Friday, May 23, 2008

Musings on the GI Bill

27 May Edit: Here are a few more links to flesh out the story, particularly with respect to the CBO study that McCain cites:

Link 1: NYT editorial
Link 2: Army Times article
Link 3: Think Progress blog

This article gives a fairly decent run down on the recent kerfuffle regarding the new GI Bill. To summarize:

McCain et al: The new bill will hurt retention and drive Sergeants out of the service after one tour. Make it a sliding scale that rewards multiple tours (Which is an argument worth considering, in my opinion)

Webb et al: One tour (3 years minimum) kinda sucks to begin with, and they're leaving anyways--we owe 'em this money. The current GI Bill never adjusted for inflation, so it doesn't pay nearly enough. (Which is also a compelling argument, even if it leaves out retention...)

Obama: I don't get how this McCain character could vote against vets going to college. (Which is just political sloganeering, something McCain is engaging in as well--"Obama hasn't served so he can't talk!")

And that's about as deeply as the issue is being discussed (from what I've seen, at least).

The Pentagon is having a hard time wrapping their brain around this one. Every bonus/benefit currently on the books, with the exception of the badly outdated GI bill, rewards extended service. Commit to an extra X years and receive Y dollars. Let the Army pay for your grad school and give them back 3 days for every day you spent on campus.

The GI Bill rewards you for simply signing up and serving honorably. So basically, what you're left with is this:

There WILL be a hit on retention with a beefed up GI Bill. It's intellectually lazy to ignore this effect outright. But it's also intellectually lazy to ignore the fact that there WILL be a boost in recruitment and there WILL be an incremental boost to the quality of the individuals recruited.

Neither side of the debate has, to my satisfaction, presented their model to support whatever impact (or lack thereof) the two bills will have on retention***. McCain is hinting at a model (he cites a 16% hit on retention) but I want to see the analysis to back that up. Obama makes a blanket statement that retention won't be harmed. Really?

All things being equal, I tend to lean towards McCain's proposal--improve the base line benefits, sure, and then tack on additional benefits for additional time served. Max it out at 6 or 8 years, maybe accelerate the rate you accrue the benefits based on the number of combat tours and/or stop-losses you serve through.

Or something like that.

***If anyone has seen analysis that supports either argument, please shoot it my way.

9 comments:

WmDavid said...

Good ideas, but getting it implemented is another thing. Being a vet, 72-72 RA, I finally gave up on trying to get any help from the gov or VA.

WE MUST, MUST, give all the support for our returning war heroes that we can. All gave some, some gave all.

Charivarius said...

I'm another milblogging gent like yourself, and share your concern that expressing any opinion that impacts on the political consciousness may be a violation of regs, or worse yet, betray the constitution I'm sworn to uphold.

Having said that, I think you're right about tailoring the program to reward people who reenlist, and capping the max out around 6-8 years, or 2-4 deployments for a typical line unit. If someone has spent as much time downrange as his / her grandfather did in WWII, he / she deserves to have his / her education paid for in full by society. I heard something about a program by which Private universities would be encouraged to support the balance of a veteran's tuition through need-blind grants, and I also believe that to be an excellent idea.

The draft used to tie us together as a society in ways we're only beginning to understand, now that we've lost that unifying effect. This would be an excellent way to help bridge the gap between the educated elite, and those grunts who threw lead downrange to ensure the safety of that elite.

De Liliis said...

Hmm.. I can't say whether I come out either way, but I appreciate the reasoned analysis.

In general I favor as much as possible increasing the incentives for Americans to enter into military service, because I believe it makes better Americans, even if they only serve for one tour.

I don't like Obama's sloganeering, and anything the Democrats support rises high on the suspicion meter for that very reason, but unless I'm missing something in the details..

Either way, seems good. Though preferrably two tours.

Dusty said...

I'm an old gal who served six years USMC (all CONUS) during Viet Nam. I did not join or re-up because of the GI Bill, but after my bio-clock hit "baby" I became a civilian, and a college student, with a house. Husband also had GI Bill. We have done great in life, much better than our parents--and better than our children. The GI Bill wasn't the reason we were at the party (Husband was drafted.) but it was a lovely parting gift.

I'm very concerned about the financial hardships of the GIs while they are serving, the impact on families, the seeming lack of health care after service, and jobs! Obama wants everyone to go to college. Swell. A nation of lawyers.

Bilbo Baggins said...

I thought soldiers "volunteered" to protect me. Now I read that they join the military for the benefits.

We all do what is in our best interest.

Hushed Defiance said...

