.....Are we ready?.....An article in this morning’s Inside Higher Ed (Preparing for an Influx) discusses a two-day summit called “Serving Those Who Serve: Higher Education and America’s Veterans,” sponsored at Georgetown University by the American Council on Education:
.....The event comes amid growing attention in higher education, and in society generally, to the issue of how to ensure that the growing legions of men and women who have represented their country in the armed forces return successfully to society. While some colleges have long served military service members and veterans, and many others are just beginning to report growing numbers of veterans flowing onto their campuses, most educators and military officials expect that a boom is around the corner. That’s partly because the number of men and women who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to rise and partly because, as now appears likely, the government is poised to significantly expand educational benefits for veterans, under legislation that Congress is on the verge of passing. [Major Expansion of Veterans’ Tuition Aid Clears Big Hurdle.]• To learn more about the bill, go to FACTS ABOUT THE WEBB-HAGEL-LAUTENBERG-WARNER G.I. BILL (pdf).
..... “At some point there’s going to be a major influx in the number of veterans going to school,” said Patrick Campbell, legislative director for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and a recent graduate of Catholic University of America’s law school. “A lot of schools are treating veterans just like every other student, and that’s just not going to work.”
.....“We have to reintegrate veterans back into our society,” said U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, Vietnam veteran, and leading co-sponsor of the bill now surging through Congress. “Education does that about as well as any sphere of our society. You shape people in ways that other groups can’t,” he told the college officials in the audience.
…
.....There was widespread agreement at the meeting that the veterans’ benefits bill sponsored by Hagel and Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, assuming it becomes law, virtually wipe out the financial barriers to college that veterans face. Especially, Campbell of the veterans’ association argued, if private colleges and graduate schools find ways to bring their tuitions within reach of the benefits contained in the Webb bill, which would essentially cover the costs of attending the average four-year public college….
• To sign a petition to the President supporting the new G.I. Bill, go to Petition.
• See also White House pushes GI Bill compromise on Iraq bill.
John Stewart on the new G.I. BillALSO:
Police usher Cal chancellor from angry meeting
Campus police escorted University of California-Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau out of the back of a building Thursday after angry union members took over a meeting, yelling and screaming about living wages….
18 comments:
As a visual: the current GI Bill pays $1101 per month to full time students for 36 months. That doesn't go far.
Under the new bill, it would cover 100% tuition until degree completion, provide $1000 per year for books, and a living/housing allowance at the rate of a Sergeant with dependents according to zip code. In Irvine, that amounts to $1996 a month, full time, until degree completion. This goes very far to help.
Commander Cuckoo Bananas has promised to veto the bill, despite overwhelming support and passage from both the Senate and House.
McCain's compromise would ask 30-year old veterans with families, 8 years from full military retirement, to be college freshman, and receive $2000 a month for 36 months. It would also enable veterans of six years' service $1500 a month for 36 months.
McCain knows that servicemembers don't leave the service when they hit the halfway mark to retirement (ten years). He also knows that military spouses are most often uneducated, and stay at home wives and mothers. How does this enable the servicemember to return to school when he has a family to support?
This isn't a reward for service. The bill that passed through the Senate and House will attract new enlistees, and it should - it's a great deal.
Let McCain know, as I have, that he is an asshole.
OK, but is there any reason why someone who has served in the military (and I do not mean several tours of dangerous duty) is entitled to such largess? Why not city sanitation workers, who provide a pretty great service, too?
I'm all for veteran benefits, but am unsure as to why there is this one size fits all benefits program for many folks who simply showed up for work on a regualar basis.
Trashmen make more money than most servicemembers. They don't usually die from "going to work everyday." They don't get shot at, blown up, lose limbs, or face severe psychological trauma. Also, soldiers, when Privates, ARE trashmen/women, except they handle more shit (feces) than actual trash. Trashmen don't leave their families for weeks at a time for trash training, and are generally not on call 24 hours a day, but instead, work a normal work week.
