Webb GI Bill Passed by Senate "Any info on how this is bette

[pfitmx15]

Hey guys just got this from military.com. Just wondering if anybody knows anything about this proposal. The article didnt have too many specifics on how this will improve on the old gi bill. Looks like it might get vetoed anyway. Any info will help. Also the reason they think it might get vetoed is because they think it will entice soldiers to get out and go to college.

Anyways heres the link:
http://www.military.com/military-rep...SRC=miltrep.nl

[rmepilot]

I've tried to find the actual wording of both proposals, but failed to find it so far. Below is an article that pretty much sums it up for me until proven otherwise, but I'm still waiting for the non-edited versions to be published:

IDS Staff Editorial | IDS | Date: 5/18/2008

On paper, it looks like an exceptional deal. A feat of bipartisan cooperation conceived out of deep concern for America’s returning veterans, the “Post-9/11 Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act of 2007,” sponsored by Jim Webb, D-Va., was recently passed by the House and is headed to the Senate, where its fate is uncertain. Designating it the “21st Century GI Bill” and citing the success of the educational benefits awarded to World War II era veterans as a main cause for support, Webb is advocating an increase from today’s benefits (the Montgomery GI Bill currently provides $1,100 a month, $800 shy of the national average cost of four-year public post-secondary schools) to essentially apply the monetary equivalent of four years at a state’s most expensive public college toward a full-time education, along with other benefits. Those benefits are directly tied to length of active service, capping after 36 months. Supporting Democrats adduce the original GI Bill as the foundation of America’s middle class as well as the economic dominance America has enjoyed thus far in the post-WWII era. This bill is a good deal to most involved, with the notable exception of the millionaires who are expected to fork up the funding through a surtax of about 0.05 percent on any household income over $1 million per couple (or $500,000 for individuals).

But the military, initially expected by most to support the measure, is quickly forming an opposition. The main failure of the bill, critics argue, is that it will place an enormous strain on an already thinly stretched force, as those who have served their 36 months might take off to pursue their degree. While recruiting would be improved because of the benefits, retention would likely plummet, and the cost of training new recruits would be significant. Some even suspect that this bill is an underhanded attempt to end the war in Iraq by overextending the military’s budget to the point where it cannot continue to fight overseas. Webb failed to deny this consequence, simply stating that the bill will help soldiers transition to civilian life and benefit those who do not wish to make a career in the military. While individual soldiers would benefit, America’s armed forces would ultimately be impaired.

There are several major differences between the new bill and the WWII GI Bill that are crucial to the success of and impact on military operations. Most importantly, the original bill was passed after the war was over and troops had returned home. It was intended to deal with an onslaught of young men in the labor force and keep the economy afloat in order to circumvent another 1930s-style economic decline. Finally, it was meant to reward those who had lost economic opportunities while serving, many due to conscription. By ignoring these specificities, the new bill will not have the same positive impact.

While almost everyone agrees that we as Americans are forever indebted to our veterans and that they are certainly deserving of generous benefits, a bill that does this at the cost of bringing our military to its knees is simply not worthwhile. Regardless of opinion on our country’s current military engagements, bleeding the armed forces to death in the name of veteran benefits is not the way to solve the debate.

[Hacker15e]

Great, yet another check that the US treasury can't cash without printing more money.

I'm all for veteran's benefits, but let's at least try to be fiscally sound while doing it.

This is the same as a parent who is all ready hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt paying for their kids' college by getting another credit card.

I think the worry that people will get out at 36 months is spurious...but if they are concerned about that, then make it 48 months or something longer to encourage longer enlistments.

[rmepilot]

Originally Posted by Hacker15e

Great, yet another check that the US treasury can't cash without printing more money.

I'm all for veteran's benefits, but let's at least try to be fiscally sound while doing it.

This is the same as a parent who is all ready hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt paying for their kids' college by getting another credit card.

