NYT on the new GI Bill

[Ender]

linka

President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. He worries that if the traditional path to college for service members since World War II is improved and expanded for the post-9/11 generation, too many people will take it.

He is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.

So lavish with other people’s sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.

Thankfully, the new G.I. Bill has strong bipartisan support in Congress. The House passed it by a veto-proof margin this month, and last week the Senate followed suit, approving it as part of a military financing bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Senate version was drafted by two Vietnam veterans, Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska. They argue that benefits paid under the existing G.I. Bill have fallen far behind the rising costs of college.

Their bill would pay full tuition and other expenses at a four-year public university for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11.

At that level, the new G.I. Bill would be as generous as the one enacted for the veterans of World War II, which soon became known as one of the most successful benefits programs — one of the soundest investments in human potential — in the nation’s history.

Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.

They have seized on a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office that new, better benefits would decrease re-enlistments by 16 percent, which sounds ominous if you are trying — as Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are — to defend a never-ending war at a time when extended tours of duty have sapped morale and strained recruiting to the breaking point.

Their reasoning is flawed since the C.B.O. has also predicted that the bill would offset the re-enlistment decline by increasing new recruits — by 16 percent. The chance of a real shot at a college education turns out to be as strong a lure as ever. This is good news for our punishingly overburdened volunteer army, which needs all the smart, ambitious strivers it can get.

This page strongly supports a larger, sturdier military. It opposes throwing ever more money at the Pentagon for defense programs that are wasteful and poorly conceived. But as a long-term investment in human capital, in education and job training, there is no good argument against an expanded, generous G.I. Bill.

By threatening to veto it, Mr. Bush is showing great consistency of misjudgment. Congress should forcefully show how wrong he is by overriding his opposition and spending the money — an estimated $52 billion over 10 years, a tiniest fraction of the ongoing cost of Mr. Bush’s Iraq misadventure.

As partial repayment for the sacrifice of soldiers in a time of war, a new, improved G.I. Bill is as wise now as it was in 1944.

I wonder how I would find out if I was grandfathered in or not. Not that it would matter much, the IVG takes care of me for now and I just got a GFY letter from the VA office about applying for the GI bill anyhow, but it would be nice to know if this is available to me.

[Knife]

Meh, I wonder if they took out the ten year limit too.

[Kanastrous]

It is baffling, the profligate expenditure of resources everywhere, anywhere, else in the world, coupled with the amazing miserly penny-pinching for anything here at home (aside from the War on Drugs).

[CmdrWilkens]

Meh, I wonder if they took out the ten year limit too.

They pushed it to 15 years and so far as I am aware nobody stripped that provision out.

[Knife]

Meh, I wonder if they took out the ten year limit too.

They pushed it to 15 years and so far as I am aware nobody stripped that provision out.

Cool, too late for me, but cool all the same for the rest of ya.

[Ender]

It is baffling, the profligate expenditure of resources everywhere, anywhere, else in the world, coupled with the amazing miserly penny-pinching for anything here at home (aside from the War on Drugs).

Particularly when you consider how the GI Bill is basically nothing but positives - the first one saw a 7:1 return on expenditure for the government because higher education = higher pay = more taxes. Honestly, taking away the whole ethical justification for it, if someone comes to you and says I have a deal that will at a minimum generate profits several times what you put into it and the deal is shown to be sound you are a fool not to take it.

But then the politicians are looking to keep themselves in office, not secure the future wellbeing of our country.

[CmdrWilkens]

Meh, I wonder if they took out the ten year limit too.

They pushed it to 15 years and so far as I am aware nobody stripped that provision out.

Cool, too late for me, but cool all the same for the rest of ya.

Yup it means I could probably get 1 or 2 years out of this deal (I have just shy of 2 years on activated duty since 9/11) which may be enough to finish school since I've already got about 70 credits lying around waiting for me.

[Patrick Degan]

It is baffling, the profligate expenditure of resources everywhere, anywhere, else in the world, coupled with the amazing miserly penny-pinching for anything here at home (aside from the War on Drugs).

Particularly when you consider how the GI Bill is basically nothing but positives - the first one saw a 7:1 return on expenditure for the government because higher education = higher pay = more taxes. Honestly, taking away the whole ethical justification for it, if someone comes to you and says I have a deal that will at a minimum generate profits several times what you put into it and the deal is shown to be sound you are a fool not to take it.

But then the politicians are looking to keep themselves in office, not secure the future wellbeing of our country.

It's part and parcel with what appears to be the CONservative plan to make the consequences of poverty hideously onerous by walling off every option and cushion to remaining an uncomplaining little worker drone or (in this case) remaining in the military to be used in whatever venture an imperial president pleases to launch.

Basically, it's about controlling the workers.