Soldiers are called upon to defend America. I don't believe being in Iraq is defending America, but American soldiers are in Afghanistan, combatting the Taliban, who HAS attacked us at home. Soldiers not deployed, or in between deployments are moved around the country for support at home (Katrina, CA wildfires, other domestic disasters) where help and other civilian efforts are weak, or need help.
I don't know for certain that after WWII if Americans complained about the GI Bill. It supported tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans, and that bred the Baby Boomer generation. Supposedly, it reshaped America. Maybe others know more about it than I. As it stands, the current GI Bill is 50 years outdated, and covers roughly 60% of the cheapest education costs for 75% of a degree.
Why are we asking supporters of democracy to risk life and limb overseas, only to come home safe, to go to college and either not afford to use their benefits, or ask them to take on a large debt to finance their education? Haven't they done enough?
What Americans will enlist in a military that offers no incentive or reward for sacrifice to family, and health? Current bonuses are not much affecting retention. The military has significantly lowered entry and retention standards. Drug use is not uncommon, alcoholism is pandemic, felons are reworking their debt to society, and the uneducated are looking to the service as the best alternative available.
Largess?
That just hurts. Plain and simple. My service and sacrifice enables your opinion. Where would we be without a volunteer military? What do we NEED to do to keep it voluntary?
Dear 10:00,
I show up for work on a regular basis, too, but not to dodge roadside bombs, eat freeze-dried food, sweat 120-degree heat, and then be drafted when I've "finished" my commitment by an administration that doesn't have the guts to start a real draft and thus admit that the pay and benefits it's giving ensures an army several shades browner and thousands of dollars poorer than the military-eligible family members of its main constituency.
But from a "what's-in-it-for-me" perspective, you might also note that the 1950s G.I. Bill was arguably our most successful engine for economic growth in the 20th century.
In 1948 the first edition of Samuelson's Economics had, as its first Chapter 1 discussion question, "How do you think you'll fare in the next Depression?" After all, we went into World War II immediately after eleven years of economic hardship, and there was little reason to expect it not to return.
Basic U.S. history textbooks credit the postwar economic expansion to the needs of the many expanding families with their little boomers. But look around the world: increasing the number of children doesn't make you more prosperous. In the short run --at least -- it makes you poorer. Need doesn't create means. On the demand side, those houses, refrigerators, cars, etc., those families "needed" could be bought because of the G.I. Bill. And on the supply side, the G. I. Bill financed the creation of a college-educated middle class out of the generation of unskilled laborers, hoboes, and undernourished rugrats that were the Depression's children.
Over the past 35 years, that "middle" class has suffered as the income share of the bottom 90% -- that's no typo: ninety percent -- of households has fallen. Wartime or peacetime, what kind of economic security are we going to have in our golden years with the undernourished and undereducated children of this economy providing it?
This is a great time for a new G.I. Bill, even for the purely selfish reasons of a non-draftable middle age female like myself. And probably you, too, 10:00.
OK, if poeple are overseas, getting shot at, and really defending the country in a tangible way, that's fine. But many in the military are processing paperwork in San Francisco. Are they along for the ride?
You guys should check out 13 Stop-Loss' blog - just click his name and follow along.
Thank you, Alannah, for posting what I didn't have the exact words for.
12:51, if you think even active duty infantrymen do anything more than pushing paper for half of their non-deployment life cycle, you're mistaken. Paper pushers in San Francisco push paper when deployed overseas, but have a range of other jobs as well, like delivering mail to the far reaches of the Anbar province, having three six-hour gate-guard shifts during a thirty-six hour time period, and anything else any commander decides to have them do. When I wasn't deployed, or training for deployment, I was playing video games, drinking rum, and avoiding menial tasks and chores. When combat soldiers are not fighting, there isn't a lot to do. But that relaxation from fighting is part the reward for making it home safely. These are my experiences, and of those around me, so I know firsthand the troubles and pits we put up with, then go through between deployments. How do you know those paper pushers in San Francisco haven't already deployed 2-3 times? I can tell you that little of the Army, Marines have yet to deploy during the last 7 years. The Navy is gone all the time, and the Air Force are even starting to be used in ground Army-like situations.
