GI Bill for the 21st Century

Greyhawk

You may or may not have noticed some of the slowly growing media coverage of the new GI Bill. If not, I suspect you will - this is the sort of story that tends to catch on.

I hope it doesn't - at least not for the reasons I suspect it will - but you'll have to read on to see why.

First: I've never been a fan of the current GI Bill. It's been badly in need of reform on several counts for a long time. Here's what I wrote from Iraq in October last year:

Give the GI Bill to all active duty troops along with Guard/reserve forces activated for service in Iraq and Afghanistan. By "give" I mean ELIMINATE THE "BUY IN" - stop forcing junior troops to decide between feeding their families and tucking some money away for college. And while we're at it, increase the benefit to equal what the troops returning from WWII received. If it could be done for the largest Army in American history, it certainly could be done for the smallest.

Who has that power? Only one group of people can do it. It's not the military. It's not the President.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it's the most unpopular institution in the history of the United States: your Congress. (Who are working on another pork-leaden defense spending bill even as we speak...)

(See also here.)

And now, lo and behold and glory hallelujah:

WASHINGTON, April 29, 2008 – The national commander of America's largest organization of combat veterans is demanding that Congress pass S. 22, the "Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act."

"A new GI Bill for the 21st century must be passed," said George Lisicki, who leads the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., a veterans' service organization that includes more than 70,000 Afghanistan and Iraqi war veterans among its 1.7 million members.
<...>
S. 22 was introduced by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) to mirror the original World War II educational benefit. It would repeal the $1,200 enrollment fee, match tuition at the highest in-state rate, and provide for books and fees, and a living stipend. For those veterans accepted to private institutions, S. 22 would also provide a dollar-for-dollar tuition match for those colleges and universities who choose to participate in the program.

Lisicki is hopeful that strong bipartisan support will finally help the new GI Bill for the 21st century become reality.

And those who already doled out the cash for their future GI Bill benefits would have that money refunded. To me the whole deal sounded too good to be true. But any doubts I had about the significance of the benefit were erased entirely when I read the best possible endorsement it could ever get:

Gates also restated long-standing Pentagon opposition to GI Bill educational benefits that are too generous, making it more likely for service members to leave the military to attend college. “Serious” retention issues are expected if benefits exceed the average monthly cost for a four-year public college, including tuition, room, board and fees, Gates said.

Read into that comment a little bit and you'll realize that it's also an acknowledgement that the current Montgomery GI Bill isn't a threat - it ain't good enough to hurt retention, even in an army at war. However, Secretary Gates also draws attention to an undeniable shortfall in S.22 - benefits can't be transferred to dependents:

Transferability, Gates said, “is the highest priority set by the service chiefs and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reflecting the strong interest from the field and the fleet,” Gates said.

I concur. But not for these reasons:

Transferring benefits is good for the family but also good for the services by helping to keep people in the military while family members are using the benefits, Gates said.

So, enter a competing bill - from Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina:

Graham’s bill would raise fulltime MGIB benefits to $1500 a month, up from $1101, for all users. That would include veterans and retirees who left service long before the attacks of 9-11.

It also would offer new enticements – including eligibility to transfer benefits to spouse or children -- for current members who meet new MGIB-enhancement thresholds at six and 12 years of service. After six years, members could transfer half of any unused MGIB benefits to family members. After 12 years’ service, the monthly benefit would pop up to $2000 a month, and members could transfer 100 percent of any unused portion to spouses or children.

All very nice - and as a guy with over 20 years time in, I think I'd come out ahead compared to Webb's offer. BUUUUTTTTT...

Other attracted features of S 2938 include an extra $500 a year for books and a fresh chance to buy into the MGIB for roughly 5000 members still on active duty who first entered service when the only education benefit offered was the anemic Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP).

...there's that "buy in" again. Put your life on the line, spend time in war zones far from home, and you're eligible to purchase educational benefits if you can afford them (AND LOTS OF LOW RANKING PROPLE CAN'T - please don't argue that it's a reasonable price). I wonder which bill most military members and veterans would prefer?

Anyhow, although I hate to lend credence to anonymous officials, this quote sounds legit:

A senior Pentagon official, speaking on condition of not being identified, said the McCain bill, co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Burr of North Carolina, “is retention friendly. It gives education benefits a big boost, but not more than average national costs. We can manage retention at those levels, but S 22 is a retention killer.”

Except that it's not the McCain bill - he is a co-sponsor, but it's Lindsey Graham's bill. But you'd be hard pressed to find that data point in most of the coverage. (More on that politicization of the issue shortly.)

First, for the record, I'm in full agreement with Paul Rieckhoff on the retention issue

Support for expanding GI education benefits in some fashion is widespread. Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and a strong proponent of Webb's legislation, said concerns that the bill's expanded benefits will encourage service members to leave the military is a "very short-sighted argument."

Expanded benefits are "a recruiting tool, readiness tool, and a moral obligation," he says. "The overall net gain is going to outweigh any potential retention problems."

So let me introduce my dream-scenario GI Bill:

1. No "buy in"

2. Webb's benefits for short term service, growing to Graham's numbers for career service members.

3. Transferability per Graham's bill. ( I really can't find anyone's defense of the lack of this provision in Webb's bill.)

What I'd gladly welcome: Webb's bill (even though I think I personally benefit more from Graham's.)

And now let me tell you what I think is more likely "New GI Bill": NOTHING. ZIP. NADA, NO CHANGE.

And here's why:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Democrats are discussing a proposal to add money and conditions to a war funding bill despite President Bush's specific objections.

The proposal would add a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq as a condition for the funding, several Democratic leadership aides said.

It would also add money for some of the Democrats' domestic priorities, including unemployment assistance, a new GI bill to fund education benefits for military veterans and a package of tax credits for renewable energy sources.

Democratic sources say the $178 billion measure would include $108 billion the president requested for military spending in 2008 and $70 billion to cover war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan through early 2009.

The little screaming cynic living in my head is telling me that the entire thing is a scam ro be crammed into a bill that has no chance in hell of surviving a Presidential veto for other reasons - then used as a political commercial in the upcoming campaign season to hammer anyone who "denied veterans" their just due.

But then again, the screaming little cynic isn't always right. Maybe for the first time in decades congress will do the right thing and send the best possible GI Bill as a stand alone measure to the White House.

You can bet I'll be watching developments closely.

*****

The text - and additional information - of Webb's bill (S 22 - originally introduced in January, 2007 and collecting dust ever since) is available here.

The text of Graham's bill (S 2938) isn't available yet - it's too new.

*****

Updates - see also:

How Republicans "lost" the Military Vote

Update: The New GI Bill