Pentagon’s Spin On GI Bill Is ‘Offensive Nonsense’

[nhboy (Premo)]

"Yesterday, ThinkProgress highlighted the latest reason from the Bush administration to oppose a real GI Bill for troops, offered by Senators Webb and Hagel. The Pentagon spokesperson said, in part:

[W]e are certainly concerned that this would be eligible to them after only two years of service. We think pegging it to a longer period of service — the number we have in mind, at this point, is six years of service — that the longer you stay in, the sweeter the benefits are to you. Six years would show a commitment to service. … The last thing we want to do is provide a benefit — or the last thing we want to do is create a situation in which we are losing our men and women who we have worked so hard to train.

Wow. There are a few very serious flaws in this logic:"

Pentagon’s Spin On GI Bill Is ‘Offensive Nonsense’ | War on Iraq

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

...much to argue with there. This administration...it's the people's fault, people like me who voted for this guy.

Border patrol agents in jail. Port security being sold to foreign nations, no increase in man power in the military to speak of.

[Lenny]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...much to argue with there. This administration...it's the people's fault, people like me who voted for this guy.

Border patrol agents in jail. Port security being sold to foreign nations, no increase in man power in the military to speak of.

Actually, granting these bennies at two years would break the bank. Taxes would skyrocket as kids, looking for an easy scholarship, signed up for a two year hitch and then stuck the taxpayers for a full-ride. Same for home loans and others.

GI Bill has always been reserved for those who did more than show up for the parade.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Most folks I talk to don't really understand military benefits at all. They really believe the benefits are great.

The Montgomery GI Bill sucks. Pure and simple. Retirement dramatically decreased under the bill. Thank heavens I was under the old system.

If there is a four year commitment successfully served, the new bill would make sense. Same thing for those who get medically discharged due to injuries in combat, no matter how long they served. Two years service shouldn't qualify, imo.

Just my 2cents worth.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Lenny

Actually, granting these bennies at two years would break the bank. Taxes would skyrocket as kids, looking for an easy scholarship, signed up for a two year hitch and then stuck the taxpayers for a full-ride. Same for home loans and others.

GI Bill has always been reserved for those who did more than show up for the parade.

Second, no one is leaving the military after two years. I’d note that when you sign up, it’s for an eight year contract, most for four years active. They can serve in a number of ways. For example, I served four and a half years active (because I was Stop Lossed), went to grad school and served in the reserves, but was called back up after ten months. So, the point remains that you’re not talking about a flood of people breaking their contract after three or four years. The overwhelming majority of men and women serve out their contract for eight years, so even if they do begin school when they’re done with their active duty commitment, the military can call them up at any time they need them, for the life of the troop’s contract. A GI Bill isn’t going to change it.

...not accurate?

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...not accurate?

Yes, you sign up for eight, but as much as four of it can be inactive which should not count.

Reservists can spend less than two years on active duty.

I absolutely agree that a benefit like this at the two year mark is not appropriate. The military does not begin to recoup the training cost for most members until after two years.

For example, I was in school for the first 18 months of my enlistment. The first six months on the ship I was busy learning my job and all of the collateral duties. I wasn't fully qualified to be a crewmember until the second year.

Should I have gotten a GI bill at two years? No. Should I have received one at four years? Probably. Should I have received one after serving six years? Absolutely. But I didn't receive a GI bill.

I don't see giving away a free education just because you are in for two years. I can see giving it to someone who is injured in combat at one year, but that should be a VA program, not GI bill.

I'd like to see it tied to serving in a war zone. Maybe earning an expeditionary medal or similar award could be a qualifier.

[Bruzilla]

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

Most folks I talk to don't really understand military benefits at all. They really believe the benefits are great.

The Montgomery GI Bill sucks. Pure and simple. Retirement dramatically decreased under the bill. Thank heavens I was under the old system.

If there is a four year commitment successfully served, the new bill would make sense. Same thing for those who get medically discharged due to injuries in combat, no matter how long they served. Two years service shouldn't qualify, imo.

Just my 2cents worth.

I agree with you 100%! Most USN, USMC, USAF, and USCG enlistments are for eight years wit four to six years active, but Army contracts are still mostly geared to two years active. Six months to a year of that time is spent in training, so you're only getting a year of service out of a lot of these people.

As for the author's contractors calling him for months with six-figure offers, the key words there were for service in Iraq. This guy would likely be making $25k to do his job here in the US. I was offered six figure salaries plenty of times, and I had to do to get them was live in Pohang, South Korea for a year... if you haven't been to Pohang, there's a good reason why companies pay so much for people to agree to work there.

A four year commitment should be the threshold for benefits.

[Bruzilla]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...not accurate?

No. The author's statement of "no one is leaving the military after two years..." is based on his personal opinion. Most Army enlistments have a two-year active duty component and most folks go to the reserves after that two years. The services usually require a 4-6 year active duty tour due to the costs and lengths of training.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

No. The author's statement of "no one is leaving the military after two years..." is based on his personal opinion. Most Army enlistments have a two-year active duty component and most folks go to the reserves after that two years. The services usually require a 4-6 year active duty tour due to the costs and lengths of training.

...serves, most higher training MOS's are 4 years or more. If memory serves, 2 years is almost entirely infantry and meaning no slight to the true grunts, the dollars are tied up in training the 4 plus year people, correct?

[Bruzilla]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...serves, most higher training MOS's are 4 years or more. If memory serves, 2 years is almost entirely infantry and meaning no slight to the true grunts, the dollars are tied up in training the 4 plus year people, correct?

That used to be the case, but that was during peacetime. Now that we're in a shooting war the Army is cutting all kinds of deals to get people in the door.