GI Bill benefits legislation

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-10-2017, 03:39 PM)Au165 Wrote: 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.

I think the article already showed the impact. It would offset 3% of the cost over the next decade.

Is a $54 billion dollar defense spending increase for 2018 necessary given the level of our global military involvement compared to 2008?

I'm not going to ask privates to pay 5% of the monthly base pay while the AHCA reportedly gives $274 billion in tax cuts to the richest 2% over the next decade.

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 04:01 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I think the article already showed the impact. It would offset 3% of the cost over the next decade.

Is a $54 billion dollar defense spending increase for 2018 necessary given the level of our global military involvement compared to 2008?

I'm not going to ask privates to pay 5% of the monthly base pay while the AHCA reportedly gives $274 billion in tax cuts to the richest 2% over the next decade.

No I mean in relation to your view in regards to it being a recruitment tool. You said it is like an employee benefit used to recruit with. Does that benefit and the change to it have any impact in the recruitment process. Pre 9/11 they had to pay something, post they didn't. Did that change result in more or less recruits, did quality change, did the amount of people using the benefit change? These are things that would be interesting to see laid out.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-10-2017, 04:02 PM)Au165 Wrote: No I mean in relation to your view in regards to it being a recruitment tool. You said it is like an employee benefit used to recruit with. Does that benefit and the change to it have any impact in the recruitment process.

During the height of our involvement in Iraq the Army couldn't fill the recruitment goals to maintain unit manning levels. To offset this recruitment shortfall the Army lowered certain enlistment standards to increase enlistment numbers. They lowered standards on education, criminal backgrounds, and pre-existing medical conditions include mental health disorders.

I would encourage you to do some reasearch on the effect that had not only to the military, but to the civilian population. Imagine what Iraq or Afghanistan would do to a pre-existing mental health condition. You can start with the murder sprees around Ft. Carson.

[Dill]

(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.

Au, we have a volunteer military now, right? One purpose of the GI Bill now is provide incentive to enlistment. It is hard to imagine the GI Bill simply disappearing.

If the military cannot compete with civilian opportunities, isn't it more likely the military would disappear? Or some equally expensive substitute would have to be found. Or at least conscription would have to reappear.

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 04:19 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: During the height of our involvement in Iraq the Army couldn't fill the recruitment goals to maintain unit manning levels. To offset this recruitment shortfall the Army lowered certain enlistment standards to increase enlistment numbers. They lowered standards on education, criminal backgrounds, and pre-existing medical conditions include mental health disorders.

I would encourage you to do some reasearch on the effect that had not only to the military, but to the civilian population. Imagine what Iraq or Afghanistan would do to a pre-existing mental health condition. You can start with the murder sprees around Ft. Carson.

Okay, and what effect did 100$ a month paid in for college have on that?  Your tackling a much larger issue here, but not necessarily one that is directly tied to this one. I am specifically trying to look at the impact of pre 9/11 having to pay in for school, and post 9/11 not having to.  I am curious if the buy in resulted in more people utilizing it, many believe when you have skin in the game it can act as a catalyst to using the service. Is forcing people to pay in as a way to motivate them to go a school better than having an underutilized option, I don't know but it would be interesting to see utilization numbers.

Your comments above are interesting, but not really relevant to this specific question.

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 04:30 PM)Dill Wrote: Au, we have a volunteer military now, right? One purpose of the GI Bill now is provide incentive to enlistment. It is hard to imagine the GI Bill simply disappearing.

If the military cannot compete with civilian opportunities, isn't it more likely the military would disappear? Or some equally expensive substitute would have to be found. Or at least conscription would have to reappear.

Maybe, maybe not. To some the military itself is the career. I'd be interested to know how many actually utilize (meaning graduate with a degree) the GI bill, before going too deep down the rabbit hole. I think certifications in trades provided as part of military training would be an interesting substitute to post military schooling. Would an employer be more willing to higher a potential employee for a welding job, lets say that is U.S. Army certified, versus local trade school? I think the idea of coming out of the military and not needing to go back to school would be a selling point for many people who currently use the GI Bill.