So, yes, they are along for the ride, because they have paid as well.
What percenatge of the military actually serves overseas, in any cpacity?
Of 1.4 million Active Duty Troops, 369,000 are currently deployed. Most are on their 3rd - 5th deployment. I've been out for 20 months, and have completed two.
This does not include National Guard and Army Reserves, so called "weekend warriors." Many of them have already gone 1-3 times, many after having served a tour on Active Duty.
from April 2005 - http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050412-gone-to-war.htm
Current - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military
You sound like a whining asshole yourself, 13 Stoploss. You certainly are not representative of the majority of your fellow warriors. The ones I am privileged to know have nothng but praise for their CINC. But they have a character that is selfless, unlike yours that seeks more, and more benefits for themselves.
And you believe the proper treatment of selfless individuals is to make sure they are not well rewarded? Simply because people do something out of a sense of honor or duty means you're able to tell them they should never seek anything for themselves or their families?
It's an odd double standard, but one quite common:
First, assume that the market rewards the best: that those whose inventions, entrepreneurship, sweat, etc., have earned them riches have a right to be well rewarded for their contributions to society. (This also gives a presumptive virtue to wealth and disdain for poverty.)
Second, assume that individuals who do choose a service vocation are either incapable of doing better -- in which case they can be ingored and should be grateful for the existence of such jobs at all -- or are doing so out of some innate virtue, such as your noble friends, 8:41. And because of their nobility, they do not and should not demand to be well economically rewarded for their work.
Why not? Because the if-you-do-good-you-deserve-good ethic of the marketplace is not really meant to work for these saints. Virtue rewarded is less virtuous. That's why they're not "whining."
After all, for those who are really worthy of our praise, the opportunity to serve is enough. They don't ask for anything else.
It would be insulting to suggest that somehow their service could be bought. The good ones -- the really good ones -- don't care.
Spread it out: In this category put not only soldiers, but teachers, nurses, caregivers, childcare providers, social workers, and even clergy. If these people ask for, or even -gasp!- demand, better treatment, hold them up as "whining," selfish, etc. and somehow unworth of their noble profession.
Better we should attach yellow magnets to our cars for soldiers, bring trinkets to teachers, give nurses chocolate, speak reverently of the vow of poverty, etc. For soldiers even have a couple of holidays so we can get out of town. But always remember to say good things about these people because it makes us feel good as human beings that some of us have these qualities we are describing in others. And it doesn't cost much.
8:41:
I've done my fair share of whining. An asshole, I am not.
What I am uncertain is where you think I am not in the majority, because the few you are "privileged" to know think other than I do. In your own small circle of a handful, maybe this is so. Of the hundreds that I do know, and the dozens I keep in contact with, in a soldierly way, they'd proudly tell you to get fucked for dare speaking on their behalf something you appear to know nothing or very little about.
However, I will not. You are entitled to your own opinion. In some miniscule, indirect way, I have helped to preserve your right to judge as you do. I am okay with this.
In my experiences, I am common. The truth is that soldiers are and have been disillusioned for a few years now. They are frightened of war, the possibility of death and disfigurement, and being away from their families for a year. They see now glory, no end in sight, and instead turn to drugs and alcohol, or even AWOL as a way to avoid deployment. The brave ones continue on, knowing they signed a contract. Knowing their obligation, whether they believe it politically or not, is to the President. This is predicament I found myself. How can I back down from something I disagree with, yet pledged to obey? I'm a man, and can own up to it - the right thing to do is honor my commitment, and at the smallest possible scale, live by my own creed, my own ethics, and to keep myself out of situations where I may find myself in contradiction to my beliefs.
As far as those who find praise for Commander Cuckoo Bananas, they are in denial. It really is rather simple. They want so badly to believe that this effort was not in vain. The good men and women they partied with on weekends before the war had not died for a meritless cause. They cannot accept that they were deceived, and used.
Those who applaud Bush's unwillingness to back down see him as strong. I see it as ignorant. They see him as a man who stands by his convictions. I see him as a man afraid to admit to mistake. Or to admit the ultimate truth - that this was the plan all along.
