As originally published on the myUsearch blog:
On Monday, President Bush signed a $162 billion war spending bill into law. The new bill will increase educational benefits for service members who have served at least three years on active duty. Veterans will be eligible for up to 100% of their full tuition fees and will receive a monthly housing stipend, a tutoring allowance of up to $1200 and $1000 dollars per year for textbooks and supplies.
On the surface, this bill seems like a much needed improvement to the benefits our armed forces receive, but will the benefits really outweigh the costs to our country and our troops?
The new bill will:
- Increase the dollar amount servicemembers will receive, making it much easier to afford a four-year degree.
- Loosen enrollment requirements for servicemembers and extend benefits to reservists and guardsmen, as well as the spouses and children of servicemembers.
- Potentially boost the number of recruits by 16%, allowing the military to cut its enlistment bonuses and other recruiting costs by $5.6 billion over the next five years.
- Make it easier for the military to recruit servicemembers with a high school diploma, a strong determinant of a recruit’s military success.
- And in theory, increase the number of US college graduates to help fill the significant degree gap the nation is expected to face.
All of these benefits make a strong case for the bill, but the implications are unnerving:
- The bill could actually make it more difficult for the military to recruit because it allows servicemembers to be released after three years of service. Opponents claim this will reduce troops enlisting in the military by 16%.
- The bill approves $162 billion in spending without raising taxes, and this is in addition the nearly 650 billion dollars that have already been spent on the war.
Although the drawbacks are small in number, their implications are extreme. At a time when military morale is questionable and our deficit is out of control, it is hard to understand why congress would pass something that may both reduce the number of available troops and further threaten our economic security.
This bill delivers well deserved benefits to our troops and in my opinion -- education is always worth the investment. However, without raising taxes or cutting spending in other areas, could this bill be more beneficial to the enemy than the troops?
It is times like these that I hope our nation’s leaders know something that I don’t. The logic of unbridled spending defies everything I’ve ever learned and is a mistake that has been repeated throughout history. It is hard for me to believe that the leaders of the most powerful country could lead us into bankruptcy, but I suppose the Romans never thought their empire would fall either.
It’s funny. We are so afraid of the violence Iraq might inflict, but the war’s economic impact may be a much stronger weapon than Iraq’s alleged WMD’s. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that money is more important than a potential loss of life, but economic stability is the strongest proponent of peace. If our economy collapses, we are likely to face far more blood shed than this war will ever see. I am more than happy to give up my SUV and flat screen TV to prevent violence, but I am not willing to stand in a bread line with a wheel barrel of money. The kind of violence that ensues in a crumbling economy is certainly not worth the cost of protecting ourselves from the questionable threat of Iraq.
If it were up to me, I would give these much needed benefits to our troops, but I would find a way to pay for it. Perhaps our nation should learn from the mortgage and student loan crisis to understand that excessive debt never pays off. But as I said, I sincerely hope our nation’s leaders know something that I don’t.
This is just my opinion; I would love to hear yours. For a more detailed analysis of the eligibility criteria and benefits of the bill, read this article from military.com.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The bill could actually make it more difficult for the military to recruit because it allows servicemembers to be released after three years of service. Opponents claim this will reduce troops enlisting in the military by 16%.
Actually, when people enlist into the Army today, they have the option of enlisting for as little as two years. Granted the total time could be as much as 6 though depending upon job and options. However, I do not see how this would have any effect upon enlistments.
In fact, if you were to look, you would see that reenlistments among deployed Soldiers is out of the norm high. While there are those that get out and feel jaded and cheated by the military, believe it or not, most believe in what they are fighting for (this is not to say that they are not weary and tired, or would rather be back home right now).
