http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills info@washingtonwatch.com http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1 http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#38579 In Response to Andrew Webb and Tim From WA State. To get the record straight, Senator Webb did stipulate that they must contribute the initial $1,200 to be eligible for the GI Bill. I am also from WA State Tim and you should be happy to know that Sen. Patty Murray has co-sponsored this bill.... 38579@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:45:07 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#38559 What a blessing to be able to pass on my GI Bill to my dependents. Just as my daughter is beginning her first year of college and my fear of unending debt was growing. My kids were a part of the active duty military family for 20 years and continue still with my husband on active duty. This will help educate our future leaders and keep them out of debt. I hope clear guidance is coming soon.... 38559@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:27:40 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#38548 I have served my time in the Navy and am about to receive my discharge. Do you have any idea what this did to alleviate my fears of post military life? I joined to fight, serve, and better support my son as a single father. Thank you America. This bill isn't solely, nay primarily for us vets. It is for the country as a whole, the economy, and the families that will be able to supported due to a good college education that most of us sacrificed to be in the service.... 38548@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:08:39 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#38315 As a veteran in school in CA with some of the most expensive schools. This would help a lot. now that i have said that why is everyone posting like they have never heard of a student loan or those of you that are still serving save some of your money since you should be aware that you will need it later if you plan to go to school.... 38315@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:28:21 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#37828 What happens to those who payed for the GI Bill and the kicker. Is the kicker useless now that the new gi bill is coming out? If this new GI bill comes out do those who payed for the kicked get that money added onto the new gi bill? I cant find my anwsers :/.... 37828@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:31:24 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#36692 Id like to put forth that while I am happy to do what I do as a Colorado National Guardsman, the sole reason that I had enlisted in the first place was to go to college. Many others came in for the same reason. After three years in service and a deployment to Iraq, I am jumping on the opportunity to go to school before another probable deployment. I would like to have my degree long before i turn 30. Please pass this bill. You can tell from the comments above this is a one sided argument. The only people against it just happen to be in charge.... 36692@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:34:19 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#36581 TA is not 100% tution, and an A.A.S. is nothing. I could get that for about $1500. I just hope you aren't talking about that joke CCAF. TA is 100% tutition up to a certain amount per credit, and limited to $4500 per fiscal year. I use that in TWO terms, and I could use it in ONE term if I had four classes. I would also like to see you start from scratch and get a B.S. onsite at a military base. Good luck getting it within 8 years, especially if you have a family. Imo there is no getting a B.S. start to finish while serving active duty unless you go online, or you are single and dedicated, if so, more power to you. TA is a joke, and so is the G.I. bill we currently have.... 36581@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:48:42 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#36580 Got Cut off: This is utter bs if you ask me. Who would rather have a world full of soldiers instead of a world full of thoroughly educated men and women to make the world a better place? Bush's republican party; that is who. This bill will pull in more people than ever before. I don't know what it will do to "lifers", but in the end this should be passed and enaacted. More people contributing to society by learning the trades of the future; that is what this G.I. Bill will do. Bush promises to veto this bill now that it was passed in Senate with 75 positive votes to 22 negative. Lets hope and pray that they override his ridiculous veto. Bush does not care for us troops. I am currently an the Air Force and separating in about a month (July 08). I'll be Guard then, and I hope this bill is enacted so I can afford college.... 36580@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:42:39 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#36579 The old G.I. Bill is a joke. With TA for six years and the G.I. Bill I still would not be put through college. Don't get me wrong, it would help, but the military lures us in with promises of a paid ride through college. We are young and inexperienced and a lot of us do not know any better. I did not even get my G.I. Bill because I could not transfer it to my wife, and I never planned on attending college. Five years later and $27000 in debt to student loans, that was a mistake. I'm not too ashamed that I did not get the G.I. Bill, because it is a joke. It does irk me a little that the military promises us a free ride through college only for us to be awoken years after being in the military. The higher ups main concern with this G.I. Bill is not money. All they care about are the numbers. They are afraid it is going to hurt the number of "lifers".... 