Have you been reading about the bi-partisan proposal in Congress for the "G.I. Bill for the 21st Century"? It's co-sponsored by Democratic senators (and war vets) Jim Webb (a former Secretary of the Navy) and Frank Lautenberg and Republicans John Warner and Chuck Hagel, and would expand post-service higher education benefits for those who have served on active duty in the armed forces since 9/11/01.

What's not to like about pumping new life into one of the best things this country has ever done for its servicemen and women? Well, President Bush says the plan, at an estimated cost of $2.5 billon to $4 billion, is "too generous" and would "adversely affect retention". "Too generous" for our troops, some of whom have done six or seven tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But almost unbelievably (to me), John McCain is against it, too. Like Bush, he doesn't want any troops leaving at the end of their enlistments to go to college when they might otherwise have reupped. He says he trusts the Pentagon on the issue, and is simply following their lead, but will work on "alternative legislation". But it was just a month ago, on ABC News, that McCain had said, "... one of the thing we ought to do is provide them significant educational benefits in return for serving." Okay, well -- so much for separating himself from Bush.

What do you active-duty guys and veterans think?

From what I have read, the President supports the proposed change to the MGIB. However, I could see the point, that the bill could hurt retention. I would imagine it could hurt retention to a degree. However, I already go to school for free, on active duty we get 100% tuition assistance. I have had my GI bill for ten years and have not needed to use it. It will be a nice little benefit to use when I retire.
Therefore, one could easily argue that it would depend on the service and deployment rate for said Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine. However, I know in the Air Force we have Education Centers wherever we deploy, this is a requirement set forth by Air Force leadership. This way, no matter where we are in the world, we can take classes. I'm not sure how the other services work the education issue.
If you are correct about President Bush/Senator McCain, I would be disappointed. However, I do see it from the Commander in Chief perspective.

quote:

From what I have read, the President supports the proposed change to the MGIB.

Sen. Webb and Sen. Warner's bill is different from MGIB expansion, which Bush has indeed endorsed. The legislation he and Sen. McCain oppose is named the "Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act".

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:

quote:

From what I have read, the President supports the proposed change to the MGIB.

Sen. Webb and Sen. Warner's bill is different from MGIB expansion, which Bush has indeed endorsed. The legislation he and Sen. McCain oppose is named the "Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act".

Yes, I understand that the act would enable any vet who served for 3 months on active duty after 9/11/01 to receive all $1200. that they contributed to the GI Bill fund. Also, they would recieve BAH for an E-5 after leaving the service, while attending college. The Governement would also make the entitlement $1800 per month rather than $1200.

Maybe it's because GWB served in the ANG, but did not serve in the ANG.

I never signed up for the GI Bill when I had the chance (had recently graduated college and didn't see the need). Since then the Navy has paid me to attend Postgraduate school, so I think I made the right decision.

Regarding this bill, I can see where it might affect retention, but it seems to me that it might also bolster initial enlistments. We should be offering other enticements for troops to reenlist.

I know on the Navy side, there was a proposal the other day to create billeting ashore for sailors that until now lived aboard ship when it was inport.

It is a little odd:

"Don't give them the benefit that that they signed up for because then they might leave."

Hua?

Honestly, and I am not belittling my guys, but the guys who want to go to college will still go to college. Many more, especially the soldiers that we are recruiting right now, will never go to college although trade school is an option. I can't speak for my sister services, although the Air Force and Navy tends to be "smarter" based on the increased number of highly technical jobs required. So they would probably take more of a hit than the Army.

I can also see their point regarding retention. Who would take advantage of college? The smarter Joes. Who do we need badly right now as NCOs and junior officers? The smarter Joes.

Honestly, I would rather see the money sent to the VA where we can overhaul the system, make enrollment automatic and make disability payments based on situational, rather than sliding-scale factors.

But what do I know. I'm one of the dumb Jos that take your tax dollars and blow stuff up.

BT

From Senator Webb’s website:

The Updated S.22. Under the updated bill introduced today, service members returning from Iraq or Afghanistan could earn up to 36 months of benefits, equivalent to four academic years. Covered benefits would include the established charges of their program, up to the cost of the most expensive in-state public school; a monthly stipend equivalent to housing costs in their area; and a small stipend per semester for books.

The bill also ensures that service members do not lose their benefits if they are called to serve during school; it uses vouchers instead of cash payments to limit potential fraud; and it allows the military to provide additional incentives for retaining or filling critical military skills.