So, admittedly, I am not an expert on this, but the argument made the Wall Street Journal is that by allowing soldiers to get out after 3 years of service, it will reduce the overall number of people enlisted in the military (perhaps the statement could have been worded better in my post). So, you claim that 1) people have the option of enlisting in the army for only two years and 2) re-enlistment is out of the norm high. Well I'll address the re-enlistment first. Re-enlistment rates are high, that is true. But I'm not sure if that would continue if people had the option to go to college, all expenses paid, when they got out. 2) I did some research on the 2-year enlistment options, and I'm not really sure if that is realistic. This is what I found, but again, I'm not an expert, so I'd love to hear your perspective:
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/joiningup/a/recruiter4_2.htm
Here's the second thing -- the military may not let you out at the end of your active duty tour. Under a program called "Stop Loss," the military is allowed to prevent you from separating, during times of conflict, if they need your particular warm body. During the first Gulf War (1990), all of the services implemented "Stop Loss,"preventing pretty much anyone from separating, for an entire year. During the Kosovo Campaign, the Air Force instituted "Stop Loss" for those in certain "Shortage" jobs. During Iraq and Afghanistan, The Army, Air Force, and Marines instituted "Stop Loss," again, directed at specific individuals with shortage jobs, or (in the case of the Army), sometimes directed at specific units. The key is, once you join, if there are any conflicts going on, the military can hold you past your normal separation or retirement date.
Up until October 2003, the Army and Navy were the only services that offered active duty enlistments for periods of less than four years. However, as part of the FY 2003 Military Appropriations Act, Congress passed the National Call To Service Plan, which mandated that all of the services create an enlistment program which offered a two year active duty enlistment option, followed by four years in the Active Guard/Reserves, followed by two years in the Inactive Reserves (still the total eight year service commitment).
But, let's talk reality here -- While Congress mandated this plan, they gave the services wide lattitude in implementation. The Army and Navy already had two year active duty enlistment plans that they were happy with, and the Air Force and Marines had no recruiter problems, and weren't really interested in shorter-term enlistments.
However, because of enlistment shortages, the Army has dramatically expanded slots under this program in 2005 and 2006. The Air Force and Marine Corps still have little interest in a two-year active duty program. So, they implemented the very basics and applied many restrictions -- you probably have a better chance of hitting the lottery than getting one of the very few National Call to Service slots in these two branches. For example, under the Air Force Plan, the program is limited to one percent of all enlistments (about 370 total recruits, out of 37,000), and the program is limited to 29 Air Force jobs. The Marine Corps limit their National Call to Service enlistments to only 11 MOSs (jobs).
The Army and the Navy are the only services which have active duty enlistment options of less than four years, which are not part of the National Call to Service program. The Army offers enlistment contracts of two years, three years, four years, five years, and six years. Only a few Army jobs are available for two and three year enlistees (mainly those jobs that don't require much training time, and that the Army is having a hard time getting enough recruits). Most Army jobs require a minimum enlistment period of four years, and some Army jobs require a minimum enlistment period of five years. Additionally, under the Army's 2-year enlistment option, the two years of required active duty don't start until after basic training and job-school, so it's actually longer than two years.
The Navy offers a very few two year and three year contracts, where the recruit spends two or three years on active duty, followed by six years in the Active Reserves.
The other services offer four, five, and six year enlistment options (The Air Force only offers four and six year enlistments). All Air Force enlisted jobs are available for four-year enlistees. However, the Air Force will give accelerated promotions for individuals who agree to enlist for six years. Such individuals enlist in the grade of E-1 (Airman Basic), or E-2 (Airman), if they have sufficient college credits or JROTC. They are then promoted to the grade of E-3 (Airman First Class) upon completion of technical training, or after 20 weeks after basic training graduation (whichever occurs first). Six year enlistment options are not open to all jobs, at all times.
Most Navy jobs are available for four-year enlistees, but some special programs (such as Nuclear Field) require a five year enlistment. These special programs usually offer increased training opportunities, and accelerated promotion.
Elizabeth Kudner, co-founder of myUsearch.com, an unbiased online service that matches students to colleges and universities.
First of all, let me tell you I am very impressed by your research.
