New GI Bill a Boon for (Most) Veterans
The Post-9/11 GI Bill is a vast improvement over its predecessor, though not entirely flawless.
Contrast this with New York, where veterans are eligible for 100 percent tuition coverage up to $1,010.00 per credit hour and fee coverage up to $12,697 per term. Add those together, assuming the minimum course load to be considered “full time,” and New Yorkers have up to $36,937 per academic year paid for by the Post-9/11 GI Bill. With tuition and fees at prestigious (and private) Columbia University totaling $39,326 in the 2008-2009 academic year, an Ivy League education for those New York-bound veterans who qualify is well within reach — much more so than in Massachusetts.
In states whose public institutions are comparable to their privates, though, the Post-9/11 GI Bill is a boon for veteran education regardless of top-end dollar figures. At the University of Georgia, for example, where I earned my undergraduate degree, in-state tuition and fees are $5,264. A six-year veteran of the armed forces who enlisted after 9/11 would have that amount paid to the school by the Post-9/11 GI Bill and would, once a year, directly receive a $1,200 book allowance.
On top of that would be the real money-maker for Post-9/11 recipients: the monthly housing allowance, a feature no version of the GI Bill has featured before now. A student in Athens, Georgia, where UGA is located, would receive $901.00 per month in untaxed housing allowance (for perspective, a student apartment in Athens, with roommates, generally costs between $350 and $650 per person, and a house can be rented for just over $1,000 total). Taking that allowance into account, the total benefit received by a University of Georgia student under Post-9/11 (assuming summer enrollment) would be $17,276, of which $12,012 would be paid directly to the beneficiary.
Contrast that with the amount paid out under the previous benefit, the Montgomery GI Bill. A student who took a full course load year-round (and who participated in the 2002 “buy up,” by which servicemembers could chip in an extra $600 in exchange for up to $6,000 in additional benefit) was directly paid a total of $13,974.50 regardless where he or she attended school. That breaks down to $11,768 for the eight months of spring and fall semesters, when the student could take a full 12-hour course load, and $2,206.50 for the three months of summer, when six hours is recognized as a full load by institutions but only as half-time enrollment by the MGIB.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill is a hands-down better benefit than its predecessor. That is not to say, though, that there are not some problems with it. Rather than capping every state’s hourly tuition payment at a rate equal to the highest in-state public school cost, the Post-9/11 should recognize an amount below which the rates will not go, so that deserving veterans in Massachusetts ($71.50/hour) or Washington, D.C. ($197.92/hour), for example, would not be shut out of top institutions.
Simply averaging every state and territory’s maximum in-state rate would result in a baseline of $320.83 per credit hour — not enough to cover tuition at Georgetown or MIT, but certainly more helpful than the pittance currently offered separated veterans seeking to attend higher-end schools. An even better way of dealing with this would be to simply have the Post-9/11 cover the full cost of veteran students at any college or university to which they could gain acceptance. The prospect of fully guaranteed payment would encourage capable servicemembers to strive for higher-end educations, while also providing those higher-end institutions with an incentive to accept separating veterans into their undergraduate and graduate programs.
The latter proposition would not be cheap. However, in an age of trillion-dollar deficits, runaway frivolous government spending, and “stimulus” packages, kicking more of that money in the direction of those veterans who have served during the last eight years of a two-front war and heightened homeland security threat should not be too much to ask.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2 View as Single Page
Mr. Emanuel, a special operations military veteran, is a columnist, a Pulitzer-nominated combat journalist, and a director emeritus of conservative weblog RedState.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
15 Comments
1. Don:The GI bill needed improving, but still it’s not up to the standard that the pre 77′ GI bill set. An unintended consequence of the new bill is it’s lack of focus on the vocational side of post military education. For some college is the path, for others . . . they aspire to be the best electronics technicians, best mechanics, best truck drivers . . . etc. The new bill makes it more difficult to use these funds for vocational training. Bottom line is we are obligated to set up all of our own for success; success in combat, success in transition. This bill rewarded institutions focused strictly on academia, and adversely affected institutions focused on career training. Those of us committed to getting as many of these obligated people as possible squared away as they transition will find a way to make the new bill do the most for the most, as written it does not.
Improvise, adapt and overcome
Aug 19, 2009 - 5:18 am 2. SGT Ted:The biggest flaw in this new GI Bill is that it does not cover trade schools. Yea, we’ll pay for you to get a degree that may require you to say “would you like Biggy Fries with that?” after graduation, but pay to become a mechanic or HVAC repairman? no way!
Aug 19, 2009 - 5:38 am 3. MarkD:The pre 1977 bill was good. Not so good that I could have afforded to be a married, full time student at a private university, but good enough to let me work full time and finish at night without forcing me to borrow the money.
I figure I earned for that benefit, since I was paid a princely $128.50 a month as an E-1. That wasn’t even half of the minimum wage at the time.
Aug 19, 2009 - 6:29 am 4. sassenach:You are making a very big assumption by equating the cost of a particular college with the quality of the education it delivers.