I don't know the answer but I'd think there are plenty of way we could provide similar opportunities post GI bill if we needed to. We could also offer better incentives to employees for hiring veterans and disregarding the often cumbersome "degree checkbox" that many companies put in today even when the degree is not really required to do the job. TO be perfectly honest, I think we are an over degreed and under qualified work force as is because of the "degree checkbox" culture we have grown in to.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-10-2017, 04:31 PM)Au165 Wrote: Okay, and what effect did 100$ a month paid in for college have on that?  Your tackling a much larger issue here, but not necessarily one that is directly tied to this one. I am specifically trying to look at the impact of pre 9/11 having to pay in for school, and post 9/11 not having to.  I am curious if the buy in resulted in more people utilizing it, many believe when you have skin in the game it can act as a catalyst to using the service. Is forcing people to pay in as a way to motivate them to go a better than having an underutilized option, I don't know but it would be interesting to see utilization numbers.

Your comments above are interesting, but not really relevant to this specific question.

It's a part of a much larger issue. The Army competes for 18-22 year olds who may want to go to college or a trade school instead. Most of the recruits are from lower socioeconomic levels (particularly the Southeastern US) looking for opportunity. Why risk getting killed or suffer multi-limb and genital amputations for decreasing benefits? Charging $2400 to use your GI Bill certainly isn't going to attract a single recruit. ("I would have joined, but you lost me when you said I didn't have to pay for the GI Bill.")

But, if service members don't take advantage of the GI Bill because they didn't buy in that means that reduces the overall cost. If more service members use their GI Bill that will increase the overall costs. Because the benefits paid out exceed what the service member pays in. That's the nature of the program.

On the surface, a buy in seems like it will defray costs. But, if the buy increases the likelihood the service member utilizes the GI Bill the overall cost will be increased relative to if the service member didn't buy in and didn't use the GI Bill.

Example:

Service member A doesn't buy in. GI Bill pays out $0 dollars.

Service member B buys in for $2400. GI Bill pays out a monthly stipend for 4 years tens of thousands in excess of the original $2400 paid in. According to the online calculator I just used the post 911 GI Bill would pay 100% in state tuition for Ohio State (for example), $1227/month housing, $1000 for books annually. So the program would be -$1600 in the red for just 4 years worth of books.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Also, if everyone is forced to buy in, a GI Bill buy in is like the Obamacare mandate which Republicans hate.

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 05:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It's a part of a much larger issue. The Army competes for 18-22 year olds who may want to go to college or a trade school instead. Most of the recruits are from lower socioeconomic levels (particularly the Southeastern US) looking for opportunity. Why risk getting killed or suffer multi-limb and genital amputations for decreasing benefits?  Charging $2400 to use your GI Bill certainly isn't going to attract a single recruit. ("I would have joined, but you lost me when you said I didn't have to pay for the GI Bill.")

But, if service members don't take advantage of the GI Bill because they didn't buy in that means that reduces the overall cost. If more service members use their GI Bill that will increase the overall costs. Because the benefits paid out exceed what the service member pays in. That's the nature of the program.

On the surface, a buy in seems like it will defray costs. But, if the buy increases the likelihood the service member utilizes the GI Bill the overall cost will be increased relative to if the service member didn't buy in and didn't use the GI Bill.

Example:

Service member A doesn't buy in. GI Bill pays out $0 dollars.

Service member B buys in for $2400. GI Bill pays out a monthly stipend for 4 years tens of thousands in excess of the original $2400 paid in. According to the online calculator I just used the post 911 GI Bill would pay 100% in state tuition for Ohio State (for example), $1227/month housing, $1000 for books annually. So the program would be -$1600 in the red for just 4 years worth of books.

That is very true. This is why I'd like to see various modeling done as well as some surveying and historical data on utilization. I think it is more complex than simply make them pay or not. I am sure there are various milestones that make it better or worse as a whole for both country and soldier.

I still believe a certification of the training they receive, even if it requires we over train them, would be an interesting approach instead of the GI Bill along with more incentives to hiring those with the Mmlitary certification.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-10-2017, 04:35 PM)Au165 Wrote: Maybe, maybe not. To some the military itself is the career. I'd be interested to know how many actually utilize (meaning graduate with a degree) the GI bill, before going too deep down the rabbit hole. I think certifications in trades provided as part of military training would be an interesting substitute to post military schooling. Would an employer be more willing to higher a potential employee for a welding job, lets say that is U.S. Army certified, versus local trade school? I think the idea of coming out of the military and not needing to go back to school would be a selling point for many people who currently use the GI Bill.

