Administration Fights Dem Plan to Boost School Aid for Vets

[hist2004]

Administration Fights Dem Plan to Boost School Aid for Vets

August 09, 2007

Alexandra Bahou and Anna Schecter Report:

The Bush administration opposes a Democratic effort to restore full educational benefits for returning veterans, according to an official's comments last week.

Senate Democrats, led by Virginia's Jim Webb, want the government to pay every penny of veterans' educational costs, from tuition at a public university to books, housing and a monthly stipend.

Such a benefit was a major feature of the historic 1944 G.I. Bill, which put more than eight million U.S. soldiers through college and is now credited by historians as fueling the expansion of America's middle class in the post-war era.

But in recent years the benefit has dwindled; under the current law, passed in 1985, veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan can expect Uncle Sam to cover only 75 percent of their tuition costs. That's not enough, say Democrats and veterans' advocates.

More than 450,000 used the benefit last year, at a cost to taxpayers of $2 billion, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which administers the program. The Democratic proposal would cost an additional $5.4 billion a year, the VA estimates -- and that's too much, it says.

Keith Wilson, the VA official who oversees the education benefits program, told senators last Friday the proposal would make "administration of this program cumbersome," and its costs would "tax existing VA resources."

But Democrats appeared unfazed. The current GI Bill is "woefully inadequate, given the service our military men and women have provided since [the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks]," said Webb, a combat veteran and former Navy secretary, who introduced the legislation that would expand the program. Webb's bill has 19 Democratic co-sponsors, including Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and John Kerry, D-Mass., a fellow veteran.

Patrick Campbell of the Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) endorsed Webb's plan. Better educational benefits are essential for attracting talented, ambitious recruits, he asserted.

"If the Department of Defense said, 'If you serve your country, we'll pay for school no questions asked,' ...[that] would increase the quality of our recruits," said Campbell, "instead of what we're doing now, which is lowering our standards."

Source: (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/08/administration-.html)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

It's a win-win for the Democrats - look like they're supporting the troops while giving a Christmas gift to one of their largest lobbying groups (teachers unions).

[pinkeye]

It's a win-win for the Democrats - look like they're supporting the troops while giving a Christmas gift to one of their largest lobbying groups (teachers unions).


with all due respect, this is such an idiotic response. who cares about the troops as long as the teacher's union gets a christmas gift, 'cause the dems obviously don't give a toss about the former.
god forbid anyone do anything positive...

by the way, i dislike the democratic party, bunch of spineless morons.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

with all due respect, this is such an idiotic response. who cares about the troops as long as the teacher's union gets a christmas gift, 'cause the dems obviously don't give a toss about the former.
god forbid anyone do anything positive...

Had you considered that if "caring about the troops" was what is at issue here, that perhaps the hundreds of millions of dollars that this is sure to cost could be better spent on new equipment that would allow the troops to actually complete their mission quicker and come home? Or if "caring about the troops" is the issue, maybe the Democrats could have spent the last 4 years doing something besides consistently undermining their mission and lending assistance to the enemy's PR machine?

We have an election in full swing, and anybody with money or resources to buy votes is busy doing so. Presumably, the Democrats have "cared about the troops" over the last 4 years as well, so anybody with connected brain cells should be wondering why they've suddenly come up with this marvelous idea. Or I guess we can all stand here slack jawed and applaud tearfully when some politician says something brave and insightful like "I'm against crime, and for education!"

[nhn21]

It's a win-win for the Democrats - look like they're supporting the troops while giving a Christmas gift to one of their largest lobbying groups (teachers unions).


Damn Straight!!! The only true and genuine way to support the troops is to be against paying for their education. I knew those liberal democrats and hate america first crowd will stop at nothing to hurt our great military. I think this administration is doing a fantastic job supporting our men and women in uniform. Heck, just 2 months ago, president threathened to veto a 3.5 percent pay raised for the military, saying it was "unnecessary".I could not agree with him more.We must do everything we can to protect our troops from the traitors. How DARE they demand a pay raise for the military. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/icons/icon8.gif

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_payhike_whitehouse_070516/

[2Sheds_Jackson]

This just keeps getting better. Please do go on. Claiming that this bill "supports the military" makes exactly as much sense as saying that opposing it is opposing the military.

If throwing money at the military is what's good, ok, then allow me to propose a plan;
-everybody returning from overseas will get a free union-made American car upon their return, since they can't be expected to start from the ground up after being away so long. No wait strike that, they get a Lexus.
-double, no wait, triple military pay.
-military members receive government vouchers for free food for 5 years upon their return - they can't be expected to get a job and work, what with the trauma and all.
-military wages tax free across the board
-all employers are encouraged via a federal program of steep tax cuts to fire civilian employees and replace them with returning vets
-while I'm at it - free clothes - each vet gets a free set of brown shirts
-a national program to foster fellowship among vets - we'll call them, oh I don't know, the Super Americans, or SA, and I'll organize them into "Gruppes" - and we can meet at beer halls and such.

Oh wait I got carried away.