Our post-9/11 veterans are America’s next “greatest generation.” If the cost of a Harvard education is out of reach, that is Harvard’s loss, not the veteran’s.
Aug 19, 2009 - 7:08 am 5. CPO Mack:I can’t stress enough the benefit of the new provision to transfer to a spouse or child(ren). I earned my BS from active duty tuition assistance and a state veteran’s grant, leaving much of my MGIB money on the table. With this new era, I can transfer that to my wife, who has also served supporting my career and multiple moves. Now, she can go to graduate school while I’m away on another deployment, increasing her earning potential for both of us.
Another scenario is when a service member puts in their 20 years, and either already earned their degree or experience in a trade, and can now use their MGIB for children.
Aug 19, 2009 - 10:44 am 6. jimpres:My only problem with the pre 1977 bill was they excluded the time I spent in the service. No wars were started
Aug 19, 2009 - 10:51 am 7. myth buster:I think the reason they don’t cover trade schools is because Congress is under the impression that they would be redundant- that MOS training takes the place of trade schools, so a vet should already be qualified in a trade related to their MOS. As for the McJobs bit, I doubt most veterans would have to worry about that. Vets tend to have enough sense to choose majors that are practical. I know two guys in my major-nuclear engineering- are on GI bill scholarships. The entire department is only about 120 undergrads. Besides, employers have common sense, too. The military throws a lot of responsibility at you really fast, so an honorably discharged vet has proven himself to be an effective leader and someone who can work under pressure. Employers like that.
Aug 19, 2009 - 11:23 am 8. Larry J:I think the reason they don’t cover trade schools is because Congress is under the impression that they would be redundant- that MOS training takes the place of trade schools, so a vet should already be qualified in a trade related to their MOS.
That’s fine if a servicemember’s military job has a civilian equivalent. However, there are a lot of military jobs that don’t exist in the civilian sector. Jobs like infantryman, artillery, and tank driver quickly come to mind. Military personnel might also find they want to do something different after leaving the service. They should have the option to go for vocational training if they wish. They’ve certainly earned that right.
Aug 19, 2009 - 4:03 pm 9. tommyd:I think allowing trade schools is needed. That is just a fact in todays world.
I also believe that there should be a benefit that if any service person is killed in the line of duty that his children should be given a college education in the service members home state at a State University.
Aug 19, 2009 - 6:50 pm 10. JR Janaburg:Used my Viet Nam Era GI Bill back in the 70’s. Returned to the army, did Just Cause, Desert Storm, OEF, Joint Forge and OIF. VA says the new bill will only cover the six months of unused portion of my former entitlement. Grad school may just be a dream. Make sure you read the fine print.
Luck in Battle
Aug 19, 2009 - 9:01 pm 11. SGT Ted:Most MOS training in tech fields does NOT credential you for immediate transition to civilian work. I’ve served 26 years as Military Police and I would have to go thru an entry level civilian police academy to get a job as a cop; and, get this, IF I went thru a police academy today, the new GI BIll would not cover the expense, because academies do NOT produce a diploma bearing degree.
Most ground vehicle mechanics are NOT ASE certified. Trade school access is a MUST for the new GI Bill or there will be large numbers of people not able to use their benefits unless they go to a college. Now, not long ago, many JCs offered trade programs. Most of those programs are gone, due to the money being in transfer students taking thier gen ed.
Aug 20, 2009 - 5:49 am 12. Ken:For the record, “full time” for summer is five credits. I just finished two summer coursed and got paid the full rate under the pre-existing GI Bill. So there is no change in income during the summer.
The BAH provision ends up being a real bone job for those of us who are on Active Duty. We don’t get paid the BAH twice, which makes sense. However, that stipend is a major part of the compensation package that was budgeted and on which all the calculations were made. When it’s removed, the new bill pays significantly less than the former GI Bill, especially since we lose the top-up that we paid for. Also, if we’re in a commissioning program, we lose Tuition Assistance, so that doesn’t offset the drop in compensation.
For my final year at Virginia Tech, I’m sticking with the old-school GI Bill. The new one just makes no sense for me. If the new bill paid the same to every veteran going to a certain school (based, of course, on time served), it would be a great program. But, as it is, when I get about 40% cut out because I chose to return to the service, it doesn’t cut it.
Aug 21, 2009 - 7:38 am 13. Dave K.:So socialism is OK as long as it’s for veterans?
Aug 21, 2009 - 8:23 pm 14. Peter Montbriand:Nice disconnect there.
Dave, I agree. We should simply pay active duty men and women a great deal more and eliminate post service bennies, save for health care for wounded vets. Let the vets save for post service items with a larger paycheck.
Aug 22, 2009 - 1:33 am 15. Ken:It’s not socialism. It’s part of our compensation package. You know, for services rendered? Peter’s option isn’t a bad alternative (actually, probably better for the serviceman, since it lets them decide how to structure their finances). But, in the end, it accomplishes the same thing. Thus it’s not a question of socialism vs. liberty, but how we attract, retain, and compensate those who fight for their country.
Aug 22, 2009 - 9:10 am