New GI Bill blows through House with overwhelming majority

Now it's on to the Senate. The final version of the bill attached to the war supplemental adds full WWII-type benefits as well as benefit-transfers to spouses. Huge. The administration had been promising a veto, but with a final count of 416 to 12, the writing apparently was on the wall.

Personally, I'm going to give mine to my wife for Christmas so she can pursue her Masters.

Does Defense Spending Matter?

I understand the title of this thread is obtuse, but more and more I hear folks talking about all this money we're going to save by pulling out of Iraq and lowering the national debt. At the bottom there is a link to an excellent, non-partisan presentation that should shed light of how our government spends its money, how we build debt, and how the amount we spend on the War on Terror is going to be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Huh? I do not believe a lot of people understand how we build public debt, where defense spending falls in the grand scheme of discretionary spending, or how defense spending impacts that national debt. The short answer is that it does, but only a little.

The long answer is in 2011 the baby boomers start to draw their retiree benefits from Social Security and Medicare. From there the amount of workers paying into the system drops precipitously and the government starts paying out more in benefits than it is collecting from its workers.

Where does defense spending fit in this? Defense spending is the historical victim anytime our elected officials in Washington want to save money. If we redeployed from the War on Terror today, tomorrow there would be politicians lining up to take the 'peace dividend' from the War and chuck it into other programs, usually anything but Social Security and Medicare. Doing that would completely ignore the upcoming costs of modernization, especially upgrading the Air Force's aging fleet.

Here watch this slide show courtesy our old buddy Ross Perot, it puts everything in painful perspective:

Entitlement Crisis

It's long, but the narrative is excellent. Make sure you stick through to the end and get the 'so what' of the presentation.

Steal from the Rich and give it to the Vets!

OK, go ahead and read this article. It has a kind of nice 'Robin Hood' feel to it. From Yahoo:

House Democrats are proposing a tax surcharge on millionaires to pay for a big increase in education benefits for veterans of the war in Iraq, lawmakers said Tuesday.

Wait, here's my favorite:

"What we're talking about is a one-half percent income tax surcharge on incomes above $1 million," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of the Blue Dog group. "So someone who earns $2 million a year would pay $5,000. ... They're not going to miss it."

They're not going to miss it? Hell, they're going to revolt! Not that I don't agree with the measure and I do believe the current GI Bill is due a massive overhaul to keep pace with the high cost of a 21st century education. However, a discriminitary tax against the wealthy is probably not the way.

I predict this goes nowhere.

Vets to Congress: Current GI Bill Inadequate

And that's putting it nicely. CNN reports that current Iraq and Afghanistan veterans feel baited and switched. Today, a group of Soldiers, Marines and airmen spoke to Congress complaining the current GI Bill is not enough to pay for even the most modest college eduation.

Najwa McQueen of the Louisiana National Guard said, "They kind of sell you a dream. You think you're going to get all of this stuff, and in reality, you don't get that. I just kind of believed what my recruiter told me, which is not the truth."

McQueen left behind her husband and 18-month-old daughter in October 2004 and served 10 months in Iraq. After her service, she enrolled in college and found that her total benefits from the GI Bill would be $400 a month for four months, totaling $1,600. Her classes alone, she said, cost $1,000 each. (CNN)

Currently, the GI Bill pays a maximum of $1,101 a month for 36 months to help cover tuition, room and board, and books. National Guard and Reservist average around $440 per month.

The kicker, and you need to watch this closely, is that it goes out in monthly installments, not all at once. Once you are out of the Army, you do not have access to the lump sum to cover the up front cost of the education. You have to pay in installments which includes the interest attached to the lingering balances.

Even if vets had access to pay costs up front, the total benefits would not come close to covering the cost of the education at a four year public university, especially considering the additional cost of living expenses.

I personally know a veteran couple that while going through a four-year university, got by on student loans, WIC, and food stamps aside from the combined benefits of the GI Bill. I have not personally seen the proposed modernized GI Bill, but any improvements would be welcome to the current system. Warning, this sucker is going to cost $2 billion.

