It’s no secret that the liberals on Capitol Hill want us to be defeated in Iraq…preferably while Bush is still in office. Interesting, since the majority of them voted in favor of the Iraq War.
Now that they’re ready to cut and run, it’s killing them that we are still able to fight the war on terror on so many fronts with a volunteer military, and have not yet needed a draft. Their latest attempt to reduce the fighting capability of our military forces is to attach legislation to the current war bill that would allow for an additional $51-54 billion to be spent on increased educational benefits (to pay the entire cost for in-state tuition, books, and a living stipend for the most expensive public eduational institution in any state) for troops returning home from Afghanistan and Iraq. This would supposedly be paid for by a surtax on American millionaires, and would be a strong de-motivator for troops who may be otherwise planning to reenlist.
Who would not be tempted by the offer to simply return home, and not have to work for 4-10 years while you’re enrolled in school?
Yes, veterans should have good educational benefits. And those benefits need to be increased to keep up with the rising cost of tuition. But what the anti-war crowd apparently does not know is that military veterans already have great educational benefits. It’s one of the draws to the military for a lot of young people.
- The Montgomery GI Bill: Active duty - Up to $1075 per month for full-time institutional education for up to 10 years after your last discharge (requires forfeiting $100 of basic GI pay for first year of active duty) or Reserves - Up to $297 per month for full-time institutional education (no forfeiture of pay).
- Loan Repayment Programs: See Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and health professional officers.
- Top-Up Program: Supplements other tuition assistance programs such as the G.I. Bill for those eligible for MGIB-Active Duty benefits.
- Veterans Educational Assistance Program: Available if you elected to make contributions from your military pay to participate…Your contributions are matched on a $2 for $1 basis by the Government.
- Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance Program (DEA): For eligible dependents of certain veterans
(More on Military.com)
Politico reports:
“Each of us supports increasing education benefits for our nation’s veterans, and we believe this must be accomplished as quickly as possible,” reads the letter, signed by McCain, Graham and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). The three Republicans go on to say that they have “never disagreed with the overall intent” of the Webb bill but would like more attention to problems of recruitment and retention as well as “in-service education of career servicemen and women.”
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has raised questions, as well, about whether the Webb bill will hurt retention by encouraging young soldiers and Marines to leave after their first enlistment. Warner indicated that some changes might be made to address these fears, but he also argues that the improved benefits will be a great recruitment tool that will attract brighter volunteers into the service.
House and Senate members from both parties are in agreement that our troops deserve good educational and other benefits in return for their service to our country, and are working on a plan that will help those benefits keep up with the rising cost of tuition and living. It is ridiculous, therefore, to insinuate, as Obama has, that by not supporting this particular version of the “New GI Bill,” that a war hero like Senator John McCain is not giving our military service men and women “the chance to go to college.” It proves, as usual, that Obama, and other elitists on the left, are truly out of touch with reality, and the American people.
![[del.icio.us]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Newsvine]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/newsvine.png)
![[Reddit]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[Sphere]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/sphere.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
If military veterans already have great benefits, and it’s one of the draws to the military for a lot of young people, then why would more benefits be a demotivator? How much are soldiers demotivated by the benefits they get now? If benefits are increased, wouldn’t more young people be drawn to the military to offset the ones who don’t want to re-enlist?
This is kind of important, because you’re arguing that the democratic party is trying to damage the capabilities of the armed forces. This bill could have the opposite effect instead, giving discontent soldiers the opportunity to leave and making the army more attractive to potential recruits.
Hi, Paul. I understand your point, but no, I don’t think so. These proposed benefits are specifically aimed at service members already in the military who are up for reenlistment.
As with any job, a person becomes (or should become) more valuable with time, because his or her knowledge and skills increase. Giving new recruits the opportunity to serve three years active duty, then come home and not have to work for up to ten years while they’re going to school would not necessarily motivate the kind of folks we need to join and stay in the military. And it would motivate anyone who’s already in there to decline reenlistment.
If Americans at some point in the future are ever given the opportunity to actually (realistically) have a say in how our tax dollars are spent, educational benefits for veterans would certainly be on my short-list of priorities. I do think it’s very important. And it is important that the dollar value of those benefits is increased as the cost of education and living increases.
But this particular proposal, IMO, is not realistic, and not good for our country. There are better ways to go about it.
Jenn- I just have to laugh when people like you and the rest of the conservative crowd jump out of your chairs and do the war dance, like you did when George Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of your heros told you that Iraq was to blame for 9-11 back in 2001. Shock and Awe baby!
Then, 6 years later, when, ugh, the phrase Mission Accomplished is a national joke, when, oops, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, when whoopsy, no weapons of mass destruction after all, you guys still somehow, some WAY try to find a way to stick it to the troops, the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for YOUR completely unwarranted, most likely illegal war. Who cares that those lucky enough to survive have had their lives interrupted for years because of endless trips back to a sectarian civil war? We can’t now reward them with educational benefits, why, then they’d actually try to have a normal life after SERVING THEIR COUNTRY instead of fighting OUR endless war!! We can’t have that!!
And the most ironic part is that most of you clowns haven’t served 5 minutes in the military, yet YOU are the ones to decide that they shouldn’t get the same GI Bill that WWII veterans received.
Fortunately, by a 75-22 vote in the senate, when many Republicans finally came to their senses, you won’t get your way. This time.
Uh…what in the world are you talking about, Mike? I don’t remember anyone saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. That was never the point of going into Iraq.