I don't know the answer but I'd think there are plenty of way we could provide similar opportunities post GI bill if we needed to. We could also offer better incentives to employees for hiring veterans and disregarding the often cumbersome "degree checkbox" that many companies put in today even when the degree is not really required to do the job. TO be perfectly honest, I think we are an over degreed and under qualified work force as is because of the "degree checkbox" culture we have grown in to.

The GI Bill can be used for trades and certain certifications, not just college. If military MOSs producing schools include civilian certifications we are just shifting the cost from the GI Bill to the TRADOC budget in the case of the Army in a trade the soldier may not want to pursue after leaving the military.

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 05:26 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The GI Bill can be used for trades and certain certifications, not just college. If military MOSs producing schools include civilian certifications we are just shifting the cost from the GI Bill to the TRADOC budget in the case of the Army in a trade the soldier may not want to pursue after leaving the military.

I understand that, my point is why not keep the money in house and do the training as part of their military training. You'd assume the benefit of extra training would make them better at their jobs. Then as for the soldiers when they leave they are certified but don't need to go back to school which could be a nice incentive in recruiting. As for being trained in a skill they don't want to pursue, that often happens to people who graduate with degrees already.

It may not be a great idea, but just spit balling other ideas. Everything is always worth a second look to see if it can be done better.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Let me put it this way, if a guy is willing to risk getting both legs and his dick blown off by an IED in Afghanistan, he's done enough to earn the god damn GI Bill.

Period.

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 05:40 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Let me put it this way, if a guy is willing to risk getting both legs and his dick blown off by an IED in Afghanistan, he's done enough to earn the god damn GI Bill.

Period.

We can literally do that about everything relating to military compensation, but that isn't how the world works. In a perfect world they would make more, have better benefits, and would be treated better. Hell we could make the same arguments for Cops and Firefighters. The issue comes when you look at things in a more cold business approach. They are employees of the U.S. government not conscripts. They chose to enroll and accept all dangers that came with the job at the agreed upon rate and benefits.

Supply and demand of unskilled labor is something that has to be considered looking ahead. As more and more unskilled labor jobs become obsolete the military actually starts becoming a more attractive position through, if nothing else, availability. Now we can discuss standards and such but that is part of the truth.I know it sounds cold, but in reality I think the whole budget on the military side needs to be brought way down. This is simply one piece to a much larger budget number but one that isn't beyond reproach.

One could argue if we reduced the number of god damn bombs we felt the need to carry we could probably afford to pay them a bit more. I have been a part of the military purchasing process and the waste in that process along could probably be a significant raise.

[NATI BENGALS]

If this makes enough room in the budget for one round of military strikes that provide after dinner entertainment for Trump and friends at his country club... Well then these free loaders finally did something worthwhile.

[Dill]

(05-10-2017, 04:35 PM)Au165 Wrote: Maybe, maybe not. To some the military itself is the career. I'd be interested to know how many actually utilize (meaning graduate with a degree) the GI bill, before going too deep down the rabbit hole. I think certifications in trades provided as part of military training would be an interesting substitute to post military schooling. Would an employer be more willing to higher a potential employee for a welding job, lets say that is U.S. Army certified, versus local trade school? I think the idea of coming out of the military and not needing to go back to school would be a selling point for many people who currently use the GI Bill.

I don't know the answer but I'd think there are plenty of way we could provide similar opportunities post GI bill if we needed to. We could also offer better incentives to employees for hiring veterans and disregarding the often cumbersome "degree checkbox" that many companies put in today even when the degree is not really required to do the job. TO be perfectly honest, I think we are an over degreed and under qualified work force as is because of the "degree checkbox" culture we have grown in to.

There is already a considerable interface between the private sector and separating military. Employers know that welders and truck drivers and mechanics coming out of the military are WAY ahead of students coming out of vocational schools. They also know that many Navy and Air Force veterans have computer, avionics and electronics skills--years of on the job experience. Many also have leadership skills and civilians of comparative age have not had the opportunity to develop. Recruiters make this clear to potential recruits. Employers advertise on military bases even on FOBs in A-stan. So far as this incentive goes, it is certainly there.

Further, the military is not like it was 30 years ago, when it was not unusual to see soldiers in their 30s who were still Spec 4s and officers without college degrees. Now military personnel have to earn promotion points and continue up the ladder or they will not make their 20 years. In 2011, when we were out of Iraq and drawing down in A-stan, the Army was using every pretext to draw down numbers. Good soldiers with the wrong MOS could not re-enlist. The continuous "quality control" increases the quality of what will eventually be veteran labor, even for those only in for 3-6 years.

