Readers of Tom Philpott’s Military Update column sound off.

Time to Return $1200 MGIB 'Pay Cut' to War Vets

Congress may have to mortgage the White House, but I feel cleanup of the veterans’ educational program should not be phased in but should be implemented this year.

The issue I have with the GI Bill program is that World War II, Korea and Vietnam veterans did not have to have money deducted from their pay to be eligible for educational benefits. Today’s military members must agree to have their pay reduced by $100 a month for 12 months to qualify for the Montgomery GI Bill.

The solution is to immediately refund all MGIB contributions to any person who served a year in a combat zone as far back as when we entered Afghanistan, regardless of whether the member remains in service. This should include Reservists and National Guard.

Our men and women are dying or being wounded daily. If they are fortunate to make it home, they should not have to struggle for education benefits, or have families sacrifice while they forfeit money to the government to insure they have educational benefits when they get home.

Perhaps Halliburton and their subcontractors would be willing to contribute a couple of hundred billion dollars of profits to assist our brave men and women with their educational benefits.

LENA N. SWANSON
Bremerton, Wash.

It's nice to see Congress doing more to help today’s veterans with problems.  I wonder if anyone has stopped to think of how big a slap in the face this is to the thousands of Vietnam vets and there families who have suffered over the last 30 years or so with nobody giving a damn?

A. E. CLARK
Disabled Vietnam Vet
Via e-mail

SHORTING RESERVE DUTY

I am incredulous at the way Guard and Reserve members are being treated. Why is it that every time Congress looks at benefit increases for Guard and Reserve members they choose to differentiate a person’s commitment and worth by considering only “mobilized” reservists?

It’s discouraging that Congress chooses to regard service of non-mobilized Guard and Reserve members as not important enough to justify a benefit increase. Active duty benefits do not differentiate between mobilized and non-mobilized individual.  An active duty member who never deploys to a war zone still receives the same GI Bill benefits and same retirement, if they complete 20 years, as someone who deploys.

I find this new attitude of Congress toward reserve component members shameful and biased. All Guard and Reserve members deserve respect for their sacrifice and commitment and all should be rewarded with the same benefits package.

ROBERT DUNN
Master Sergeant, USAFR-Ret
Via e-mail

Our family relies heavily on, and greatly appreciates, the TRICARE program. In the nine years since I retired, our annual cost for using TRICARE has not increased. I believe the cost should have increased for beneficiaries over the years but in ways that make it manageable versus a catch-up plan that would double the cost over just two years.

TRICARE officials should put together a proposal that would bring up the beneficiary cost of the program over five to seven years and then keep it in check with inflation every one to two years. Counties and states raise property taxes and other taxes in the same way based on value and inflation.

It seems to me they should be able to monitor the influx of people into the system, fees paid by members, government costs, etc. and adjust to program needs each year or two.

The proposed increases, however, are a great example of another mismanaged government program. Programs such as TRICARE, social security, Medicare need to be managed and monitored better. We've paid our taxes and served our country, so promised benefits should always be there.

ANDREW FINLEY
Master Chief Petty Officer, USCG-Ret.
Gloucester, Va.

CASH V. TIME OFF

I’m confused by your recent column that military leaders have decided to reward longer or more frequent deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan with extra time off once troops are home rather than additional compensation.

My son is serving his second deployment in Iraq and was told his stay has been extended three months. I thought I had read that those deployed who have their time extended will receive the extra $1000.

Is that a “done deal” or is it still being debated?

JEANNE G.
Tacoma, Wash.

The $1000 for your son and other troops whose war tours recently have been extended is solid.

What was under review, and now has been decided, is how to compensate service members who are being deployed earlier than expected to Iraq and Afghanistan – that is, before they complete a promised period at home double the length of their last deployment – and persons have been deploying frequently since 9-11.

For these members, military leaders have opted to provide them with additional time off while at home rather than provide additional cash payments. Many of these service members have complained that their commands already give them extra time off post-deployment and so would prefer the cash.  – Tom Philpott

Letters may be edited for clarity or length.  Write to Military Forum, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA  20120-1111, send e-mail to militaryforum@aol.com or visit www.militaryupdate.com