Sennott, Charles M. 2008. "GI Bill Falling Short of College Tuition Costs: Pentagon Resists Boost In Benefits." Boston Globe (10 February).
"The original GI Bill provided full tuition, housing, and living costs for some 8 million veterans; for many, it was the engine of opportunity in the postwar years. But, in the mid 1980s, the program was scaled back to a peacetime program that pays a flat sum. Today the most a veteran can receive is approximately $9,600 a year for four years -- no matter what college costs."
"The Pentagon and White House have so far resisted a new GI Bill out of fear that too many will use it -- choosing to shed the uniform in favor of school and civilian life. "The incentive to serve and leave," said Robert Clarke, assistant director of accessions policy at the Department of Defense, may "outweigh the incentive to have them stay"."
"Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq war veteran and director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, an organization based in New York, said that enhancing the GI Bill is a solid investment in the country's future. One study he cites suggests that every dollar spent on the original GI Bill created a seven-fold return for the economy. "Funding the GI Bill as Senator Webb proposes it for one year would cost this country what it spends in Iraq in 36 hours," he said."
"Beyond the financial struggle is a daunting bureaucratic obstacle course that can confound veterans and sometimes steer them away from the benefit altogether. That struggle starts with the requirement that all participants buy into the program with a $1,200 upfront payment. William Bardenwerper, an Army veteran of Iraq with an undergraduate degree from Princeton University, described a six-month odyssey of paperwork in trying to navigate the current GI Bill. He kept a detailed log of his frustrating, and to-date fruitless, effort to access his benefits for graduate school. "Not to sound elitist," said Bardenwerper, "but if a 31-year-old Princeton grad has a hard time deciphering what he is entitled to, then I have no idea how a 21-year-old armed only with a GED could navigate this system."
"Clarke, of the Department of Defense, said it is simply off-base to compare what was offered to World War II veterans to the situation today. There was no concern about retention rates back then, he said; rapid demobilization was the order of the day."
4 comments:
The solution to the problem described seems quite simple. If all those who hold the opinions of Robert Clarke were joined by those in the Congress and the White House who are of a similar mind, and all were required to spend two years in Iraq or Afghanistan on active military service, there would be a very pluch Veteran's benefit bill soon there after.
Of course, a universal draft would probably accomplish the same goal. It would more likely lead to an abrupt end to both wars and a reduced likelihood of further acts of insane preemptive stupidity. The "professional" standing army is the first step towards reckless adventurism and eventual tyranny.
The deceitfulness of military recruiters should be more widely publicized. The growing evidence of the military's refusal to recognize the problem of post traumatic stress disorder among returning service men is still additional evidence of the incredible selfishness and disregard for their fellow men and women that the Bush Administration and its cohorts in the Congress demonstrate on a daily basis.
I was a few years too young for WWII. My older brother joined early in 1946, at a time when there were no hostilities, served 18 months and got the benefit of the GI Bill. This relieved our parents of significant expense as a result of which they could help me with college. I was in college when the Korean conflict broke out and with the available exemption from the draft continued with college and then law school, by which time the Korean conflict ended. I did have to serve two years as a draftee before Vietnam. My brother was a "veteran" even though WWII fighting had ended in 1945. I was not classified as a "veteran" as it was clearly peacetime, and deservedly. But in the mid 1960s a somewhat minor GI Bill permitted me to save some money in obtaining an LLM. I was not in any real sense in harm's way during my two years as a draftee. I do not consider myself a veteran in the sense that those who were in harm's way are.
With the all volunteer military, as pointed out in the preceding comment, those who do volunteer and who are at risk are being short-changed. Of course if there were a draft, many more voices would be heard for justice for these volunteers (and draftees!) who are put in harm's way. Those who benefit from not volunteering should speak up for those that do. But then there are the free-riders ... represented by George W's Administration.
Of course, a successful draft program would have to close all loop holes. The pond scum would have to have all the escape routes effectively closed.
Not that I'm advocating military service for all. I'm not, but a drafted army strikes me as being a lot more hospitable to the inductee than an all volunteer type. I never served in the military. It was clear to me as a 15 year old visiting my older brother at Ft Dix, NJ, that the military was not an hospitable place for any reasonable man or woman. That needs to change. Most importantly we need to change our methods of political diplomacy so that we don't again jump the the end point,
war.
Wow, the system sounds like the same one I used 20 years ago, but somehow the administration of it must have become a thousand times more complex, or else that Princeton grad is an idiot. As a 20 year old with a GED I had no problem filling out the forms and getting benefits. And everyone knew you had to kick in the $1200 while you were in. These things are not big hurdles. Considering we're now talking wartime vets the benefits should be increased, at least for those who served in a warzone.
JMS
Post a Comment