8:41, you can click on name, and read my blog. You won't really see any whining. You'll see the account of a scared and naive Private coming to terms with overcoming certain fears in the world. Going to war isn't easy. Not knowing when you're going home isn't easy. Seeing friends get blown up, or die, is not easy. I don't whine about these things. If you read my blog, you'd get a more accurate feel for the soldier I was. And, if it needs any clarification, I was a hard-assed Air-Assault qualified grunt who made Sergeant in under 3 years, who endured two yearlong combat deployments. This takes action. Diligence. Competence. Desire. Sniveling, whining babies leave the service as career Privates.
I think my actions speak loudly for my family. The wife I supported. The pregnancy and birth I was away for. The child I didn't meet until he was 14-months old. Everything I have done, has been for my family. Other than death, can you think of anything more selfless than that?
I'd encourage you to find your nearest active duty military installation. On a Friday or Saturday night, go to the nearest bar or club. Hang out with some soldiers, and see how they really are. Ask them how they really feel. Find out what they aspire to do with their lives. Ask them if they have enjoyed their service. Even ask them, when in garrison, what a typical work day is like. You may find that soldiers are very bitter, unhappy people who envision better for themselves, and their families.
I'm thankful for what the Army has given me. But, it took and took and took from me. Do I feel like I am owed more than what I have now? Am I wrong in thinking that I could better support my family by getting a good education? Am I wrong to suggest that this new GI Bill will do more for the troops than the current GI BIll does?
I worked for an entire year in a shitty sales job prior to going back to school. I did this, salivating to receive instruction, itching to be so close to school, and yet not enrolled. I did this for my family. To keep us afloat. Sounds pretty selfish to me. But if going to school is selfish, then call me a sMartyr for doing what I feel is best for my family.
To call this soldier a "whinning asshole" only shows what a complete fucking asshole you are! I am the parent of a soldier who was "stop lossed". The contract she signed upon enlistment was simply ignored, and tossed in the trash. She did a tour of duty in Iraq, although she was only a "paper pusher" on a base, she had to deal with hand grenades and rockets dropping in a few nights a week. She also had to pull guard duty. She sat many a night in a tower being shot at, while she was not allowed to return fire. Soldiers also get screwed big time if they are injured and not able to finish their tour. They get their education dollars cut. Having a limb blown off or another permanent disability is not enough for our government to uphold their side of the deal. You have no idea what these young people put up with before or after war. As usual, they have to defend themselves at home after the war as well because of ignorant people such as yourself.
ok, so there are about a million military personnel who have basic domestic jobs. Is there any reason they should get the full GI benefit package?
Does this mean that a basic domestic military job faces any less value or danger compared to a combatant?
There are not a million military basic domestic jobs. With 1.4 million active military people, the greatest portion of these, by up to 50% or more are combat arms. There is very little need for basic administrative positions.
Because even a basic domestic job serves a similar function overseas during deployment. In addition to their "basic" job description, taking bullets, pulling guard, going on mounted convoys through dangerous areas prone to ambush to deliver the needed service and supplies to the grunts on the offensive deserves every bit of benefit as an infantryman, who, strangely enough, serve next to each other. Cooks, refuelers, paper pushers in administration, legal, Chaplains, water purifiers, laundry - all of the people in these jobs are subjected to the same dangers as a combat arms person when deployed. Very, very, very little of our military has not seen a deployment in the last 7 years. The people who have not deployed are most veterinarian jobs, educational positions like drill sergeants and schools instructors. Even these personnel have seen even one deployment, and are taking other positions to strengthen their military record.
I'm not sure why people foreign to the workings of the military think only that infantrymen and MP's and other combat arms are the only ones who deploy or are subjected to mind periling dangers.
People are ignorant 13 Stoploss, sadly so.
(Pssst - go read 13 Stoploss's blog! You need to!)
I'm all for any personnel anywhere in danger getting the benefits. But how a clerk in Roanoke is ever in any sort of danger, and has a more demanding job than a clerk at the DMV, is beyond me. Sorry.
Post a Comment