GI Bill benefits legislation

[Belsnickel]

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/gi-bill-benefits-new-fees-future-enlistees-house-lawmakers

Quote:WASHINGTON — A congressional proposal to make service members buy into their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits surprised veterans groups on Tuesday, with advocates divided over whether it amounts to a long-term fix for the benefit or an unfair bill for veterans.

“This new tax on troops is absurd,” said Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander Brian Duffy in a statement. “Ensuring veterans are able to successfully transition back to civilian life after military service is a cost of war, and not a fee that Congress can just pass along to our troops.

“Congress must stop nickeling and diming America’s service members and veterans.”

The plan — draft legislation from House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Phil Roe, R-Tenn. — would deduct $2,400 from future service members’ paychecks to establish eligibility for revamped post-military education benefits. This was first reported Tuesday by Task & Purpose.

Currently, the post-9/11 GI Bill offers full tuition to a four-year state college (or the equivalent tuition payout for a private school) plus a monthly housing stipend to any service member who spends at least three years on active duty, and to reservists who are mobilized to active-duty for extended periods. Troops wounded while serving are also eligible.

Unlike the older Montgomery GI Bill benefit, the post-9/11 GI Bill does not require any fees or pay reductions for eligibility. The new proposal would change that, taking up to $100 a month from new enlistees’ paychecks for the right to access the benefit after they leave the ranks.

The money collected would amount to a fraction of the overall cost of the veterans education benefit. Congressional staff estimate the move would bring in about $3.1 billion over the next 10 years, while total GI Bill spending is expected to total more than $100 billion over the same decade.

Supporters of the plan say having service members “buy in” to the benefit would strengthen it against periodic attempts by budget planners to trim veterans education benefits. Last year, veterans advocates sparred over proposed cuts to GI Bill benefits given to the children of troops, and a plan to cap some housing stipends connected to the program.

“It’s infinitely more difficult to get rid of or cut the GI Bill if troops have paid into that benefit,” said Will Hubbard, vice president of government affairs for Student Veterans of America. “This is about how we can make the GI Bill protected and buffered against budget fights for years to come.”

SVA is one of several groups expected to testify before Congress on April 26 on Roe’s bill, known unofficially as the “Lifetime GI Bill Act,” and a host of other changes to current Veterans Affairs education benefits.

They include expanding eligibility for wounded troops, families of deceased service members, and some reservists currently excluded from the program. Most of those changes have broad support in the veterans community, although how to pay for them has been a point of contention.

The new buy-in would create enough money for that expansion, although veterans groups in the past have opposed similar ideas.

Hubbard said SVA officials believe the GI Bill program needs changes to survive and transform from a wartime benefit to an enduring contract with future military volunteers.

Officials from the Tragedy Assistance Program for survivors, who are also scheduled to testify next week, echoed that support. Officials from the American Legion, who will also testify at the hearing, do not support the draft proposal.

VFW officials have gone further, vowing to fight the plan. They argue the Post-9/11 GI Bill “is earned through honorable service, not through out-of-pocket fees” and accused lawmakers of moving “to claw back this critical educational benefit” even while troops are still serving in wars overseas.

Paul Rieckhoff, CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, offered similar frustration with the proposal. He said his group will fight any "tax" on troops to pay for education benefits, and that he doubts there is much support in the public for such a plan.

"Pushing this GI Bill tax proposal on troops in a time of war is political cowardice," he said.

"Some politicians would rather make backroom deals than raise taxes or find other ways to support our troops as bombs continue to fall overseas."

Roe’s staff said the proposal is part of a larger effort in recent months to “address long-sought improvements to educational assistance benefits for veterans.” The chairman also promised an “open, transparent and inclusive” debate on the issue, and said none of the ideas under consideration is guaranteed to advance through the committee.

Democrats on the committee have already voiced concerns behind the scenes about the proposal, saying they want to make sure that all voices are heard on any drastic education benefits changes. That could include not just veterans groups and VA officials but also Defense Department representatives, since the GI Bill is a major recruiting tool for the services.