These benefits are supposed to be an incentive designed to shore up enlistment - and as long as we're meeting our current recruitment goals, anybody throwing money around like this is just grandstanding and pandering.

[Noble713]

This just keeps getting better. Please do go on. Claiming that this bill "supports the military" makes exactly as much sense as saying that opposing it is opposing the military.

If throwing money at the military is what's good, ok, then allow me to propose a plan;
-everybody returning from overseas will get a free union-made American car upon their return, since they can't be expected to start from the ground up after being away so long. No wait strike that, they get a Lexus.

It's possible that the lifetime expenses of owning a vehicle (insurance, fuel, maintenance) would recoup the cost of heavily subsidizing the initial purchase.



-double, no wait, triple military pay.

That would do wonders for our recruitment and retention, attracting far better recruits than we get now.



-military members receive government vouchers for free food for 5 years upon their return - they can't be expected to get a job and work, what with the trauma and all.

You already essentially get free food (through BAS) if you are on Active Duty.


-military wages tax free across the board

Tax-free income allows people to increase both their consumption and their investments, which would further stimulate the economy (not necessarily a good thing NOW, some might argue that the economy is overheating).



-all employers are encouraged via a federal program of steep tax cuts to fire civilian employees and replace them with returning vets

Dumping a bunch of people onto the labor market would probably depress wages, which has a positive side-effect of increasing the competitiveness of US goods.



-while I'm at it - free clothes - each vet gets a free set of brown shirts

We already get free brown shirts. :D



-a national program to foster fellowship among vets - we'll call them, oh I don't know, the Super Americans, or SA, and I'll organize them into "Gruppes" - and we can meet at beer halls and such.

The VFW?


These benefits are supposed to be an incentive designed to shore up enlistment - and as long as we're meeting our current recruitment goals, anybody throwing money around like this is just grandstanding and pandering.

In the long-run, the Army needs to be substantially larger and the currently low recruiting standards need to be raised lest we risk a deterioration in the overall quality of the force. Beefing education payouts will help with the *future* needs of the military in this regard.

[nhn21]

This just keeps getting better. Please do go on. Claiming that this bill "supports the military" makes exactly as much sense as saying that opposing it is opposing the military.

If throwing money at the military is what's good, ok, then allow me to propose a plan;
-everybody returning from overseas will get a free union-made American car upon their return, since they can't be expected to start from the ground up after being away so long. No wait strike that, they get a Lexus.
-double, no wait, triple military pay.
-military members receive government vouchers for free food for 5 years upon their return - they can't be expected to get a job and work, what with the trauma and all.
-military wages tax free across the board
-all employers are encouraged via a federal program of steep tax cuts to fire civilian employees and replace them with returning vets
-while I'm at it - free clothes - each vet gets a free set of brown shirts
-a national program to foster fellowship among vets - we'll call them, oh I don't know, the Super Americans, or SA, and I'll organize them into "Gruppes" - and we can meet at beer halls and such.

Oh wait I got carried away.

These benefits are supposed to be an incentive designed to shore up enlistment - and as long as we're meeting our current recruitment goals, anybody throwing money around like this is just grandstanding and pandering.

Give me a break, if the bush administration is the one that proposes the pay raise and the education benefits, but the dems were against it, you would be singing a very different tune. Who says anything about " throwing money" at the military. Yes, giving them a 3.5 percent pay raise and paying for their college education is " throwing money " at them. Your nonsense about giving them cars when they come home is nothing more than straw man argument to avoid the basic facts. He sent them to iraq, extended their tour, and telling how us much his administration supports the military. But " strongly opposes" the pay raise and the education benefits.

[Ordie]

It's a win-win for the Democrats - look like they're supporting the troops while giving a Christmas gift to one of their largest lobbying groups (teachers unions).

Here's the annual average cost (2 semesters) of university education including tuition, books, on campus room and board

Private Universities = ~ $50,000
Public Universities = $25,000 to 35,000
California– UCUniversities = $20,000 to $25,000
California– CalState Universities = $15,000 to $18,000
*Princeton Review

Full time GI Bill monthly payment is $1,075 = $8,600 for two semesters is hardly 75%.

I think $2 billion is not much to ask given that we spend $1.8 billion each week in Iraq.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I'm aware of what the GI bill pays for, since both my wife and I have it.

You people don't seem to understand politics. Don't you remember when the Democrats accused the Republicans of not caring about America's children, because they wanted to "cut" school lunch programs? How much money is enough? Why stop at full tuition, room, board and stipend - why not give them a car? Why not give them a year's full salary after they get off active duty? Why not two? How about a $100,000 tax free enlistment bonus? If you oppose those ideas, you must be anti-military, right?

edit - for the record, I am not necessarily against any proposed increases in bennies - what I'm against it the knee-jerk spin machine that seeks to derail the necessary assessment of the program in a rush to grab votes with both arms. This is politics, and things are done for political reasons. As I said - it's a win-win for the democrats who will appear to support the military and hand one of their largest donor groups (about 95% of the NEAs' political contributions go to the Democrats) a huge gift. That doesn't make it wrong, but it is what it is.