And the educational benefits that veterans have currently are far better than what the veterans of WWII received - even better than the veterans of Korea and Vietnam received.
I’m all for veterans (and current service members) receiving excellent educational benefits. This “new GI Bill,” however, is NOT about the soldiers. It’s about undermining the military. It’s wrong.
Aw come on Jenn, you don’t remember anyone from this administration saying Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Bush, Cheney & Co. at the very least heavily implied it, saying Saddam Hussein had someone meeting in Europe with one of the 19 highjackers prior to the attack, saying Hussein’s government was associated with Bin Laden, saying that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction that would be the “mushroom cloud” instead of the smoking gun. It’s revisionist history to now say that tying Iraq to 9/11 was never the point of the administration going into Iraq. It was their entire argument! So what WAS the point? I’d like to hear this.
Don’t get me wrong, I respect the fact that you don’t agree with this GI Bill, that’s fine, this is America after all. But I’m guessing if a survey were done of veterans about this issue, you won’t find many who think it’s about undermining the military. No, you’ll most likely find that most think it’s about time, and many others think it will actually increase recruiting efforts.
I come from a military family, going back to WWI (my great grandfather & great aunt-a nurse), WWII (grandfather and 4 uncles, one who survived Iwo Jima, another who survived Normandy but was paralyzed), the Korean War (my father), Vietnam and Iraq (cousins). The ones still alive that I’ve talked to love this bill, even if it doesn’t help or pertain to them. Their opinions are the ones that matters to me…
Congrats…you’re in good company, coming from a family with a long military history. I had one grandfather in WWI, and one in WWII…and a Dad in Korea. You see, back then, it was EXPECTED for men to serve their country.
Educational benefits are a plus. Are you trying to tell me that the veterans in your family think a person should be able to serve for three years in the military, then come home, enroll in school, and not have to work for ten years as long as they stay enrolled in school?!
Sorry - I simply don’t believe that.
This is just cynical plow by Democrats to claim they care for the US Serviceman. They’d strip the military to their jockeys, make it a great social experiment and then abandon them for wetbacks.
Just think about Edwards. Everytime he went by a bridge he claimed he saw 300, 200 veterans under each one.
In truth, I think, he wished we’d stay there.
As an actual Veteran who enlisted after 9/11, I’m damn happy to see this done. When it was time for me to reenlist, I didn’t use this new bill as a reason to get out, I had too many reasons to get out otherwise. A lot of soldiers are perfectly happy not going to college, and a lot of those types stay in for the benefits and lifestyle.
Luckily, I live in the fine state of Texas, so I have the hazelwood act to fall back on if my GI Bill runs out before I finish college. Do you even know what that is?
Also, you failed to mention the tuition reimbursement program that active duty and reserve soldiers can take advantage of. In addition, your bit on the GI Bill wasn’t entirely honest. Yes, you do get 1k a month, but not for ten years. You get that 1k till your 40k runs out. Should someone who has put their life on hold for 4 years have to get a loan to become a lawyer or a doctor? No, I don’t think so.
It’s also been pretty hard for me to get a job. I did some pretty cool stuff when I was in, but as of today, after 4 months of searching, I’m still on unemployment. Shouldn’t I be able to study and take care of my time without working full time? Let me see here, full time father, full time husband, full time student, and full time employee. Doesn’t leave much time. Or maybe I can go to school part time, and take 6 years to get my degree. Or work part time, and eat ramen every night? Maybe I should have stayed in after all…
I don’t think I deserve all that much, but I know plenty of people who served with me that do. Many of us went in, and came out with things we can never be rid of, or loss things we can never have back. What have you sacrificed, on your soapbox?
Thank you for your service to our country, Wayne, and for your comments on the educational benefits for veterans.
Attending school is not easy for anyone. Everyone who makes the decision to return to school must make tough decisions about whether the cost, in terms of finances and time, is worth it.
No one here is suggesting that veterans don’t deserve good educational benefits. But I disagree that someone should be able to serve 3-4 years as a G.I., then return home and not have to work for 6-10 years as long as he or she remains enrolled in school.
[...] see: Democrats Using ‘New GI Bill’ to Subvert the War Effort Posted in Education, U.S. News. Tags: Dan Boren, New GI Bill, Student [...]
Proud OIF and OEF vet here. There are plenty of good soldiers that will stay in the military REGARDLESS of the GI Bill-I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Also I believe the negative affect on retention is greatly outweighed by the benefits to our country in the long-run. Military leaders and opponents of this bill need to focus on improving military quality-of-life in order to maintain or improve retention, not keep veteran’s benefits low.
Also, it is almost laughable that you considered the previous GI Bill’s benefits “great.” Compared to the typical college student with no income it is, but our veterans are anything but typical; sacrificing daily while their age-group peers go to college or get a start on a civilian career.
The new GI Bill will give our returning vets a chance to get an education and go on to do other great things for our country, like the WWII GI Bill did (which allowed 3 future Supreme Court justices and 14 future Nobel laureates go to college after returning). I’ll gladly be using my post-9/11 GI Bill to pay for my MBA and am confident our military will continue to be as strong as ever.
Separate note, where do you get “not have to work for 6-10 years”? I thought it only covers 36 months of full-time use? If someone wants to sit around unemployed, rack up student loan debt, or enroll at a part-time rate (at which they would get a reduced payment-either way that’s their prerogative and won’t cost us any “more”. I appreciate your concern for our military but feel your worries are unfounded.