BOOSTING G.I. BILL BENEFITS COULD HIT GOVERNMENT

BOOSTING G.I. BILL BENEFITS COULD HIT GOVERNMENT ROADBLOCK

VA says it's too expensive and more

administratively complex than the current GI Bill, and

DoD says it would make it more difficult to retain

experienced troops beyond their first hitch.







For a previous story on this issue...click here...
http://www.vawatchdog.org/08/nf08/nfMAR08/nf030708-7.htm

For more about the G.I. Bill, use the VA Watchdog search engine...click here...
http://www.yourvabenefits.org/sessearch.php?q=g.i.+bill&op=ph

Story here... http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-29-gi-bill_N.htm

Story below:



-------------------------

Boosting GI Bill benefits could hit military roadblock

By Dennis Camire
Gannett News Service



WASHINGTON — For Sen. Jim Webb, it's a question of fairness: Why don't veterans of today's armed services get the same benefits the GI Bill provided "the greatest generation" after World War II?

But the Virginia Democrat's effort to remedy the perceived slight, which has gained support in Congress, runs afoul of how officials at the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs want to manage the all-volunteer military. Besides being too expensive and more administratively complex than the current GI Bill, they say it would make it more difficult to retain experienced troops beyond their first hitch.

Webb's bill, now backed by 51 senators of both parties, as well as most veterans' organizations, would boost the education benefit for service members who have been on active duty since Sept. 11, 2001, including those in the National Guard and Reserves.

"I see the educational benefits in this bill as crucial to a service member's readjustment to civilian life and as a cost of war that should receive the same priority that funding the war has received the last five years," Webb said.

Article continues below:

(use left/right arrows in screen to view more videos)


The benefit would cover tuition and fees for the most expensive public university in any state where the veteran resides and pay an allowance for books and housing.

It also sets up a program so veterans could use the benefit to help pay tuition at more expensive private institutions. If the private school were willing to help the veteran with tuition cost, the government would match it dollar for dollar.

A House version of the new GI Bill proposal has about 111 supporters.

The original GI Bill, passed in 1944, offered $500 a year for tuition, books, fees and other costs in a decade when Harvard University's tuition was $450 a year and Massachusetts Institute of Technology was $500. The bill also provided $50 to $75 a month as an allowance to single veterans and more to veterans with dependents.

That was enough to allow World War II veterans such as Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., attend universities they might not gone to otherwise.

"I am not sure that I would have had the means within our family structure to go on and receive higher education without the GI Bill," said Warner, a bill co-sponsor who attended Washington and Lee University and the University of Virginia.

Lautenberg, another co-sponsor, said he came from a "poor working-class family" and the GI Bill allowed him to go to Columbia University, which otherwise was "way out of reach."

But the current GI Bill, which provides $1,101 a month for 36 months of school, covers only about 73% of the tuition cost at public universities and less than 31% at private institutions, according to the Congressional Research Service.

And the cost of tuition and fees is climbing faster than inflation with the average cost at a public four-year university reaching $13,600 this year for tuition, fees, room and board, an increase of 278% during the past two decades, according to the research service.

"There is a total disincentive for the American fighting man or woman to go to school full time on the current education benefit," said Eric Hilleman, deputy national legislative director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "It's a real challenge."

Webb estimates the cost of the bill as about $2 billion more than current spending, which was about $2.8 billion last year.

But the Department of Veterans Affairs estimated that an earlier version of Webb's bill, first introduced last year, would cost as much as $75 billion over the next 10 years, significantly higher Webb's projections on an annual basis.

Lawmakers supporting the bill still have to overcome objections to the measure from Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs officials — and get the bill through the Senate and House Veterans' Affairs committees.

Sen. Dan Akaka, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, has been non-committal about Webb's bill so far.

"Any changes to the GI Bill must be reviewed for its impact on military recruitment and retention, as well as veterans' readjustment," said Akaka, who attended the University of Hawaii on the GI Bill. "I believe further discussion on this bill may be in order."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who used the GI Bill to get his doctorate at Georgetown University, also said at a recent Senate hearing that he was willing to "take a close look at the bill," which the Pentagon is currently analyzing.

Defense and VA officials argue that the current GI Bill is a tool they use to manage the current all-volunteer military force through recruitment and retention, unlike the World War II bill, which was primarily a readjustment benefit aimed at helping the country reabsorb 16 million war veterans. About 7.8 million World War II veterans took advantage of the education benefits.

But defense officials say raising education benefits too much would provide too much of an incentive for service members to leave the military for school at the end of their first tour.

"Attracting qualified recruits using large, across-the-board basic benefits incurs the risk that many who enter for the benefits will leave as soon as they can use them," said Thomas L. Bush, acting deputy assistant secretary of defense.

That could lower the number of experienced non-commissioned officer and petty officers available and put more pressure on recruiting to replace those that leave, Bush said.

Bush also said the current GI Bill for active duty is "basically sound and serves its purpose."

"The department finds no need for the kind of sweeping and expensive changes offered," Bush said.

The VA also criticized the bill for its administrative complexity.

"The anticipated high benefit cost ... and the anticipated administrative burden associated with this bill are all problematic," said Keith M. Wilson, director of the education service for the VA.

But Webb argues the expanded benefit is needed so the military can attract recruits from a broader range of young men and women — those needing help to advance their education.

"It would actually expand recruiting because you have so many people in this country who may not want to make the military a career, but who ... might want to serve if they could see some other incentive," he said. "And this is a great incentive."

-------------------------

posted by Larry Scott
Founder and Editor
VA Watchdog dot Org

Sphere: Related Content