No similar legislation has yet been introduced in the Senate, although advocates have been discussing the plan with lawmakers in both chambers for several months. Hubbard said the cuts proposed by Congress to the benefit last year played a role in drafting the new legislation.

As written, the draft bill would cover only new enlistees, and would not charge the $2,400 eligibility fee to troops already in the ranks.

Pay attention to the last line in bold. I think that should be a little further up for honesty's sake, but this is still a discouraging thing with the intended build-up of the armed services and the potential armed conflicts that could result in increased enlistments. I don't know if this will make its way through, but it is definitely something to keep an eye on.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2017, 11:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/gi-bill-benefits-new-fees-future-enlistees-house-lawmakers

Pay attention to the last line in bold. I think that should be a little further up for honesty's sake, but this is still a discouraging thing with the intended build-up of the armed services and the potential armed conflicts that could result in increased enlistments. I don't know if this will make its way through, but it is definitely something to keep an eye on.

Are we to be surprised that these people care more about a few dollars than providing for the people that actually serve in the armed forces?

Whether it's the new recruits or not they have a history of only loving the troops until they have to pay them or keep their promises to them when they come home.

[Yojimbo]

When I served in the Navy, I was on the old Montgomery plan and did pay $1200 ($100 a month) and then paid additional $600 to get the extended benefits. I had no problem with either when the return was 10's of thousands of dollars.

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2017, 11:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/gi-bill-benefits-new-fees-future-enlistees-house-lawmakers

Pay attention to the last line in bold. I think that should be a little further up for honesty's sake, but this is still a discouraging thing with the intended build-up of the armed services and the potential armed conflicts that could result in increased enlistments. I don't know if this will make its way through, but it is definitely something to keep an eye on.

I have absolutely no problem if this is passed and new Soldiers come in knowing they must contribute to their education fund.

Way back when I can in it was called VEAP. Similar deal: They took out $100 of your paycheck for the 1st 1 (or 2?) years and in return you received education benefits upon separation. A few years later we had the choice of cashing out or converting to the Montgomery GI Bill. Being a responsible kid. I took the cash out and put it toward a car.

[Au165]

Yea, no issue here if it is only going forward and not retroactive. As much as everyone would like to make everything free for everyone who does tough jobs (Police, Fire, Teachers, Military) at some point we have to figure out how to pay for everything.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2017, 11:49 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: When I served in the Navy, I was on the old Montgomery plan and did pay $1200 ($100 a month) and then paid additional $600 to get the extended benefits. I had no problem with either when the return was 10's of thousands of dollars.

(05-10-2017, 11:56 AM)Au165 Wrote: Yea, no issue here if it is only going forward and not retroactive. As much as everyone would like to make everything free for everyone who does tough jobs (Police, Fire, Teachers, Military) at some point we have to figure out how to pay for everything.

I couldn't disagree more.

Anytime we are taking from military men and women it is wrong.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-10-2017, 11:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: Are we to be surprised that these people care more about a few dollars than providing for the people that actually serve in the armed forces?

Whether it's the new recruits or not they have a history of only loving the troops until they have to pay them or keep their promises to them when they come home.

It's collecting 3%, not exactly "not paying for them".  It's not for a person's entire career, and it helps expand coverage.  Now I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but could we drop the knee jerk reactions. and maybe just discuss an issue.

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2017, 11:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: I couldn't disagree more.

Anytime we are taking from military men and women it is wrong.

I would agree with you if there was a proposal to take away something already promised/earned/guaranteed; however, this is not the case. It is simply a move going forward and I have no issue with it.

I do appreciate your patriotism and support for Service members though. It is thankful citizens such as yourself that make chewing the dirt and dodging the bullets worth it.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2017, 12:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's collecting 3%, not exactly "not paying for them".  It's not for a person's entire career, and it helps expand coverage.  Now I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but could we drop the knee jerk reactions. and maybe just discuss an issue.

I am discussing the issue.  People volunteer to fight for the country and guys in ties profess their love for the troops....unless the troops want paid, or benefits or anything they were promised for the service.

