Competing G.I. Bills in Congress
There are two G.I. Bills that have been snaking their ways through Congress. This is actually a good thing as we’re finally working to fix something created decades ago. Since I’m on the email lists of veterans organizations from Vets For Freedom to Iraq Veterans Against the War, I’ve heard all sides of the story as they fight to get one or the other passed. I’d like to educate you all about what these competing bills provide since they will be used as political capital on both sides of the aisle.
The first bill is one proposed by Senators Graham, Burr, and McCain. The main points of the G.I. Bill here provide for transferability of benefits to children and spouses. It also offers more benefits for those that serve longer. It provides an excellent incentive for making the military a career instead of a one-tour stint. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with only serving 3 or 4 years in the military, so don’t put any words in my mouth. Those of you who would anyway haven’t served a day to begin with!
The other bill was proposed by Virginia Senator Jim Webb. This bill provides expanded benefits to those that have served just one enlistment. It’s not a bad bill as it provides more money for education than we currently have, but it encourages military attrition and doesn’t provide for transferability children or spouses. It also increases the amount of time a servicemember can take to use his benefits from ten years to fifteen. Personally, I don’t think there should be a limit at all, but this is a good thing. Another positive is that it may increase initial military enlistments for those wanting to serve only one term.
Jim Webb thinks that since he can’t get troops out of Iraq, he’ll get them out through the back door. By authoring and submitting this legislation, he has effectively convinced Soldiers to get in, do their 3-4 years, and get out of the military. This will cause a huge strain on military attrition and make fighting the wars difficult as experienced combat veterans leave active service. The military will be required to expend vast amount of money training and retraining more recruits to replace the ones that are leaving to persue a full-time college education. Again, there is nothing wrong with going to college full-time, but we don’t need to be hurting the military while doing it.
Military educational benefits are better than any other commercial sector in the nation. We have more educational opportunities than we know what to do with if we just take the time to seek after them. Classes are offered at virtually every military installation and online for those stationed in remote locations. Tuition assistance pays over $4500 per year to attend courses on active duty WITHOUT even touching the G.I. Bill. There is really no reason why a Soldier should leave the military without some sort of two or four year degree. Even on posts where the schedules are weird, like Fort Irwin, the colleges provide work-arounds. On Fort Irwin, they schedule class to ensure they don’t conflict with rotations. The courses are generally condensed which means you get the same education with less classroom time.
Soldiers have been asking for expanded benefits for years. We’ve plainly laid out what we want: enough to cover the actual cost of tuition and transferability. Both Webb’s and McCain’s bills bring us a step closer, but Webb’s bill ignores the transferability option and encourages attrition. Approving Webb’s version of the bill without any changes would absolutely kill the non-commissioned officers corps in the military and provide a vaccuum in mid-level experience and leadership. One only has to serve three to 36 months for pete’s sake! It takes at least three years to make a good NCO. McCain’s bill rewards those who remain on active duty for longer periods of time. I think that is smart and rewards the sacrifices of those who remain in service to their country.
Flag Gazer
May 27th, 2008 at 1:01 amThanks for the summary. Personally, I trust nothing with Jim Webb’s name on it.
CJ
May 27th, 2008 at 5:59 amTo be fair, though, both options are better than what we have today. The GI Bill really does need to be fixed.
Snead
May 27th, 2008 at 9:00 amIt’s amazing how many times I hear this false retention argument. The Congressional Budget Office report plainly states that an expected 16% loss of retention would be offset by a 16% increase in recruits.
And now you’re claiming too many good NCOs will be lost? You know one thing that makes a good NCO: commitment to their service. Good NCOs usually reenlist. Especially if they recognize all the other educational benefits offered to active servicemembers as you’ve outlined. So I’m not sure how you can claim all these “good” NCOs will just abandon their branches, but I’d love to hear more.
CJ
May 27th, 2008 at 9:39 am“I’m not sure how you can claim all these “good” NCOs will just abandon their branches, but I’d love to hear more.”
Snead, I’m not claiming that at all. I’m claiming that we won’t have the people to BECOME good NCOs. 16% is a LOT of turnover for an organization, much more so one that is involved in combat! Retention is vital to carrying over experience, good sense, and training!! Remember, the higher up you get the more the rank structure bottle-necks. If you’re losing 16% of your force, regardless of how many are new recruits, that’s even less to pick from to lead our military into the future.
Snead
May 27th, 2008 at 10:03 amI would agree that making a radical shift in military benefits (and I really do think the Webb bill would be a pretty radical change) during a time of high combat activity and deployment rotations is not the best timing, but when else are you going to have a chance to push our “leaders” in Washington to do something positive?
I also find it hard to believe that the impact will be as high as predicted. Now I have much less experience than you to draw from and the Marine Corps is a much smaller branch than the Army, but in my gut I just don’t feel the losses will be nearly as rough as the White House and Pentagon are claiming.
In short, this might not the best possible option, it certainly doesn’t have the best timing, and it OBVIOUSLY should NOT be a part of an “emergency supplemental” bill since it is a long-term, far-reaching program, but I think the Webb bill is our best chance for improving our military.
The sad thing will be if the bill cannot overcome Bush’s veto and another year passes with no reforms made.