I saw this last week and had a rant prepared but changed my mind. So, calmly, I should like to point out that the Decider has decided that it is not beneficial to improve the GI Bill. Thirty-five years ago, I got a college education using this bill. It was the best way I could do it. At the time I was raising 3 kids and working and attending classes at nite and sometimes even on Saturdays. I am certain there are [-]good[/-] some reasons (cost) to oppose the bill. It's probably a windfall to the colleges. Furthermore, trying not to be naive, I know the Democrats will use this in an election year. But, troops are facing possible death and maiming. This is obscene. Over 95% of Americans will not serve in the military and certainly won't engage in combat. Too costly? Are we providing healthcare for illegal immigrants? How costly is that?
If the troops want to go to college, send them. Period.
There. I was calm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/opinion/26mon1.html?th&emc=th
Partial quote:
Their bill would pay full tuition and other expenses at a four-year public university for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11.
At that level, the new G.I. Bill would be as generous as the one enacted for the veterans of World War II, which soon became known as one of the most successful benefits programs — one of the soundest investments in human potential — in the nation’s history.
Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.
They have seized on a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office that new, better benefits would decrease re-enlistments by 16 percent, which sounds ominous if you are trying — as Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are — to defend a never-ending war at a time when extended tours of duty have sapped morale and strained recruiting to the breaking point.
Their reasoning is flawed since the C.B.O. has also predicted that the bill would offset the re-enlistment decline by increasing new recruits — by 16 percent. The chance of a real shot at a college education turns out to be as strong a lure as ever. This is good news for our punishingly overburdened volunteer army, which needs all the smart, ambitious strivers it can get.
If the troops want to go to college, send them. Period.
There. I was calm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/opinion/26mon1.html?th&emc=th
Partial quote:
Their bill would pay full tuition and other expenses at a four-year public university for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11.
At that level, the new G.I. Bill would be as generous as the one enacted for the veterans of World War II, which soon became known as one of the most successful benefits programs — one of the soundest investments in human potential — in the nation’s history.
Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.
They have seized on a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office that new, better benefits would decrease re-enlistments by 16 percent, which sounds ominous if you are trying — as Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are — to defend a never-ending war at a time when extended tours of duty have sapped morale and strained recruiting to the breaking point.
Their reasoning is flawed since the C.B.O. has also predicted that the bill would offset the re-enlistment decline by increasing new recruits — by 16 percent. The chance of a real shot at a college education turns out to be as strong a lure as ever. This is good news for our punishingly overburdened volunteer army, which needs all the smart, ambitious strivers it can get.
