The problems with John McCain's vision for expanding the GI Bill are these: a) it is contrary to the spirit of the every other wartime GI Bill; b) it fails to remedy the disparity in educational benefits for current combat veterans vis-a-vis earlier combat veterans; c) it forces our fighting men and women to decide whether their lives are worth a higher education--which, by the way, the post-Iraq military lifestyle and deployments make difficult to obtain while serving; and d) it turns a benefit into a bribe.

Senators Webb and Hagel have introduced the Post-9/11 Veterans' Educational Assistance Act (S22) to replace the existing GI Bill. S22 would increase educational benefits for servicemembers to cover the entire cost of full-time in-state tuition as well as provide a monthly allowance for housing and a yearly stipend for books.

Alert: Tell your public officials how you feel about this issue!

In order to fully appreciate why so many veterans and their advocates are dissatisfied with the existing educational benefits for military service, and why they support S22, you have to understand the history and purpose of earlier GI Bills.

The first GI Bill was created by Congress in 1944 to help combat veterans successfully readjust to civilian life after returning from war. Congress provided veterans with a variety of benefits, including educational assistance, home loan guaranties, and unemployment pay. Although the original GI Bill expired in 1952, a new GI Bill was created, funded, and implemented for every military conflict following World War II.

The current GI Bill, and the basis for educational assistance today, was enacted in 1985 and is known as the Montgomery GI Bill. Unlike previous GI Bills, the MGIB was created as an incentive program to maintain an all volunteer military force.

As a result, there are significant differences between the original GI Bill and the MGIB. Under the MGIB, servicemembers are not automatically eligible for benefits (although they have to affirmatively elect not to "buy-in" to the program), nor are all the costs of college attendance covered. In fact, the original GI Bill not only paid for the cost and tuition of attending the college of the veterans choice, it also provided a stipend to live off of while enrolled. By contrast, today's maximum MGIB benefits only covers 60 to 75 percent of the tuition at a state college.

Although 97 percent of today's servicemembers sign up for the MGIB when they enlist, only 8 percent of servicemembers used all of their educational benefits (over the past ten years) and 30 percent failed to use any of their benefits at all.

Supporters of the 21st Century GI Bill argue that the peacetime goals (e.g., force maintenance instead of veteran readjustment) of the MGIB fails to acknowledge the needs and sacrifices of our OEF/OIF wartime veterans. Moreover, since Congress has created a comprehensive GI Bill for every war since (and including) WWII, they should do the same for OEF and OIF.

Senators Obama and Clinton both support this increase in benefits.

Senator McCain does not.

Last year, Acting Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Manpower and Personnel, Tom Bush, testified before the House Veterans Affairs subcommittee on economic opportunity that "attracting qualified [military] recruits using large, across-the-board basic benefits incurs the risk that many who enter for the [G.I. Bill] benefits will leave as soon as they can use them."

In supporting the Pentagon's opposition to Webb's proposed expansion to veterans' educational benefits, McCain shared its concern that servicemembers would opt to go to college instead of stay in the military. Consequently, McCain stated that he and his colleagues in the Senate were working on an alternative version that would expand benefits but add an additional commitment to the military in order to take advantage of those additional benefits.

Why can't we value their existing service enough to compensate them accordingly? Why can't we honor that service by fulfilling the promise of access to higher education that was made when they enlisted initially?

Why is this even being debated?

How do you feel about this issue?
Let your public officials know how you feel.