36579@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:41:38 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#36114 You do know that the bill will give money to people served at least 90 days, but less than 6 months, on active duty in the Armed Forces (excluding service on active duty in entry level and skill training); and continues on active duty for an aggregate of less than 6 months; or before completion of service on active duty of an aggregate of 6 months, is discharged or released from active duty as described in subsection (c). And it doesn't not mention anything about vets exculsively. it will allow natl gard to earn as much money as those on active duty regardless of deployment or not. I think all McCain is worried about is people leaving the military; but hey, that is exactly what I am going to do if I can get a lot more money for school.... 36114@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sun, 01 Jun 2008 11:44:31 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#35966 And for those of you who believe in staying in the service to get an education, remember, there are a lot of enlisted that serve whom have very little opportunity to take classes while serving in active duty (I'm sure many Marines will sympathize). This just offers opportunities for those who wanted to get out and go to school full time but could not the ability to finally do so. This will also help with the problems of poverty and homelessness that often strike veterans (over 1/4th of the US homeless population are veterans). Now if they just expand the Veterans Upward Bound federal TRIO funding to help vets get up to par scholastically then we'll really have something.... 35966@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 30 May 2008 06:29:20 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#35965 As for the nation as a whole, I think the bill is a fabulous idea. It may decrease military retention but increase recruitment, placing more people at the bottom of the rank pyramid and less at the top (The military is a bit top heavy right now), allowing for better promotions in the service. And it will give vets the opportunities to go back to school without having to worry about the burdens of survival for them and their families as they prepare themselves for a better future. And the universities win as well, with guaranteed tuition money from every interested veteran. And the veterans win out with college acceptances, since universities will be more inclined to take in students who are guaranteed to pay their tuition on time and are more likely to follow through until graduation.... 35965@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 30 May 2008 06:22:16 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#35964 After analyzing the bill I found that the BAH with dependents rate for where I live is $1027.00 per month. However, since tuition for me after the Cal State Pel Grant is only about $600 per semester, the cost of covering tuition isn't as much of a burden for me as it is with larger four year universities. If I count the $1000 book bonus on top of that I equate my total earnings to come out to $1210.33 dollars per month. Thus giving me about a $109 per month increase over all from the $1101 per month rate I get right now as a full time year around student. However, some of the other student veterans that attend school with me make more than that with the GI bill kicker which comes out to about $1251 per month. Therefore these people are losing about $40 dollars per month. So this just goes to show that people who live in areas of lower housing costs and attend schools with lower tuition rates might actually lose money.... 35964@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 30 May 2008 06:12:04 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#35904 As an airforce vet I could use what they plan on dishing. But thier retention pleas fall on deaf ears... Why would an active duty person concerned with paying for thier education actually leave the military? As active Duty goes, thats the best way. Active duty members get 100% tuition and books paid. Only after they get out do they have to worry about how many months of thier GI bill they got left and how much college they can cover in that time. I got my A.A.S in the service. Paid nothing for it. Could have gone further for a B.S, A Masters or even a doctrate and had the Military pay 100%. so saying it is a retention buster is 100% WRONG. Stay in and you pay nothing for your education, and you still get to work full time and have no medical bills. Get out and work full time to pay medical bills, and school! This bill needs to be pushed so we vets don't have to work as hard for eduacation as we did for our country.... 