I think the worry that people will get out at 36 months is spurious...but if they are concerned about that, then make it 48 months or something longer to encourage longer enlistments.

Exactly!

Plus, I'm so sick of hearing the "I only joined for the college $$, I shouldn't have to deploy" crap.

Now, as a 21 year veteran flying in A$$krackistan, I just hope they don't kill my plans for using it to help pay for a part 141 MEFW conversion.

[Low_Level_Hell]

Not exactly buying that this is an underhanded way to end the war. The Webb GI Bill may entice service members to get out at 36 months but doesn't mean the Military has to let them.

Besides the costs of the number of service members who are actually going to use the GI Bill are miniscule compared to what the disability costs for veterens will be.

[pfitmx15]

Heys gang just wanted to give you some updates. First of all I didnt mean for this post to become flamebait with the talk of folks coming in for three years and leaving. Im not in that situation. Ive served 6 and a half years and when I get out next year it will be 7 and a half. Really one of the only reasons im getting out is to finish college "fiancee's requirement" and then go back to OCS. Now with that said I have some updates from the army times. Their are a couple of different bills floating out there but the one the article in the times talked about is the Webb GI BIll which was recently passed but expected to get the veto. Basically the bill will pay the school not you all tution and fees for 4 years. During this time you will receive a $1000 stipend per year for books. Also the major difference from the old GI Bill is that when your taking the college full time you will receive E-5 BAH for the area your school is located.

Once again my only purpose for starting this thread is to keep the military folks imformed about the GI BIll as it is significantly changing and could help some folks out. Well take care and if anyone learns any new info keep us informed.

Cheers,

matthew

[JacksonHandy]

Dude,

It ain't flamebait, its military people discussing military things.

I think it'll hurt retention. I've already been dealing with Joe, who thinks that he has to be given everything.

I'll end it before I go on a ramapage about the sense of entitlement in America's youth (and new soldiers).

Hooah

[ragingxtc]

hi all, first time poster here... love reading on the site so far.

i have been doing quite a bit of research on the new g.i. bill, as i have less than 9 months left in my active duty air force career (definitely going full time guard for a bit tho to make some decent money). the latest iteration of the bill (hr 5740/s 22) is doing well, passing both houses. it WILL be vetoed by the president but, both houses have the 2/3rd's majority need to override the veto!

the benefits are as follows (and ohio will be given as an example)...

- 100% tuition paid for any public school. (ohio state max - Miami University - $23k a year paid)
- for private schools, the state max plus half the difference. (UD - cost of $27k a year - $25k a year paid)
- $1000 yearly stipend for books, fees, etc.
- E-5 dependent bah for the zip code of the school. (UD - $907 a month)

the state yearly max varies from state to state (and from about $4k to $27k). the two highest being Florida ($27k) and Ohio ($23k).

now this is a hell of a lot better than $1100 a month for attending school full time. we can actually go to school full time and not have to worry about making ends meet! to be quite honest tho, my first thought was, what about flight school? nobody had any info on it so i had to do some digging. this is what i have found so far (govtrack.us)...

hr5740 s22 section 3313 subsection (i) subsection (3), in regards to flight training,

`(A) The amount equal to the lesser of--

`(i) the established charge which similarly circumstances nonveterans enrolled in the program would be required to
pay; or

`(ii) the maximum amount that would be payable to the individual for the program of education under paragraph (1)(A)
of subsection (c), or under the provisions of paragraphs (2) through (7) of subsection (c) applicable to the
individual, for the program of education if the individual were entitled to amounts for the program of education
under subsection (c) rather than this subsection. (basically saying that they will pay up to the state maximum)

`(B) A housing stipend in an amount equal to the amount of the appropriately reduced amount of monthly stipend for housing
otherwise payable to the individual under subsection (c). (unsure of the reduced rates.)