Pisses me off.

Even if it was .001%.

Edit: And when the defense budget is the majority of what we spend in this country anyway I see zero need for a soldier to have to pay anything.

Maybe that's just me.

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 12:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: I am discussing the issue.  People volunteer to fight for the country and guys in ties profess their love for the troops....unless the troops want paid, or benefits or anything they were promised for the service.

Pisses me off.

Even if it was .001%.

Edit:  And when the defense budget is the majority of what we spend in this country anyway I see zero need for a soldier to have to pay anything.

Maybe that's just me.

Do military personnel pay taxes? As it was already pointed out there is nothing taken away. They are changing what they are signing up for, which is in fact different. If they don't like the deal being offered they do not need to take it by enlisting. The issue is if they don't find a way to offset the costs it may simply disappear. Letting great be the enemy of good is a way for things to get really bad.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2017, 12:46 PM)Au165 Wrote: Do military personnel pay taxes? As it was already pointed out there is nothing taken away. They are changing what they are signing up for, which is in fact different. If they don't like the deal being offered they do not need to take it by enlisting. The issue is if they don't find a way to offset the costs it may simply disappear. Letting great be the enemy of good is a way for things to get really bad.

Horsehockey.

Largest military budget in the world can find some change in the cushions to pay for the soldiers education.

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 12:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: Horsehockey.

Largest military budget in the world can find some change in the cushions to pay for the soldiers education.

I am simply telling you it can happen, you don't have to agree with it. Each side has areas they'd like to reduce costs. When it comes down to it, it is completely realistic to believe that the Bill becomes so restrictive if they can't offset costs that it is basically gone via ultra exclusion. To believe it is somehow untouchable is to be ignorant of the current political client. Also 100 Billion over 10 years isn't "change in the cushions", its a real expense that must be approached with reason.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2017, 01:03 PM)Au165 Wrote: I am simply telling you it can happen, you don't have to agree with it. Each side has areas they'd like to reduce costs. When it comes down to it, it is completely realistic to believe that the Bill becomes so restrictive if they can't offset costs that it is basically gone via ultra exclusion. To believe it is somehow untouchable is to be ignorant of the current political client. Also 100 Billion over 10 years isn't "change in the cushions", its a real expense that must be approached with reason.

As I said...they "love the troops" until they have to pay them or take care of them when they come home.

100 billion over ten years?  10 billion a year?  The current budget request from the POTUS is a 10% increase over last year.  $54 billion.  To $639 Billion for 2018.

I'd bet, just a personal hunch, that somewhere in that almost two thirds of a  trillion dollar budget then can find the money to pay for the education of the troops they love.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I disagree with the proposal. Before I read down to the tax talk I already thought this amounted to a tax, except they're calling it a "buy in." They claim it will prevent future cuts to the program, it won't. As evidenced by the decades long erosion of veterans benefits. They claim it will expand services, it won't. It will pay approximately $3 billion towards a $100 billion bar tab. If the bartender gives you a $97 billion dollar tab instead of a $100 billion dollar tab, you can't buy more. You're just in debt less. Creating two concurrent GI Bills sends the message that some service members service was more valuable than others. Trump's budget calls for a defense spending increase of $54 billion for one year. If the politicians truly want to do something about the cost of the program they can pay for the next decade by not approving the proposed defense spending increase for two years and instead create an endowment for the program or they can raise 3% over the next decade by basically taxing the soldiers to use a benefit they earned with their service. This is bullshit political theater.

[BmorePat87]

I don't think they should, but I don't see an issue with it. Just a matter of policy disagreement and not a snub towards the military.

I pay into my pension as a government employed teacher. It's a similar concept and it's a pretty cheap investment into an awesome set of benefits. If you're making it only affect future enlistees, they're not blindsided.

Then again, they deserve it. We shouldn't bicker over providing services for the military members when we're ok with paying hundreds of billions for other military related expenses.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-10-2017, 11:53 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have absolutely no problem if this is passed and new Soldiers come in knowing they must contribute to their education fund.

