The Economic Stimulus Plan That No One's Talking About: A New GI Bill
In his 2008 State of the Union address, President Bush is expected to focus heavily on the state of the sluggish economy and how to stimulate it, now and beyond. But as Washington wrangles over how best to do this, our leaders have largely overlooked a proven strategy for growth that promises more than immediate relief: a new GI Bill.
When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the original GI Bill in 1944, he ensured that eight million World War II veterans would be able to afford an education. The GI Bill gave many of our nation's leaders their start, including Presidents Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, and former Senators Bob Dole, George McGovern, and Pat Moynihan, to name just a few. Additionally, the GI Bill educated 14 Nobel Prize winners and two dozen Pulitzer Prize winners, including authors Joseph Heller, Norman Mailer, and Frank McCourt.
Aside from furthering the education of many veterans, the GI Bill reinvented America after a half-decade of war, and helped to prevent a looming economic crisis. The government's investment in the GI Bill resulted in higher national productivity, consumer spending, and tax revenue. More impressively, every dollar spent on educational benefits for the Greatest Generation added seven dollars to the national economy.
Sadly, the current educational benefits available to veterans are far inferior to what their predecessors received. Today's GI Bill covers less than 70% of the average cost of tuition at a 4-year public college and less than two years at a typical private college. National Guardsmen and Reservists, including those who have served multiple combat tours, typically receive only a fraction of these benefits. Yet, the annual price tag for fully-funding college for today's veterans is less than the amount of money we spend every two weeks in the War on Terror.
Educating our country's veterans was the right thing to do after World War II, and it is the right thing to do now. For considerably less than 3 percent of the proposed economic stimulus package, we can send the newest generation of veterans to college every year. Not only would an updated GI Bill be a prudent investment with huge returns, it would demonstrate to our veterans that they are indeed returning to a grateful nation. As President Roosevelt reflected, "[The GI Bill] gives emphatic notice to the men and women in our armed forces that the American people do not intend to let them down."
This year, President Bush should call on Congress to pass a modern GI Bill. A new GI Bill would reenergize the U.S. economy and go a long way toward helping our newest generation of heroes build a better life. Instead, President Bush is only expected to briefly reference it with a proposal allowing service members to transfer unused education benefits to their spouses or children.
If this is the full extent of the President's plan for the GI Bill, it's a slap in the face to the nearly 1.6 million veterans who have come home from these wars. It's like you asked for a tank, and the president just offered to repaint your bicycle.
For more information on the need for a modern GI Bill, see IAVA's new Issue Report: A New GI Bill: Rewarding Our Troops, Rebuilding Our Military at www.iava.org/education. This report is the first in a series of in-depth issue reports IAVA will release later this week.
Follow Paul Rieckhoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PaulRieckhoff
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Another benefit of increasing recruitment, besides not having to rely on the National Guard, would be that we could get rid of Blackwater
Republicans support the War,but not the troops.There is a huge difference.
p.s. my wife and I (both active duty military) we’d prefer our next president (i.e. Ron Paul) immediately end the illegal occupation of Iraq.
My wife and I have been in the military for 7 and 5 years respectively. In that time we have heard a constant call for the right or ability to transfer our GI bill benefits. If I never get to use my GI bill my son should be able to use it in my place. Vote for Ron Paul. Fix the economy first, and then worry about giving me and my wife a free education. In the mean time Bush is right, let us transfer our GI bill benefits.
HERE's how it should be, Paul:
No one, by virtue of their economic circumstances should have to face the choice of putting your life on the line or going without a secondary education. Education should be available to all who would have it! That's the system you should be fighting for (like it is in the rest of the civilized world)! And as for the "defense" of this country (the invasion of Iraq was NOT a defensive move, but and imperialist one)... let there be a draft. I whole-heartedly support a draft which will have the effect of forceing rich kids to go to the wars that their relatives at the reigns of power start.
When it comes to veterans, corporate Washington politicians obviously have other priorities. They see their job as starting and supporting wars, not cleaning up after them or honoring promises made.
Unfortunately, many shat-upon veterans continue to vote for the same corrupt politicians and are partially to blame for the shabby treatment of all vets.