`(C) A monthly stipend in an amount equal to the monthly equivalent of the appropriately reduced amount of the yearly
stipend for books, supplies, equipment, and other educational costs otherwise payable to the individual under
subsection (c).

still kind of unsure what all of this means but, its a hell of a lot better than the old 60% after ppl rule, and from the looks of it, it might mean 100%, up to the states maximum. that would be great for vets looking to train at atp as youd get $3k every month in addition to bah! looks like we'll have to wait and see on this one tho. also, there will most likely be stipulations as to what type of school you can go to... most likely part 141 like the current g.i. bill.

but, i encourage you to check out gibill2008.org

ok... now that i got some info out there for ya... ive kinda got to rant a little bit. (sorry)

to those that say this will hurt retention, you are absolutely right. by 16%, as john mccain quotes from a recent study. what he fails to mention is that the same study states that recruitment will go up by 16%.

to those that say this will end up costing the american people more money, you are absolutely right. but after WWII, a g.i. bill was put into place from 1946 to 1956 that was very similar to this g.i. bill. a study at the time showed that for every $1 put into the g.i. bill, the economy was boosted by $7. Additionally, a study recently conducted concluded that the increase in g.i. bill benefits will cost the american public $145 million a year... thats roughly the same cost as 36 hours in iraq. and whats $145 million compared to the $4 billion the military spends every year on recruiting? especially when you consider the g.i. bill is the military's #1 recruiting incentive!

The Webb GI Bill may entice service members to get out at 36 months but doesn't mean the Military has to let them.

yep... you have to be on active duty status for 36 months to get the benefits... if you come in active, you are doing at least four years. if you are guard/reserve, you have to be activated (read deployed) for 36 months to get the full benefits (its pro-rated depending on how many months of active duty they have).

I'm so sick of hearing the "I only joined for the college $$, I shouldn't have to deploy" crap.

seriously?? how many times have you really heard that? i don't know what your background is, therefore i will not make any assumptions, but i will say in all of my time in the air force, i've never heard anyone say that. yea, a lot of us joined for the g.i. bill, but ive never heard anyone bitch about deploying. infact, there is a waiting list for my career field to deploy from my base (luke afb), and i have known more than a few people eager to go that have been turned down. i don't know, maybe its just the people that i'm surrounded by (or maybe its the ones you are :-P).

I'll end it before I go on a ramapage about the sense of entitlement in America's youth (and new soldiers).

thank you for not starting that. this would have been more than just a rant...

hell of a first post huh? :-D

-kiel

[rmepilot]

Originally Posted by ragingxtc

to those that say this will hurt retention, you are absolutely right. by 16%, as john mccain quotes from a recent study. what he fails to mention is that the same study states that recruitment will go up by 16%.

The high cost of training new service members makes this an unrealistic comparison.

Originally Posted by ragingxtc

to those that say this will end up costing the american people more money, you are absolutely right. but after WWII, a g.i. bill was put into place from 1946 to 1956 that was very similar to this g.i. bill. a study at the time showed that for every $1 put into the g.i. bill, the economy was boosted by $7. Additionally, a study recently conducted concluded that the increase in g.i. bill benefits will cost the american public $145 million a year... thats roughly the same cost as 36 hours in iraq. and whats $145 million compared to the $4 billion the military spends every year on recruiting? especially when you consider the g.i. bill is the military's #1 recruiting incentive!

These your words or did you just cut and paste?

I'm not doubting the facts (i'm a bit to busy fighting a war to check), but the proponents of this bill are constantly in front of a camera saying we can't afford to continue the GWOT, how can we expect to pay for this?

With that said, the current GI Bill IS outdated and definitely needs updated! I'm sure that a compromise bill will appear before November. I'm not sure that McCain's version is the answer either.