I don’t think this will have much impact on retention of military members who have been in the service for 10 years or more. It could be a deciding factor for those with less time in. The operations tempo of today’s military is the biggest reason retention is falling. They want us to do more work with less time, fewer people, and scarce resources.

I just came off of sea duty about six months ago. My ship was out to sea most of the time I was onboard. Whenever we were in port there was so much maintenance to do, we got very little time at home. There is a lot of maintenance to be done on ships that can only be accomplished in port.

I am now 18 months away from retiring. Today’s Navy is not the Navy I joined over 18 years ago. The Navy has been good to me, but if my enlistment were up today and I had anything less than 15 years of service, I’d walk out the door.

After spending 3 years on sea duty where I spent 60% or more of my time away from home, I am on shore duty where I am supposed to be able to relax a little. In the 6 months I’ve been on shore duty, my name has been submitted twice to go do a 1 year tour in Iraq. These submissions come when I have 18 months left. That would give me maybe 2 months to prepare for retirement upon returning from Iraq.

These are the reasons people are leaving the military, not for an educational benefit. That would just be a little extra incentive for those that have already decided to leave. It may also be an incentive for new enlistments. For kids who really want to go to school but can’t afford it, or don’t want a mountain of student loans, this could be their ticket. Who knows, the details still seem a little sketchy to me.

I thought maybe I should clarify something. I am not bitter with the Navy. After rereading my post I thought it could sound that way. For me, deployments are to difficult on my family so that is why I'm ready to finish. Spending time with my family consistently is what I need now and that is tough to get in today's Navy.

quote:

Posted May 07, 2008 01:43 PM Hide Post
I thought maybe I should clarify something. I am not bitter with the Navy. After rereading my post I thought it could sound that way. For me, deployments are to difficult on my family so that is why I'm ready to finish. Spending time with my family consistently is what I need now and that is tough to get in today's Navy.

My brother is carrier Army man much like yourself he disapproves of the new Army.He says it is not what he signed up for 15 years ago.Still in all he always says if he had to do it all again his choice would be the same.Hang in there your time is short you and your family will be united soon.Take advantage of all that is offered you have earned it.

I think the GI bill is a good thing. My dad was able to go to Yale after WW2 on the GI bill. He said they paid everything and he lived in veterans housing in New Haven.

quote:

Originally posted by SubChop:
Regarding this bill, I can see where it might affect retention, but it seems to me that it might also bolster initial enlistments. We should be offering other enticements for troops to reenlist.

I think that you are dead on. Bottom line, its the right thing to do to take care of these young people, and we are doing a poor job of it right now.

I agree that while it may hurt reupping, it could dramatically increase the number of ambitious, intelligent people who would sign up in the first place.

One thing that's important to remember is that these same vets now serving our country abroad, are going to make a superb generation of senior leaders in 10-15 years. The sort of conflict management, aka diplomacy, our troops are currently undertaking in addition to the "shooting war" is going to make them supremely qualified as leaders in business in the years ahead. Any benefit we can give them viz. education is only going to benefit the nation in the long run.

As an aside: I think a fantastic idea to strengthen the number of soldiers reupping would be to give them an income tax holiday for, say, 20 years after leaving the service. It would be an interesting study to see how much this would cost the treasury in the long run.

The new GI Bill proposal has made it through the house.

I guess it's offical now, signed by Bush yesterday. This is a great deal for me as I had plans to return to school.

Make use of it you earned it.

I have known many service people in my life, and my family has a very strong military tradition. I am actually the first male not to serve in over 10 generations. The only reason I did not serve is that I am medically disqualified from service.

That being said, from my experience around my family and the other service people I have known is that those that join the military with the intent to get a free education are not going to stay in the military regardless of the incentives. Those who join the military because they believe in serving our country and doing their part to defend the freedoms we hold so dear will serve regardless of the incentives. They serve because they feel it is the right thing to do, not because they are trying to make a buck off the government.

I think it belittles the men and women that serve our country to paint them as money grubbing or only in it for a free education. Honestly I think our government should look at providing more benefits to our service men and women, especially those who actually serve until they are retirement eligible.

So there is my 2 cents worth on the topic...

If they were really concerned about retention(in the Air Force) the would not have cut just about all re-enlistment bonuses. In my career field, SATCOM, the Army and Marines are getting 20-40k for re-enisting. We get $0.