But this won't be enough incentive if we stumble into another war, as is very likely given the current commander in chief. As Oncemore, noted, even with the GI Bill and Tuition Assistance, the military had to lower standards to acquire the necessary bodies for the Iraq war (many of the same guys could not re-enlist when the war drew down).

I agree with you that our workforce may be under qualified. However, I think college education should not be all about job training (they should also general train and furnish people's minds to make the more knowledgeable people and better citizens). So theoretically it is not possible for anyone with a real college degree to be "over degreed." Here we arrive at a special problem involving the military, the Gi Bill and TA.  For profit colleges market degrees to separating military like car dealerships around military bases market cars to 18-year-old recruits with signing bonuses. They soak up their benefits and encourage them to take out loans. 60% who go that route never graduate, and many are stuck with loans.  Those who do get degrees find them almost useless, "job training" certificates for jobs that really require more.

I don't have the figures at the moment, but if I remember correctly, vets who go to real colleges (public and private) and stay in a year have about the same graduation rates as other students.  But the proportion of vets who get into real colleges is smaller than it should be--especially when we are talking about the high end brands like Ivy League schools. There are transition problems that are not well understood and addressed by colleges, though some are trying.

A final point to drop in here is that given the sophistication of modern weapons systems, especially in the AF and Navy, the military needs pretty high quality mental labor now, lots of it, the possessors of which are also in great demand in the private sector.  So the GI Bill still figures as an important recruiting tool--if you want sufficient quantities of that mental labor.

[Dill]

(05-10-2017, 05:55 PM)Au165 Wrote: We can literally do that about everything relating to military compensation, but that isn't how the world works. In a perfect world they would make more, have better benefits, and would be treated better. Hell we could make the same arguments for Cops and Firefighters. The issue comes when you look at things in a more cold business approach. They are employees of the U.S. government not conscripts. They chose to enroll and accept all dangers that came with the job at the agreed upon rate and benefits.

One could argue if we reduced the number of god damn bombs we felt the need to carry we could probably afford to pay them a bit more. I have been a part of the military purchasing process and the waste in that process along could probably be a significant raise.

1. Respectfully disagree on this one. Some military jobs, many nowdays in fact, are safe and routine--"corporate." But deployment to a war zone is qualitatively different from any civilian job, especially for anyone who spends much time "outside the wire."  

18-year-olds who "choose" to accept the dangers that come with the job have no clue. And if they did that would be a recruitment problem.   As they become older, and they do get a clue, their views of the agreed upon rate and benefits often change. If they change because the soldier has lost a leg, I don't want to tell him he "signed up for it."

2. You are on to something with waste in the purchasing process. And I might add that I am very skeptical of all the "savings" we supposedly accrue through privatization. All that should be looked at before tinkering with the post 9/11 bills. Congress should be showing the resolve to do that first.

[BoomerFan]

Imagine the response if the Democrats did this, "See, the Dems hate the military!"

Ah who am I kidding? The GOP will pass this and then the rank and file people in the service will believe it was the Democrats anyways.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-10-2017, 05:55 PM)Au165 Wrote: We can literally do that about everything relating to military compensation, but that isn't how the world works. In a perfect world they would make more, have better benefits, and would be treated better. Hell we could make the same arguments for Cops and Firefighters. The issue comes when you look at things in a more cold business approach. They are employees of the U.S. government not conscripts. They chose to enroll and accept all dangers that came with the job at the agreed upon rate and benefits.

Supply and demand of unskilled labor is something that has to be considered looking ahead. As more and more unskilled labor jobs become obsolete the military actually starts becoming a more attractive position through, if nothing else, availability. Now we can discuss standards and such but that is part of the truth.I know it sounds cold, but in reality I think the whole budget on the military side needs to be brought way down. This is simply one piece to a much larger budget number but one that isn't beyond reproach.

One could argue if we reduced the number of god damn bombs we felt the need to carry we could probably afford to pay them a bit more. I have been a part of the military purchasing process and the waste in that process along could probably be a significant raise.

I agree the military budget needs to come down. That's why I disagree with a proposed $54 billion increase. I'm well aware of waste, fraud, and abuse within the military which is why I know there are other ways to trim the fat from the military budget. Hell, the $3 billion collected from service members over the next decade under this proposal equals only 6% of the proposed 1 year increase in defense spending.