Look, the very problem that exists in America today is that you can't get a decent secondary education in this country unless you're willing to put your life on the line for ExxonMobil and Chevron. I for one am not a "grateful" American, because I am not grateful to troops that invaded a country without provocation --all for the purpose of stealing oil from a poor third world country. To me that's immoral. And the simple fact is that the ONLY reason we are in Iraq is OIL... the USA is so profoundly self-deluded about this war. What the writer proposes is EXACTLY the WRONG way to go. Many of the U.S. soldiers are mired in Iraq exactly BECAUSE they wanted to get a college education, and being poor or middle class they couldn't afford one --without first putting their lives on the line for ExxonMobil and Chevron. Many of the soldiers there were not exactly enthused about killing innocent men, women and children; laying waste to a nation of 25 million; dropping skin-melting white phosphorous on the elderly and infirm in Fallujah; and generally causing mayhem and a Holocaust amongst its citizens --all for the purpose of stealing Iraq's oil wealth! Yet there they are just because they wanted to improve themselves and get a college education. The very problem is that the military has insinuated itself in all aspects of life in the U.S. Try to get a grant to do breast cancer research, and lo and behold, you'll be getting it from the U.S. Army, and be beholden to the U.S. Army!
Despite all the lip service during an election cycle the vast majority of our elected and appointed officials care nothing about veterans, especially Iraq veterans... as Kissinger stated years ago, the ruling elite view US troops as nothing more than cannon fodder.
If our elected officials truly felt the Iraq occupation was such a noble cause, their sons and daughters and family members would be serving in active duty - rather than on boards and/or working for lobbyists or war profiteer corps.
The US govt will simply hand over hundreds of billions of US taxdollars to the Halliburtons, Bechtel, Blackwater (etc.), but when it comes to giving a few more bucks to US troops a/o veterans our elected officials will fight it at every turn.
Another thing we can do is make sure the GIs get the benefits that they are already due, or at least should be due.
I read with loathing about one National Gaurd outfit that was rotated back to the states only one day short of the time that they would have needed to make them eligible for GI benefits. It is pretty hard to believe that what happened to those troops was anything but a cold, calculated ploy by those who command them to save money by not giving them what they were morally entitled to.
Should we only use the 100s of billions of dollars in deficit spending to benefit the corporations that are making the weapons for Bush's war? Oh, right, the corporations have K street lobbyists.
As usual great work Paul. The Republicans wear our brave troops blood like a badge of courage wrapped in the flag. Republicans appropriated all the war funds Bush asked for even though much of those funds went to fund the Halibutons and the shadow armies. Then when it comes to funding veterans all of a sudden they become financially conservative.
Rieckhoff, there is a small pottery figure on my desk of a cow. That little figure has the family brand on one side (Texans). It was the brand symbol for the 1000 house development my father built predicated on VHA financing in 1962. He built a house every day and a half.
Not the monster flip investment specials of today’s market, but 1200 square foot domiciles for regular folks. That development exists today, with clean streets and proud owners of their first homes, passing on for two generations now.
Taking advantage of your point to make a point, domestic government spending and the taxes that support it, are not a drain on the economy. What government can do, that private enterprise cannot do, is spend money where it should be spent for the good of the nation, and for the "general welfare", a stated purpose of government as per the Constitution. And whether any free market loonies believe it or not, government spending is identical to consumer spending in terms of benefiting the economy. It comes back to you in your next paycheck. What is hoarded in a Cayman bank account does not.
Sadly though, the drumbeat of "support for the troops" extends only to weapons contractors, in the Bush climate. Once you are home from serving your country as a soldier, that home is now more easily an overpass bridge than is conscionable.
I believe all veterans should have the same health coverage that members of Congress have, get VA mortgages and the first four years of college free, with graduate & PhD studies partially subsidized.
I believe we owe them that much at least.
Paul, You're almost right. John Ewards is talking about it here: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/veterans/
But like most every other issue on which Edwards has led, it gets no attention unless or until the other candidates co-opt the idea.
Edwards, leading yet again
Mitt Romney called for an updated and modern GI bill as part of his stimulus package.
McCain and Romney both want our troops to come home heroic, respected, and triumphant. But Romney ALSO wants them to come home to a job and a home and a career. McCain doesn't worry about such unimportant details, because he doesn't really 'do' the whole economics thing.
"Today's GI Bill covers less than 70% of the average cost of tuition at a 4-year public college and less than two years at a typical private college."
That's pretty damn good! The rest of us get 0%, and many of us have served our country well working our asses off in private and public service jobs to pay for our own education. As usual, you are looking for sympathy and hand outs. But I have to ask, why should my tax dollars go to pay for benefits for those who carried out an unjust war?
When I look at the cost of this war in human lives and public treasure, and hear guys like you wanting more for yourselves, not your country, I think about how both my grandfathers VOLUNTEERED for WWII and came back from that conflict and asked for NOTHING. And then try wrap my head around your idea that giving more to vets is the right thing do, as well as a "solution" to our economic woes, and I think about how you finished out your contract and bailed on our troops when they needed you the most. Give me a fcking break!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