I say that kind of investment in our young veterans will provide excellent returns.

Army's New Field Manual Discussed on Hill

LTG William Caldwell appeared this week before the Airland Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee testifying on the Army's new FM 3-0 . For those of you unaware, the FM is the Army first major doctrinal change is a long, long time. The "so-what" here is that FM 3-0 elevates 'Stability Operations' to the same priority for resources and training as what we refer to as "Full Spectrum Operations." In other words, nation-building will receive the same focus and dollars as nation-crushing.

This is a radical change from the past where Stability Operations was usually relegated to an afterthought; more of a have-to than a want-to. That's not saying we have not done Stability Operations in the past. In recent memory Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti and Kosovo are all examples of the U.S. Army participating in high profile Stability Operations. I'll be one of the first to admit that none of those were shining example of Stability Operations done right (although props to the Bosnia folks, I believe that is the best of the bunch).

More interesting to me is the reaction of the Senators on the panel:

Both Lieberman and Cornyn were concerned about how the Army could support and
budget for such a wide spectrum of operations, but Cornyn congratulated the
military for its ability to successfully perform so many missions.

Really, this comes down to dollars. If we're saying that for the foreseeable future war is uncertain and we must be prepared for all contingincies then I'm reading that as a request for a bigger force and more dollars. This would be a relief to an Army stretched by continuous and lengthy deployment.

Congress passes Bill to allow In-State Tuition to Military Families

Let's face it. College admissions love to screw military families. Sure, many schools offer admission break to get our kids into their schools, but the real reason they love them is that they get to charge them out-of-state tuition whether they live in the state or not. Most military members do not meet mandatory the state residency requirements that are recognized by college admissions. Some require residency of up to five years before granting in-state status to an incoming student. A friend of mine had a kid's status changed to out-of-state after his family PCS'd to another state. FAIL.

Well, Congress decided to fix the problem. The amendment to H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, will Lower College Tuition for Military Children. Specifically, it grants in-state tuition to families where they are stationed, and keeps it if the family leaves due to orders. This means an annual savings of around $10 to $20 thousand for families with college aged students.

The bill is sponsored by REP Nancy Boyda (D-KS)and REP Chet Edwards (D-TX), mirroring a policy already in place in Kansas. I find it funny that no Republican is attached to the measure, possibly setting up a showdown in the Senate or if the bill reaches the White House. From my point of view, we, and by we I mean military families receive our best benefits from Democrats, while the military industrial complex benefits most from Republicans (i.e. gear).

I need both sides to survive, so I'll take any help I can get. I'll keep my eye on this one.

Why My Generation is Screwed

Well, the way I see it we're facing three crises that will destroy our current economic structure:

1. Healthcare. Beginning 2011, the baby boomers start Medicare. By 2015, estimates are our national debt could triple at current expenditure rates.

2. Social Security - Ultimate ponzi scheme. Again, starting in 2011, there are more payees than payers. To maintain current benefits through 2020, tax rate on the average citizen goes to 60 percent on SS alone.

3. Military modernization - No one is talking about this. The Air Force is slowly dying. Potential adversaries are enjoying unprecedented advances in armor and artillery platforms. A scheduled modernization program was put indefinitely on hold in place of the war on terror. Per capita (GDP) spending on the American military is at an all-time low. Cost for full modernization including the Reserve and National Guard runs in the low trillions.

What created this mess?

Already, I see that a particular candidate wants to fund a national healthcare system with savings made by ending the war in Iraq. If our current war is grossly increasing the national debt, what happens when we simply move that money over to healthcare? Already the military (specifically the Army) is broken. We're wearing our Soldiers and tanks out. All experts agree that to meet the threat of terror we need a military back to the pre-drawdown/Desert Storm size. Growing that could take trillions. Oh, that still doesn't address the massive shortages in the National Guard and Reserves. Damn, I forgot about the Air Force. They're flying around platforms primarily built in the 70's and 80's. This is a service that absolutely relies on technology overmatch. Estimated modernization of the Air Force exceeds the cost of rebuilding the Army.