[nhn21]

I'm aware of what the GI bill pays for, since both my wife and I have it.

You people don't seem to understand politics. Don't you remember when the Democrats accused the Republicans of not caring about America's children, because they wanted to "cut" school lunch programs? How much money is enough? Why stop at full tuition, room, board and stipend - why not give them a car? Why not give them a year's full salary after they get off active duty? Why not two? How about a $100,000 tax free enlistment bonus? If you oppose those ideas, you must be anti-military, right?

Why not exercise some common sense? Nobody is saying that soldiers should get a fancy house with a Lexus in the garage. But a 3.5 percent raise and college tuition aren't that much to ask. There are military families living on food stamp right now, paying them enough so they don't have to rely on public assistance should be a start.Your slippery slope argument that somehow they will want more and more doesn't jive. When soldiers start demanding that they should live a life of luxury, then you may have a point. Honestly, are there any serving soldiers right now who can truly say that a lousy 3.5 percent raise is too much. You make sounds like the dems are the only ones who can use the troops to play politics,it goes both way. As long as the soldiers can make enough without relying on food stamps, i'm all for it.
For a country that could not stop saying how much we support the troops, we have a funny way of showing it.

[Ordie]

I think its a reasonible proposal.

In Bush's home state of Texas, Veterans are given 150 units of free college tuition.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida waived 4 years of public university tuition for returing Purple Heart vets from Iraq and Afghanistan. West Virginia has a similar law. Wisconsin is another etc....

Not politics.

It's just the right thing to do.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Not politics.

It's just the right thing to do.

It's an election year, it is politics. The NEA is getting a reach-around, rightly or wrongly. Any increase in benefits is the right thing to do, yes? The question becomes, how much? It's the same with the minimum wage argument. If an increase is the right thing to do, why not make it $50/hr.?

[ElHombre]

It's a win-win for the Democrats - look like they're supporting the troops

You call paying for their education 'looking' like the Dems support the troops?. Don't be mad just because the Rs can't be bothered to actually do anything with the troops besides using them as photo-ops. :lol:


...while giving a Christmas gift to one of their largest lobbying groups (teachers unions).

That makes no sense at all. How is paying for the troops education supposed to be a giant gift to teachers?

[Firetxmi]

Here is an interesting tidbit from Wikipedia about the income demographics of Fort Bragg (might I add, just 1 of many military bases):



Income

The median income for a household on the base is $30,106, and the median income for a family is $29,836. 10.0% of the population and 9.6% of families are below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 11.4% of those under the age of 18 and 0.0% of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Bragg,_North_Carolina#Demographics

[NeedsABetterName]

You call paying for their education 'looking' like the Dems support the troops?. Don't be mad just because the Rs can't be bothered to actually do anything with the troops besides using them as photo-ops. :lol:



That makes no sense at all. How is paying for the troops education supposed to be a giant gift to teachers?

So why didn't this come up in 2001-2002, when the whole patriotism deal was the popular thing? What about in 2003, when Iraq was invaded? 2004-2005-2006, when casualties started going up? ****, why not during Bill's tenure in office or even earlier than that? If they've supported bills such as these for so long, why is this wonderful wave-the-flag-we-support-the-troops-we're-doing-so-much gesture only coming now, during the run-up to an election?

It's long overdue, don't get me wrong. Those that are bold enough to go out and serve the country should expect and receive the best, and nothing less than that. The timing, especially when you've got senators going out and talking about how it's been so 'woefully inadequate' over the past six years (but not over the last, what, sixty years and countless wars and other conflicts since the GI Bill was made law?), is where I see the problem with the bill.

[shocker1]

Do not take this the wrong way but why is this a priority now? According to the article up to 75% of higher education costs are covered. Along with the leadership, teamwork and other broad based skills a member of the military has many doors open. I would rather see a pay increase for enlisted personnel not more GI Bill funds.

I would also rather see the government spread the phantom wealth of 5 billion dollars and help bring higher education to the willing of the entire US population. This would be a positive aggressive step in catching the US up in terms of education. The proposal seems more like a political feel good weapon being used as a guilt trip to force a perceived negative response.

[Ordie]

The fact of the matter is that many states are taking the lead in providing veteran educational benefits above and beyond what the GI Bill provides.

The challenge for the GI Bill is to keep up with the rising costs of tuition, housing and books. Sometimes the GI Bill is not enough.

The best option for many future vets is to take advantage of subsidized community college classes while in active service and transfer the credits.

[shocker1]

The fact of the matter is that many states are taking the lead in providing veteran educational benefits above and beyond what the GI Bill provides.

The challenge for the GI Bill is to keep up with the rising costs of tuition, housing and books. Sometimes the GI Bill is not enough.

The best option for many future vets is to take advantage of subsidized community college classes while in active service and transfer the credits.

One thing that needs addressed are the schools whose credits are not transferable. This is robbery no higher education course should be allowed with being accredited. I see many young folks throw money away on these schools.