Originally Posted by ragingxtc

seriously?? how many times have you really heard that? i don't know what your background is, therefore i will not make any assumptions, but i will say in all of my time in the air force, i've never heard anyone say that. yea, a lot of us joined for the g.i. bill, but ive never heard anyone bitch about deploying. infact, there is a waiting list for my career field to deploy from my base (luke afb), and i have known more than a few people eager to go that have been turned down. i don't know, maybe its just the people that i'm surrounded by (or maybe its the ones you are :-P).

hell of a first post huh? :-D

-kiel

Well, I've heard that quote on the news for the first few months after every major deployment since the Gulf War (1991, in case you were too young to remember). After 21 years of active duty, the most whining I've heard has been from Reservists or AF enlisted, but most of those guy's were in support roles co-located with the Army.

As far as my peers are concerned, retention really is not that much of a problem. Scout pilots really do have one of the best jobs in the military in spite of the danger. FWIW, the majority of us didn't join because of the GI Bill.


All in all, thanks for the info from the Webb camp. I still want to get a hold of the full bill being presented, although I'm sure that it will read like an FAR.

[ragingxtc]

The high cost of training new service members makes this an unrealistic comparison.

very true and a very valid point. but on the other side of that coin, a stronger g.i. bill will allow the military to recruit members with a higher aptitude. this is especially important to the enlisted army considering they continuously have to lower their standards in order to meet the ever expanding recruiting goals.

These your words or did you just cut and paste?

my words... again, ive been doing quite a bit of research on this. :-D

I'm not doubting the facts (i'm a bit to busy fighting a war to check), but the proponents of this bill are constantly in front of a camera saying we can't afford to continue the GWOT, how can we expect to pay for this?

no problem, a lot of the facts are sourced from gibill2008.org, as well as quite a few from other news articles that have surfaced in the last week. again, $145 million a year (paid for by tax payers making more that $500k a year) compared to $150 to $200 billion a year for the GWOT... but honestly, the GWOT and the "long war" are completely different debates for another day.

With that said, the current GI Bill IS outdated and definitely needs updated! I'm sure that a compromise bill will appear before November. I'm not sure that McCain's version is the answer either.

again, the current bill is veto proof (over 300 house reps, and 75 senators including half of the republicans in the senate). the version proposed by senator Graham has little support at all. infact, it has substantially less republican support than the bill proposed by senator Webb, not to mention, no support from any vet service organizations. this current bill is the final version.

Well, I've heard that quote on the news for the first few months after every major deployment since the Gulf War (1991, in case you were too young to remember). After 21 years of active duty, the most whining I've heard has been from Reservists or AF enlisted, but most of those guy's were in support roles co-located with the Army.

obviously, you out rank me quite a bit (warrant officer?) so i beg of you, please slap anyone you hear bitching. :-P (and just to make you feel old, i was 7 in 1991... sorry.) out of curiosity, were the af enlisted guys on tcn duty? because a lot of our nonners get stuck with that... but in all fairness, they bitch about everything, no matter where they are. same goes with the security forces guys. I'm avionics on the f-16, and i absolutely love my job, and will do whatever my job demands of me... especially if its keeping our pilots safe over hostile territory.

last year, our unit, tho a training unit, lost a pilot (Maj. Troy Gilbert) that was deployed with an active fighter squadron in iraq... the unit was not the same for many months to follow, even tho we knew he died doing what he loved, while protecting soldiers on the ground. so i salute you for doing what you do.

As far as my peers are concerned, retention really is not that much of a problem. Scout pilots really do have one of the best jobs in the military in spite of the danger. FWIW, the majority of us didn't join because of the GI Bill.

id agree with you... honestly, this bill will not hurt the retention rates of us AF maintainers either (especially avionics). if we were planning to get out, chances are we had a plan under the old bill and the new bill just sweetens the pot. but i don't know man... us avionics guys might have you beat for the best job.

i also didn't join for the gi bill. my parents were paying for my college education, but after a year of school i decided it wasnt the right time in my life to pursue a degree. i joined because i wanted to get some true hands-on technical skills, not to mention, some direction and discipline.