35904@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 29 May 2008 08:44:40 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#35777 Something tells me RTO opposes this bill largely because of the "(D)" next to the names of those who have most strongly championed it. RTO, the military needs career NCOs, but the fact is that college degrees bear little correlation with NCO leadership. I know far too many NCOs who have these worthless Excelsior or U. of Phoenix degrees, and those degrees contribute little or nothing to the professional qualifications of a soldier. Of course, one might argue that the low standards in our Army do little to keep up competence either, but I digress. Trapping soldiers into re-enlistment is worse, not better, for the national interest. Worrying about minimal retention issues is short-sighted at best.... 35777@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 27 May 2008 15:37:48 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#35765 Thank You Senator Webb... 35765@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 27 May 2008 13:34:27 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#35499 Wow...this column seems a bit one-sided. Points for RTO Trainer for respectfully disagreeing. While my self-serving side hopes this passes as I would get a free-ride, this bill is bad for the military. Several of my Soldiers last year who would have seperated reenlisted only for the School Option. These people were E-5s and senior E-4s who would be immediately eligible under this new plan and would have taken it. The Army would have lost bright junior leaders, the exact people we are currently short of. Recruitment is not as large of a problem as retaining good junior leaders in transitional stages. I favor educational support for Soldiers, and I would like to see some changes to the GI Bill, but there are better ways to both give the them the support they deserve as well as encourage the use of their education on further service to America.... 35499@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 23 May 2008 16:01:38 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#35451 This bill is a must especially for all those military that have been waiting years for a chance to enroll in an education plan after serving their country for years as career military members. Not everyone made a perfect decision when first entering but should they be renounced because of that even though they served honorably over the years, I would say not. Military members are deserving of this bill and it must be enacted; as for the war, funding will come for that but taking care of those who are fighting these wars should always come first. Retention will also be there and for those who leave, then they were never career minded in the first place and would not make an outstanding career NCO or SNCO. If they want to add a provision for retention after-the-fact if it is having an impact then by all means that could be done but holding this bill up is doing nothing for the thousands that are waiting for someone to get this passed and enacted.... 35451@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 22 May 2008 21:11:32 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#35418 Senators Webb and Warner have added a provision as of the 21st to allow transferability to spouse and children. This bill is now a must pass from a moral, recruitment and retention standpoint.... 35418@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 22 May 2008 11:38:43 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#35387 Pass this bill...this is one bill the government SHOULD throw money at to fix a problem. It is sickening to think the average terrorist knows multiple languages and comes from a prestigious schooling...whereas the average military guy is a high school grad.... 35387@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 22 May 2008 00:52:33 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#35379 Our Army won't amount to much without the career NCOs too and lots of us have or are getting degrees. And don't let your self think that I'm not in favor of encouraging education just because I find this bill to be poorly done. You don't mean to imply that those who remain in the service and don't achieve a college education are a drain on the economy, do you?... 35379@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 21 May 2008 22:44:07 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#35326 RTO trainer-- you might want to consider the benefit of encouraging bright minds(out of high school), incentified by the increased educational benefits, who will join the armed services and add value to the institution. Those who wish to become officers after their education will. Those who remain in civilian life will promote our country by stimulating instead of draining the economy.... 35326@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 20 May 2008 22:34:32 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#35319 OIF/OEF Vet-- Well, the current GI Bill doesn't incentivize leaving service to use it. I'm one of those people who won't leav for anything, and that'd be true if I didn't already have a BA. Thid new GI Bill might pay for itself in the long run, but at a cost to the current force in the meantime, and we are still fighting a war.... 35319@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 20 May 2008 20:33:47 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#35310 RTO Trainer: So by your logic wouldn't you support getting rid of the current GI Bill since that must be hurting current retention? I know plenty of people that are staying in the Army and won't leave for anything! The military needs to focus on making serving a rewarding experience-if this happens retention will take care of itself. This new GI Bill would pay for itself may times over with the increases in income taxes collected over the coming decades not to mention the intellectual gains.... 35310@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 20 May 2008 16:28:07 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_22.html#34740 Go look at this one: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_2938.html It would cover more veterans (not just post 9/11), it allows transfer of benefits to spouses and children, won't cost near what S22 will and won';t harm retention.... 34740@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 13 May 2008 16:13:02 EDT