It amazes me that no one in either campaign is talking about Social Security. Next to Medicare/national health plan issues, Social Security has the biggest potential to bankrupt the American economy. It funny we send folks to prison for running Ponzi schemes, but that is exactly what the government does. Remember those budget surpluses of the 1990's? That wasn't actually cash. In fact, they were actually forecasted Social Security surpluses that resulted from the balanced budgets implemented by Newt Gingrich.

Back then there were still more workers than retirees, mainly because the baby boomers were at the peak of their lifetime's earning potential. The nasty secret no politician likes say was that they spent it as they collected it. They took the forecasted surpluses and spent them at the same rate as the Reagans. Politicians built massive political clout for the resulting surpluses that went in as Social Security contributions and went out mostly in the form of massive pork expenditures. Oh, the national debt continued to increase during this time.

In 2001, the war on terror kicked off, we realized that we under spent our military. We began to pay the bill for the 'peace dividend' earned from drawing down the military. Spending never changed and the new war rocketed deficit-spending. Military spending, 6% of our GDP at the end of Desert Storm, was at a paltry 3%. Currently it's risen back to 4.5%, but that goes more to cost of war than to modernization. During this period, Medicare and SS expenditure also increased, oh, and congressional pork never went away.

How do we fix it?

No one individual can take the blame. A lot of folks like to blame our current President, but my friends; this is a train wreck coming since the days of FDR (a switch-in-time-saves-nine ring a bell?). My generation is unfortunately stuck with the task of cleaning it up. Unfortunately, we do not even own the majority of the voting block.

We want to fix the situation, but cutting benefits for us means cutting benefits for all. Again, my generation doesn’t even hold a voting majority. Go as a 65-year old retiree how he votes if a particular candidate mentions “benefit cuts.” “Old” and “stubborn” go together like “beer” and “block leave.”

I didn't mention immigration because I don't believe it's relevant to the solution. Sure, it taxes our Medicare system, but compared to the baby boomer problem, it is minor league.

No one wants to say "tax increase" or "benefit decrease" but the reality is that the answer lies somewhere between "socialized medicine" and "decreased retirement benefits."

The problem is we are all too selfish to admit that the solution lies with sacrifice, a lot of sacrifice. Let's face it, we, Americans that is, are selfish. I understand sacrifice, my family understands sacrifice, the average Joe-Six Pack on the street has no idea what the word means. Our two political parties are more concerned with individual political victories than changing things for the better.

I don't know the answers; I just figure we're screwed.

President to Congress: Transfer GI Bill Benefits to Families!

In his final State of the Union address, the President made the following statement to Congress:

“I call on Congress to enact the reforms recommended by Senator Bob Dole and Secretary Donna Shalala, so we can improve the system of care for our wounded warriors… Our military families sacrifice for America… So I ask you to join me in expanding their access to childcare, creating new hiring preferences for military spouses across the federal government, and allowing our troops to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or children.”

The fact is, since 2002, the Department of Defense made transfers of GI Bill available to military family members. The Army used that as a retention incentive for targeted career fields. Monday night, the President issued some extremely broad guidance stating that this targeted benefit to some be made mandatory for all. I happen to know a rather attractive gal that would love to get her hands on my $12 large.

Here are some relevant statistics courtesy DMI:

• Regular military compensation for a single enlisted member in the lowest pay grade in 2006: $29,700.


• Regular military compensation for an enlisted member with a spouse and two children in the lowest pay grade in 2006: $32,800.


• Number of dollars added to the national economy for every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original G.I. Bill: $7.


• Approximate amount of tuition support a service member can receive, in total, under the current G.I. Bill: $39,600.


• Average price of one year at a 4-year private college: $22,218.


• Percentage of troops who pay a nonrefundable $1,200 contribution towards G.I. Bill benefits who never use the G.I. Bill: 30%.


• Percentage of veterans who use their whole G.I. Bill benefit: 8%.


• Average amount less per hour that military wives earn compared to their civilian counterparts: $3.


• Percentage of active-duty military spouses who have their high school diploma: 97%.
  

Thank you Mr. President. Congress, get to work.