All in all, thanks for the info from the Webb camp. I still want to get a hold of the full bill being presented, although I'm sure that it will read like an FAR.

no problem, and if you have any questions, please feel free to pm me or send me an email... or just respond on here so everyone can benefit. the current bill (hr5740/s22) is quite difficult to read, but the full text can be found here. and again, i highly recommend checking out gibill2008.org

hope that helped
-kiel

[fiveninerzero]

The new G.I. Bill has passed the Senate, next stop is Bush's desk.

It looks good undergrad-wise, does that include grad school also?

My biggest concerns are how long is this going to last? What pot is the money coming from? Can I use this for aviation ratings? And last but not least, I paid $1,200 plus an extra $600 when I enlisted to contribute to the Montgomery G.I. Bill. Do I get that back?

[Zondaracer]

Originally Posted by fiveninerzero

Can I use this for aviation ratings? And last but not least, I paid $1,200 plus an extra $600 when I enlisted to contribute to the Montgomery G.I. Bill. Do I get that back?

My question exactly. I bought in to it for $1200, and the new GI Bill doesn't require buying into it.
http://education.military.com/money-...ity#comparison

At least it says that if you don't like the new GI Bill, you can use the old one if you signed up for it, so if the new one doesn't seem to be as good of a deal for those using it for flight training, then I guess we can still get that (up to) 60% covered.

[Zondaracer]

Here's a quote I found in a discussion...
http://education.military.com/money-...ity#comparison

1/3rd of the way down:

"If you did not sign up for the GI Bill when you entered service it does not disqualify you from the new GI Bill. You just have to serve after 9-11 for 3 years to get the full benefit. If you took student loan repayment, the time incurred for that option can not be used to count for the 3 years of service to qualify for the new GI Bill. For example, I recieved an HPLRP loan for $37K and incurred 2 years of active duty obligation. I would have to serve at least 5 years to get the full benefit due to the 2 years of HPLRP obligation. Those that end up serving less than what is counted for the 3 years of service will get a pro-rated new GI Bill rate. To be fair, those that did sign up will be refunded our $1200 enrollment fee. "

So looks like we would get those $1200 back.

[surreal1221]

Wait what?

Those of us who paid the $1200, and served for more than 3 years AFTER 9/11 are going to get that $1200 refunded back to us?

Yeah - right. What DD form must I fill out for that joke?

Or is that only if I choose to use the "new" GI Bill? In the end, I'll stand by this til I die - don't change something that isn't broke.

[Chewie von Nubbins]

Well, I must admit that I am a bit jealous because I will not qualify for the new GI Bill. However, after I get over those negative feelings, I must say that I am very happy that this is indeed happening for people serving. Now, I have no hard feelings telling my kids or someone that is asking for honest advice that is thinking about joining the service right out of high school if going enlisted is a good idea. It is. Why? Well....this will now be one of the biggest justification points to the entire argument. This is a good thing, and I am happy for everyone courageous enough to serve their country and have this waiting for them on the other side of their commitment.

IMHO joining the service for a term will help you lay the foundation to one of the best work ethics possible. You will learn how to deal with big organization and struggle with all of the BS thrown your way, when to listen to the bitching and when to tune it out - for self preservation.

Then, when you have fulfilled your commitment, you have all of the tools necessary to aid you in your quest for whatever you want to achieve in a professional career. And...you have earned the benefit of the new GI Bill. The only thing that I have a hard time with is not rewarding people that have served hard combat with a better incentive/reward vs. giving it to everyone that serves at least 3 years.

[Zondaracer]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Wait what?

Those of us who paid the $1200, and served for more than 3 years AFTER 9/11 are going to get that $1200 refunded back to us?

Yeah - right. What DD form must I fill out for that joke?

Or is that only if I choose to use the "new" GI Bill? In the end, I'll stand by this til I die - don't change something that isn't broke.