I'm Reservist, prior active duty using a AD GI Bill benefits. I cant complain about my benefits because we're a 2-income (he's Army, I'm USAFR) and making it alright. I disagree with seriptiously raising benefits too high because it will hit intrinsic motivation in the gut- soldiers wont serve for country or personal goals, but now for extrinsic goals of benefits. I'm not against a 'livable' GI Bill but not for private university standards- state only. As well, I disagree w/ the increase of sharing benefits with spouses. The program was tried before w/little use (albeing dispersed among select AFSC/MOS) however there werent takers. I paid for my undergraduate as a spouse and we were just fine and I value that more than if the GI Bill paid it. Spouses (being one myself) I can say call foul way too often for their own good. If we're to expand the program in that direction, have them pay up their $1200 for using the remaining 50% or less benefits like the rest of us did for full benefits. I'd actually rather see 1-for-1 month of deployment for school especially for R/NG personnel.

Exnicios said...

Thanks for the comments, everyone...I've added a few links to the top of the post that give some more info on the matter.

Andrew

opop said...

歐美a免費線上看,熊貓貼圖區,ec成人,聊天室080,aaa片免費看短片,dodo豆豆聊天室,一對一電話視訊聊天,自拍圖片集,走光露點,123456免費電影,本土自拍,美女裸體寫真,影片轉檔程式,成人視訊聊天,貼圖俱樂部,辣妹自拍影片,自拍電影免費下載,電話辣妹視訊,情色自拍貼圖,卡通做愛影片下載,日本辣妹自拍全裸,美女裸體模特兒,showlive影音聊天網,日本美女寫真,色情網,台灣自拍貼圖,情色貼圖貼片,百分百成人圖片 ,情色網站,a片網站,ukiss聊天室,卡通成人網,3級女星寫真,080 苗栗人聊天室,成人情色小說,免費成人片觀賞,

傑克論壇,維納斯成人用品,免費漫畫,內衣廣告美女,免費成人影城,a漫,國中女孩寫真自拍照片,ut男同志聊天室,女優,網友自拍,aa片免費看影片,玩美女人短片試看片,草莓論壇,kiss911貼圖片區,免費電影,免費成人,歐美 性感 美女 桌布,視訊交友高雄網,工藤靜香寫真集,金瓶梅免費影片,成人圖片 ,女明星裸體寫真,台灣處女貼圖貼片區,成人小遊戲,布蘭妮貼圖片區,美女視訊聊天,免費情色卡通短片,免費av18禁影片,小高聊天室,小老鼠論壇,免費a長片線上看,真愛love777聊天室,聊天ukiss,情色自拍貼圖,寵物女孩自拍網,免費a片下載,日本情色寫真,美女內衣秀,色情網,

uhfdf said...

熊貓情色,美女遊戲區,成人dvd,qq聊天室,aaa片免費看,手槍美女賞圖,家庭教師影片,洪爺情色,麗的色情遊戲,爽翻天成人情趣,qq聊天室,影音日誌,情色典獄長,520聊天室,080 中部人聊天室,成人文章,a片短片,成人貼圖區,免費av,杜蕾斯免費a片,柔情聊天網,豆豆聊天室,性感影片,台灣kiss情色,台灣自拍,都都成人站,小魔女自拍天堂,aaaa片,男男貼圖區,交友私樂園,麗的線上小遊戲,卡通a片,免費情色小說,性感影片,情色聊天室,成人貼圖區,免費av,xxx383美女寫真,正妹強力版,無碼女優,女同聊天室,性愛聊天室,飯島愛,美眉,臺灣情色網,100one百萬成人貼電影,正妹強力牆,bobo寫真女郎影片,av女優,383成人,情人視訊,

3d美女圖,小莉影音像館,情色武俠小說,色美眉部落格,台灣無限貼圖區,完美女人影音網,辣美眉173show影片,自拍a片,kiss情色,熊貓貼圖區列表,自拍貼圖,s383情色大網咖,85cc免費影城,a片圖片,寫真女郎攝影網,豆豆聊天,嘟嘟貼圖,美女自拍,自拍a片,hcg 貼圖區,卡通成人網,聊天室avooo,自拍偷拍,情色文學小說,情色交友,ut男同志聊天室,成人電影,正妹星球,無碼光碟,做愛自拍,爽翻天成人用品,歐美模特兒寫真,999成人性站,免費遊戲,成人動畫,aaaaa片俱樂部,免費線上成人影片,丁字褲美女寫真,老婆自拍,漂亮寶貝,聊天室,情色小遊戲,080 中部人聊天室,裸體寫真,線上看a片,18禁地少女遊戲,後宮情色網,日本女優,月宮貼圖區,