1. 2 year contract
You are correct; the two year option does not start until you complete your BCT and AIT; however that is typically 4 months of training, so really it is a 2 year 4 month term of service. These are for a) jobs that are considered a shortage MOS, b) jobs that require little training time. The biggest reason for this is that if the Army is going to spend a lot of money on training you, then they want to make that investment back (just like any other job really). You do then have to do time in the reserves. Forgive me for my bias, but being 14 years active duty, I do not include the reserves typically in my view of things. No offense to them, heavens knows that they are taking more than their fair share of casualties out here. When I think of time in service, I look at active duty. However, there are options for that as well. If, at the end your tour, you want to separate and not go into the reserves, it is often possible to go IRR (Inactive Ready Reserves). In this case, you would not have to drill or get into uniform.
Everyone who signs up enlists for 8 years, X active and the rest IRR to complete the 8 years. The IRR states that you will agree to be called up to active duty if the need arises. At the end of the 8 years you are free and clear of that. I do not have the numbers, but in my 3 deployments and 14 years of service, I have met very few IRR.
The more complex the job and the bigger the bonus you get, the longer the contract. The GI Bill will not change this.
2. Ah Stop Loss, the misunderstood “Back Door Draft”.
Here is the basic lay down of stop loss. Stop loss was applied during the Gulf War uniformly to ensure that the Army would have the man power to complete its mission (remember, going into the Gulf in 1991 we had not seen a large invasion Army since Vietnam and our projections were that we would have heavy casualties). Since then it has changed somewhat. When a unit comes down on orders to deploy, that unit has a stop loss put on it. Believe it or not, this saves lives. What it does is to prevent ANYONE from leaving the unit (to include normal move (PCS) from one post to another). This is done to ensure that units can train and keep the same teams together. Yes, people who are due to ETS get screwed. It is a fact. However, we are at war, and that means that the welfare of the unit must come first. Imagine taking an infantry unit with new troops that have never trained together into combat. Within the first engagement, they would fall apart. You need to know, not think what the man to your left and right is going to do. This knowledge only comes when you have ate, slept, lived, and trained together. Once that unit comes back, Soldiers are kept in for 90 more days to ensure that they are ready to be released.
This is another area where people are ignorant. Prior to anyone getting out of the military, they must undergo a physical to ensure that they are in just as good health when they leave as when they got in, lest the Army must pay them their “disability”. They also must go through a separation class where they learn how to correlate their MOS into civilian speak, conduct interviews, and write resumes. Once this is complete, the Soldier is allowed to transition out of the military.
3. College Option
I am currently finishing my masters in HR right now (last class). I have not had to pay for any of it. The Army is picking up the tab. You actually get your college free while you are in the military, if you should so desire it. So really, the option is already there. Additionally, there are many states that allow their Soldiers, upon ETS, to attend state colleges for free.
Along this same line, I did my company command in a recruiting company (just left it less than a year ago in fact). During my 2+ years, I will tell you that very few people come into the Army for college money. The poor do it for job training (HR, medical, mechanic, etc.) and middle on up do it for adventure (granted this is a VERY broad view and oversimplifies the truth, but is really generally true). It is for this reason that, despite what the ignorant want to say, most of your combat arms units are heavily white. Look at the pictures of those Soldiers who have paid the ultimate price and you will see what I mean.
The few that do choose to go into the Army for college typically go into the reserves, and go concurrently while they serve. Really, the GI Bill will, in my somewhat expert opinion, have very little impact upon the enlistment or reenlistment rates of the military.
4. Punching your Gov’t Rep in the gut!!!
Wow, what a dream that would be. You want to pay for every social program, save the world, expand the military, and offer them benefits. Easy enough, stop the bastards in congress from wasting our money (some people are not aware and are shocked that we too pay taxes). These creatures which for the most part are not even worthy of my spit and should not be in any way portrayed within the same gene pool as most of us waste more of our money than I could ever imagine. It is they who are causing (or by inaction and ridiculous party fights are allowing to cause) most of our financial problems (not individual, but as a whole). Find a fix for that, and you find the money for everything you could ever want to do.
Soldier in Afghanistan, thank you very much for your thorough comment. I especially appreciate your point that soldiers pay taxes as well and I find it interesting that you think very few people enlist in order to go to college. On that note, I'm wondering whether you think this bill will actually increase the number of soldiers who will pursue a degree or if you think it's a bit of a waste of money? I'd appreciate your perspective.
