2011 51
What this boils down to is the federal government is finally catching on to what corporate America has been doing for the last twenty years. Re-structure, downsize, outsource, and at the same time increase salary’s and bonuses for those at the top. Look at what retired Generals make, look at what the politicians make. Corporate America figured out they could up their CEO’s salary exponentially after they gutted the company, getting rid of American workers. Doesn’t matter the industry, manufacturing, health care, universities, GM, Department of Defense, they are all doing it, and if not rapidly catching on. Nurses in one local community hospital have to pay more for their health insurance plans, yet the CEO of the hospital got a multi-million dollar bonus. If you look at the members of the Defense Business Board (http://dbb.defense.gov/members.shtml), the board Rumsfeld appointed to make theses suggested cuts, all of them are millionaires, and several of them made it off the Government (read your tax dollars)
What the Military needs is a Union. After all, our President says it’s our right. See below.
In his Labor Day speech in Detroit, Barack Obama issued a ringing endorsement of government employee unions:
Having a voice on the job and a chance to organize and a chance to negotiate for a fair day’s pay after a hard day’s work, that is the right of every man and woman in America–not just the CEO in the corner office, but also the janitor who cleans that office after the CEO goes home. Everybody has got the same right.
And that’s true for public employees as well. Look, the recession had a terrible effect on state and local budgets–we all understand that. Unions have recognized that; they’ve already made tough concessions.
7:46 pm on October 18th, 2011 52
#51
There was an Investigative reporter, Ellen Schultz, on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show Monday, talking about her book, “Retirement Heist” that discloses some very disturbing things about what corporations have been doing with pensions.
1:32 pm on November 11th, 2011 53
Anyone who calls the GI Bill “Generous” has obviously never used their GI Bill as a sole source of income during college.
2:38 pm on November 11th, 2011 54
MGirl: I never knew the GI Bill was designed to be a sole source of income while someone attended college. You learn something new every day.