Well you know how it goes, doesn't matter what it is or if something is broke or not, but they change it so that they have an OPR bullet

[GalaxyIFE]

The best provision I see in the bill is that payment shall be rendered BEFORE the period begins. So the VA will actually SEND me the payment before I go to school?!? Now when I finish my master's degree, will I be able to use it at all?!? Interesting questions from this "new deal".

[Zondaracer]

Looks like the bill wasn't even vetoed!

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...igned_063008w/

[H46Bubba]

Here's the best part of the bill. Those who served after 9/11 but didn't get the 36 month requirement due to being discharged due to a service connected disabilaty will get the total 100% rate as long as they served 30 days or more after 9/11.
Has any one seen how the new bill effects flight training?

[Zondaracer]

Originally Posted by H46Bubba

Has any one seen how the new bill effects flight training?

We're trying to figure that out. It looks like you will be covered up to the cost of the State Maximum for in-state tuition, which means if you are in a state like Wyoming, you would be covered up to $14060, (not including the BAH and book stipend). Looks like the highest state is Montana which would cover up to $54440. The old GI Bill was up to 60% of flight training of the school's outlined progam costs. If you want to see an example, go here: http://www.scanavia.com/images/upload/pdf/va.pdf (This is SAA in San Diego)
I guess we will have to wait and see, if anybody has more info please chime in because I myself would like to see more details.

[rostato]

It's a pretty good deal. Not great by all means. No complaints here. I would make over 3000 more a year just going to school. I still can't find anything about the flying benefits...

[88MPH]

Another change to the REAP involving pursuit of flight training provides for a substantial increase in such benefit. Individuals pursuing flight training full time under the subchapter II program would be given 60 percent of the established charges for tuition and fees.

Individuals pursuing flight training currently under the REAP receive 24, 36, or 48 percent of those fees depending upon length of active duty service.

ADD:

`(i) Flight Training- (1) Educational assistance is payable under this chapter for a program of education consisting of flight training as follows:
`(A) Courses of flight training approved under section 3860A(b) of this title.
`(B) Flight training meeting the requirements of section 3034(d) of this title.
`(2) Paragraphs (2) and (4) of section 3032(e) of this title shall apply with respect to the availability of educational assistance under this chapter for pursuit of flight training covered by paragraph (1).
`(3)(A) The educational assistance payable under this chapter to an individual for pursuit of a program of education consisting of flight training covered by paragraph (1) is the amounts as follows:
`(i) The established charge which similarly circumstances nonveterans enrolled in the program would be required to pay.
`(ii) A monthly stipend in the amount of $1,000.
`(B) The nature and amount of the tuition, fees, and other expenses constituting the established charge for a program of flight training under this subsection shall be determined in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
`(4) Payment of the amounts payable under paragraph (3) for pursuit of a program of flight training shall be made on a monthly basis.
`(5) For each month for which amounts are paid an individual under this subsection, the entitlement of the individual to educational assistance under this chapter shall be charged at the rate of one month for each such month.

This sounds like the amounts haven't been determined yet, but will probably be guided by the current rules outlined by VA/Part 141 requirements for flight schools.

Payments will be made month to month, just like the last GI Bill was if you attended regular school.

[Zondaracer]

I can't wait to see what they end up deciding. If they cap it at the tuition level for the state, some states it wont even cover 50% of the costs of flight training where others it will.

88MPH, you still at DM? I'm deployed right now (not to the desert)

[88MPH]

Originally Posted by Zondaracer

I can't wait to see what they end up deciding. If they cap it at the tuition level for the state, some states it wont even cover 50% of the costs of flight training where others it will.

88MPH, you still at DM? I'm deployed right now (not to the desert)

Wonder if it'll work moving to CT, nothing can be as expensive as ivy league, lol.

And yeah, I'm at DM, 5 years now (stands for Don't Move). Only till Oct though.