Way back when I can in it was called VEAP. Similar deal: They took out $100 of your paycheck for the 1st 1 (or 2?) years and in return you received education benefits upon separation. A few years later we had the choice of cashing out or converting to the Montgomery GI Bill. Being a responsible kid. I took the cash out and put it toward a car.

(05-05-2017, 05:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure this is serious, but:

What is the difference in money to each taxpayer if he golfs in VA or FL?

What has the taxpayer lost if his wife stays in NY while his daughter stays in DC?

Once my taxes are being raised to pay for Trump's ways as to where he and his family stay, vacation wake me up.

I gotta say I find your stances odd. You don't care if an alleged billionaire waste tax payers dollars on unnecessary trips because your taxes haven't went up, but have no problem charging thousandaires a couple grand to use a benefit of military service.

What's the difference to each tax payer if the GI Bill cost $100 billion instead of $97 billion over the next decade?

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2017, 02:47 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I gotta say I find your stances odd. You don't care if an alleged billionaire waste tax payers dollars on unnecessary trips because your taxes haven't went up, but have no problem charging thousandaires a couple grand to use a benefit of military service.

What's the difference to each tax payer if the GI Bill cost $100 billion instead of $97 billion over the next decade?

They are not odd if you understand I do not believe in Socialism, but more so a stratified Capitalism. But keep trying.

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 02:47 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What's the difference to each tax payer if the GI Bill cost $100 billion instead of $97 billion over the next decade?

You can use that same logic across most the budget items, but the issue is there are thousands and thousands of items and a small piece left everywhere ends up being a whole lot down the line. As I said earlier everyone wants cuts made in different places if you can offer up a "piece", even a small one, it can be a show of good faith.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-10-2017, 02:58 PM)Au165 Wrote: You can use that same logic across most the budget items, but the issue is there are thousands and thousands of items and a small piece left everywhere ends up being a whole lot down the line. As I said earlier everyone wants cuts made in different places if you can offer up a "piece", even a small one, it can be a show of good faith.

Understood. And for the most part agree. But, that $3 billion over ten years represents 0.56% of the proposed defense spending increase for 2018 alone. It is a crumb. And the wrong crumb. The GI Bill is an enlistment incentive to attract better quality recruits. Just like any other Fortune 500 company offering employment benefits vying for the most quailed potential employees. The military is only as good as the people serving in the military.

Meanwhile, the DOD is paying six figure salaries to civilian contractors. A few years ago, electricians starting pay to work in Iraq was $250K with an annual bonus of $50K for each additional year topping out at $500K annually.

There is plenty of fat to trim elsewhere in the defense budget. I find this especially irritating considering the amount of Republican politicians who signed Grover Norquist pledge not to raise taxes which are needed to pay the deficit and simultaneously pull this crap which basically amounts to a tax on the GI Bill on service members who are, probably at best, in the lower middle class trying to improve themselves.

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 03:35 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Understood. And for the most part agree. But, that $3 billion over ten years represents 0.56% of the proposed defense spending increase for 2018 alone. It is a crumb. And the wrong crumb. The GI Bill is an enlistment incentive to attract better quality recruits. Just like any other Fortune 500 company offering employment benefits vying for the most quailed potential employees. The military is only as good as the people serving in the military.

Meanwhile, the DOD is paying six figure salaries to civilian contractors. A few years ago, electricians starting pay to work in Iraq was $250K with an annual bonus of $50K for each additional year topping out at $500K annually.

There is plenty of fat to trim elsewhere in the defense budget. I find this especially irritating considering the amount of Republican politicians who signed Grover Norquist pledge not to raise taxes which are needed to pay the deficit and simultaneously pull this crap which basically amounts to a tax on the GI Bill on service members who are, probably at best, in the lower middle class trying to improve themselves.

Like any investment, whats the ROI on it? If we make them pay 100$ a month what kind of impact will it have. I think more research on the matter should exist. We know that before this system, when they had to pay something, we seemed to be staffed well enough before entering wars post 9/11. I think there is a way to approach this analytically that can give us an answer note based on emotions on the subject.