VETERANS
The Pentagon's Unfounded Fears About The GI Bill
In February, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), along with a bipartisan Senate coalition that included Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and John Warner (R-VA), re-introduced the "21st Century GI Bill," which aims to dramatically expand educational benefits for returning veterans. The original GI Bill, which President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed in 1944, "provided full tuition, housing, and living costs for some 8 million veterans," but it has been scaled back over time to such an extent that "today the most a veteran can receive is approximately $9,600 a year for four years -- no matter what college costs." Webb's bill, which has 57 co-sponsors, would pay a significant portion of college costs for all service members, including national guard members, who served in active duty after Sept. 11, 2001. Even though support for increased educational benefits for veterans should be "at the top of the list of no-brainers in Washington," the Pentagon, the White House, and some members of Congress are resisting Webb's efforts "out of fear that too many will use it." In a press briefing earlier this month, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell warned of the "harm" Webb's bill would do to troop retention and objected to the generous benefits given after "only" two years of service. Accepting the Pentagon's argument, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Burr (R-NC) have introduced their own GI bill expansion that pegs benefits to the length of time served in active duty, reserving the most generous benefits to older soldiers who signed up before 9/11. But major veterans organizations such as VoteVets.org, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and the American Legion back Webb's bill.
RETENTION VERSUS RECRUITMENT: "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," said Morrell when arguing against Webb's bill. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has aired similar concerns, saying that his "first objective is to strengthen the All-Volunteer Force" and that "serious retention issues could arise" under a too-generous GI Bill. But these concerns are overblown since they do not account for increased recruitment. While increased education benefits are expected to affect reenlistment rates, a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report found that the loss in retention from Webb's bill will be entirely made up for by increased military recruits. By CBO's accounting, the expected 16 percent drop in the reenlistment rate would be offset by "a 16 percent increase in recruits." As Sen. John Warner (R-VA) has noted, "[P]utting a big piece of cheese out there will induce more qualified people to join just to get this. It should be a tremendous incentive for recruitment."
TWO YEARS VERSUS SIX: While claiming that the Pentagon has no issue with "more generous education benefits to troops," Morrell said that the Pentagon is "certainly concerned" that the benefits in Webb's bill "would be eligible to them after only two years of service." Instead, the Pentagon wants to peg increased benefits to "a longer period of service," adding that "six years would show a commitment to service." Under Morrell's terms, a soldier who participated in the invasion of Baghdad in April 2003 and had remained in service ever since, would be forced to wait until April 2009 before becoming eligible for full benefits. But as VoteVets Chairman and Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz points out, "time of service isn't a measure of commitment to service." "What about the troops who served under six years, did a few tours in Iraq, and came back without a limb, and could no longer serve? Have they shown less of a commitment to America?" asks Soltz. Additionally, Soltz notes that soldiers sign up for eight year contracts, with most for four years active. "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."
COSTS VERSUS BENEFITS: In testimony to Congress last summer, some Defense Department officials offered up the cost of Webb's bill as one reason to resist it, saying that "the current program for active duty is basically sound and serves its purpose in support of the all-volunteer force. The department finds no need for the kind of sweeping (and expensive) changes offered." But the expansion of educational benefits in Webb's bill is "is projected to cost about $2.5 billion per year," roughly the cost of U.S. operations in Iraq for one week. In announcing the American Legion's support for Webb's bill last week, National Commander Marty Conatser addressed criticisms that the GI Bill is too expensive, pointing out that the "bulk of that cost is paid for by the men and women who wear the uniform. Benefits are just a small, small cost of war." Additionally, as New York Times columnist Bob Herbert pointed out recently, "[M]oney that goes to bolstering the education of returning veterans is an investment, in both the lives of the veterans themselves and the future of the nation." In fact, educational benefits for veterans are a proven investment. A 1988 congressional study found "that every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added seven dollars to the national economy in terms of productivity, consumer spending and tax revenue."