Elizabeth Kudner, co-founder of myUsearch.com, an unbiased online service that matches students to colleges and universities.
Assisting someone in pursuing education is never a waste of money. With the GI Bill, if the Soldier does not use it, it can instead go to the spouse or children (who I think earn it every bit as much as the Soldier). In addition, if it is not used, then the money does not get wasted. It remains untouched for the next person to use it. Therefore, there is really no waste involved.
As far as increasing the number of people that obtain a degree, I would say I am 99% sure that the answer is no. The same people that would get a degree now would still do so before. Soldiers are nothing if not resourceful, if it was important to them, they would find a way to be able to afford a degree. I did it with a wife and child. Granted, I used the GI bill and got an Army scholarship to come back in as an officer, but there was money out there for me still. This also does not include those states that pay for their veterans to go to state schools. All that this program does is make it easier for vets to attend school (either college or trade). However, to me that is more than enough reason.
The thing about this, is that all the GI Bill IS, is a continuation of our Education! We are able to begin our college while enlisted, at ANY time, and all is paid for through financial aid. Basically, while you are enlisted [even WAY before your 3 year marking period], it is as though we are in a regular college- I am applied through UMUC Europe, currently taking a math class on base, and 2 online. All is being paid for, but my GI Bill is not being touched. The only real difference between the "old" bill and the "new" is that we can now pass on the New bill to our dependents after the 3 year mark.
The only reason why we have to wait 3 years to use it, is because Enlistments [no matter the branch, but have to be active duty] are at LEAST 4 years- so to guarantee your right to use your Bill, the 3 years is a requirement to stay in for. We can get out at any time, with standards, but the thing that is most important to us, is that NOW we can also share these benefits with our children- so that if we DO get out, it isn't just wasted. I say this because I'll have completed my associates and bachelors by the time my 6 year re-enlistment comes up.
I realized just now, reading back up, that I'm being repetitive by someone else's answer- and you have indeed done a lot of research.
But those are all standards by the book- one that hasn't been updated in quite some time.
I honestly think that you would have to be in the military like us, to fully understand our benefits and how exactly these things are affecting us.
I'm not saying YOU are, but many people generalize our military branches, or those enlisted underneath.
You can't make opinions off of someone else's, let alone on something that you really aren't affected by.
And on another note, Stop-Loss? Too many people are watching that movie... That's my only comment- i think Afghan. is answering quite well.
By the way-
The GI Bill i don't believe, is a waste of money.
The funds are spent on those who apply for it- What they do with it is their will. Did you know, that even though it may be a very extensive time period- the monies that we're not spent [which is hard NOT to] is taken after... 15-20 years, and is recycled back through.
The government, nor military- is not just throwing money at our feet.
Afghan. made very crucial points...
First of all anyone who is going to make a career out of the military will do it regardless of what "incentives" they have to get out. The short timers will serve and get out regardless. I can tell you this as a Marine who has served both in Iraq and Afghanistan. This notion that some guy or gal who would have stayed in is now going to get out because he has a better GI bill is bogus. It's fostered by people who have probably had their education paid for by mom, never served a day in uniform, or they attended West Point or the Naval Academy. We owe an extreme debt to our enlisted fighting men and women. You have no right to question their motives or to limit their rewards because they served 2 or 20 years. They are the people putting their lives on the line for American foreign policy. The post WWII Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 created the American economy and country we have today. It paid for 100% of tuition and expenses for returning vets. That was if you went to Harvard or to Oklahoma State. Now we have a chopped down shameful version of it and want to question when the benefit is increased. I question the motives of anyone who would take this away from our vets especially when we are increasingly losing against European students, not to mention China and India. You want to boost enlistment, quit sending them on 18 month back to back deployments. What to want to do lock people in a military career and throw away the key? This is about honoring our troops not filling quotas. These two things shouldn't even be talked about in the same sentence. It alludes to is using the underprivileged to fight wars and not providing them with a tool to achieve the American dream. You want to rebuild the American economy, give 300,000 returning vets full rides to our best schools and put them to work in American industry.