9
Give GIs a chance, no matter the price
Kim Clark
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
Tess Vigeland: A new GI bill is back on the drawing boards. Democrats tucked it into the war spending bill that already passed the House. The Senate is expected to take up the measure this week.
It would more than double the current education benefit given to military service members -- up to $90,000 -- but commentator Kim Clark says the legislation has divided some of the nation's most influential veterans.
Kim Clark: Everybody in Washington pretty much agrees on one thing: Veterans' education benefits need to be improved.
The standard under the GI Bill right now is about $10,000 an academic year. Unfortunately, the total cost of attending a typical public university is more than $15,000 and private schools can cost more than three times that. No wonder fewer than a third of the first Gulf War veterans have gone on to college -- they can't afford it.
But for the last several months, two of the nation's most influential veterans -- President Bush and Senator John McCain -- have been arguing for only a modest increase in benefits -- about $3,000 a year. They say anything more would be too expensive and might lure experienced soldiers away from reenlistment. They're following in some impressive political footsteps: Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Ford, all World War II veterans, also opposed efforts to increase veterans' education benefits at some point during their term.
But the popularity of the GI Bill appears to be overwhelming these concerns. Congress is about to pass a compromise bill sponsored by Senator Jim Webb, who is also a decorated Vietnam Veteran. It's backed by major veteran groups like the American Legion and has drawn so much bipartisan support that President Bush now says he'll sign it. It would cover full tuition and housing even at a school like UCLA, where the cost of attendance now exceeds $23,000 a year.
Will this be expensive? Sure. Will it reduce reenlistment? It very well might. But the Government Accountability Office says it would increase recruitment. By opening college gates, the original GI Bill laid the foundation of the Middle Class prosperity of the 50s and 60s. Studies show that every dollar spent on education benefits after World War II paid back at least $5 in increased taxes and economic growth.
If we can't afford to give our veterans a chance at success in life, how can we afford to ask our soldiers to brave death?
Vigeland: Kim Clark covers money for U.S. News and World Report.
I was delighted to read that the original GI bill paid $5 in increased tax income to the gvt. for every $1 it cost. I'd love to follow that up. Where might i find the research that was quoted here? I'd like to drum up support for a new GI bill to insure American progress for the next 50 years...Please advise. Dennis Altman, Assoc. Professor, University of Kentucky...
Joshua Hudson,
Thanks for the info. I will call my VA rep at the registrar and ask about this “TOP UP†business. What I still don't understand is: If they are worried about soldiers leaving the army to reap the full benefits of a robust G.I. Bill, why don't they make those same benefits available to us that choose to continue to serve while striving toward a higher education?
Why force us to choose between college and service?
By doing so they are unnecessarily shrinking the benefits of the G.I. Bill to those on active duty and give an unwanted incentive for soldiers to give up the uniform to become students.
A good commentary on this proposed increase in GI Bill benefits, though I think any big increase should be limited to those deployed. As far as the statement about a third of first Gulf War vets not going to college because they can't afford it, college didn't cost as much then as it does now, and many didn't go on to school for other reasons, such as having to continue supporting a family after leaving the service. As far as some comments about President Bush's status as a veteran being insulting, I guess I'm not a "real" vet either according to these people. I served from 1997-2001 on active duty and am currently in the reserves, but haven't been activated. GWB was still in uniform, could still have been activated and you don't need Daddy to join the national guard. And like or not, he's a very influential vet because he did become president, like it or not. We had a draft dodger for eight years (Clinton) and he got us involed in a real useless war (Kosovo, which didn't have anything to do with oil, WMDs and anything else which would be in our national interest). I'm willing to bet at least one of you supported him and are not calling him a liar for using the same justfication Bush used for invading Iraq when Clinton bombed Saddam and Co. in December 1998 (Operation Desert Fox). I also suspect at least one of you has never put on a military uniform. Get over yourselves!
Kudos to Kim Clark and Marketplace for a fair and well balanced story on the GI Bill conundrum. However, you really struck a nerve in referring to Dubya as a veteran and equal of John McCain.
An apology to all real veterans is in order, I think.
I couldn't believe my ears, so I checked the Markeplace website today, and Kim Clark actually did say, "...two of the nation's most influential veterans -- President Bush and Senator John McCain..." during her June 23rd story. Excuse me, Ms. Clark, but having his daddy get him assigned to the Texas National Guard, and then never showing up for duty, does not entitle George W. Bush to be called a veteran. On the contrary, all men and women who have actually served our country, Senator McCain included, should be deeply insulted by your reference to Dubbya as a vet. As for the President's support of the bill: it is the least he can do for vets who his Administration put in harm's way for no good reason, and are returning from that useless war to a country that doesn't even provide adequate health care for those who served and sacrificed.
Captain J. Webb,
The G.I. Bill will work the same for active duty. You will still receive the 100% tuition assistance for the first $3,500 of course costs.
If you choose to use your G.I. Bill on active duty, you will be reimbursed for your expenses of the class (up to a certain dollar amount) and then charged for the months the courses were attended. This is not a good deal for active duty.
There is another program called TOP UP, which supplements your tuition and charges you only the months that would be equal to the funds that were used. This is the program that active duty should use. However, this only applies to those who are currently eligible for the Montgomery G.I. Bill, which most officers are not.
I have been doing my research but I can’t find an answer to this question: How does the new G.I. Bill effect benefits of service members that are attending college on active duty? I am a graduate student at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville Arkansas. I currently pay about $4,000 per semester for school and get reimbursed about $550 a a month. In other words, it doesn’t even come close to covering my tuition. Instead I am racking up student loans. I am hopeful that the new G.I. Bill increases my benefits as well since I still have 18 hours of graduate school left before I get my MBA. I am active duty and have served 24 months (so far) in Iraq.
Thank you for your support!
Captain J. Webb
Overall it was an excellent article but you really insulted veterans by calling the shrub (our current president) a veteran. He is a coward and a total farce. He never served this country like John McCain, John Kerry, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, his father or the tens of thousands of other real veterans. He joined an obscure air force national guard unit that he knew would never see any action, and hardly attended the required training. To call the shrub a veteran is the most malicious insult you can say to a real military veteran!
