|
Who
We Are
Articles
Upcoming
Events
Past
Events
Downloads
Links
No
Child Left Behind
Political
Cartoons
Contact
Us
|
Fight Over Reserve MGIB
Tom Philpott, Daily Independent
October 1, 2006
Sparks Fly at Reserve GI Bill Hearing
Proponents for strengthening Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits for the
National Guard and Reserve say the critical issue is fairness. Reserve
rates, frozen for years, need to be raised. Reserve benefits need to be
made as portable as MGIB for active forces, their wartime deployment
partners.
Not so, said a senior Defense official. The critical issue is how best
to manage finite resources. There is no reason to raise Reserve GI Bill
benefits as long as enough personnel join and reenlist with reserve
components. (doesn't get much clearer than that, it's an incentive for
recruits, like bait, not something used to really help the soldiers-KR)
The arguments were as blunt as that during an unusual Sept. 27 joint
hearing of the House armed services subcommittee on military personnel
and the veterans’ affairs subcommittee on economic opportunity.
The two panels share oversight responsibility for MGIB programs.
The Republican chairman and ranking Democrat on the personnel
subcommittee -- John McHugh (N.Y.) and Vic Snyder (Ark.) – were
in sync laying out their a case for raising reserve MGIB benefits
perhaps next year. Snyder in particular sees two major inequities that
need correction.
The first, he said, is that MGIB for reservists ends when they separate
after a typical six-to-eight-year service obligation. That’s true
even now, in wartime, with Reserve and National Guard members being
mobilized routinely for 16-to-18 months, and spending a year in Iraq or
Afghanistan. When active duty members leave service, they take along
MGIB benefits. Reserve benefits can only be used while they remain in
drill status.
“How is it fair when two members serve side by side in combat,
they return home together, both leave the service, but one will have
education benefits [and] the other will not have any?" asked Snyder.
“This seems to me to be unconscionable.”
A second inequity is the level of benefits under MGIB for Selected
Reserves. Payments used to be set to equal 47 percent of benefits for
active duty MGIB users. But cost of living increases to active duty
MGIB, which the Department of Veterans Affairs administers and VA
committees oversee, have not been applied to Reserve benefits since the
attacks of 9-11.
The armed services committees are responsible for Reserve MGIB and so
can be blamed for letting benefits slip. But it’s also true,
Snyder said, that the Bush administration has not asked for money to
adjust Reserve MGIB. On Oct. 1, when active duty benefits go up once
again, Reserve MGIB benefits will stay frozen and their value, relative
to active duty MGIB, will fall to 27 percent.
“Shouldn’t we at least bring that benefit up to where it
was at the time the program was [established],” Snyder asked
Michael L. Dominguez, principal deputy under secretary of defense for
personnel and readiness.
Dominguez refused to concede the point, instead providing what he
described as “a number-crunching, bean-counter” view.
Reserve MGIB was designed primarily as a retention tool to keep members
in drill status.
“If we look at our recruiting and retention numbers, we’re
achieving the purposes for which the program was intended,” said
Dominguez, a 1975 West Point graduate. For five years, until last July,
he served as assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower and
reserve affairs.
Following that logic, an angry Snyder told Dominguez, if the Reserve
MGIB “deteriorates to three percent of the [active duty]
benefit…or one percent, you’re going to be perfectly
satisfied as long as Americans are stepping forward and signing
enlistment contracts for reasons for patriotism, family heritage, for
love of country. You don’t care where that benefit deteriorates
to…I think you stepped in it, Mr. Secretary.”
Dominguez refused to reverse field, however.
“If people understand what we offer in return for their service,
and they know that up front and they agree to that service, under those
conditions I think that needs to be honored,” he said.
The Senate, in its version of the 2007 defense authorization bill,
adopted an amendment from Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) that would give
Reserve MGIB benefits the same portability as active duty MGIB, a
10-year window to use benefits after separation. The House bill was
silent on the issue. Odds were seen as slim the Lincoln provision would
survive a House-Senate conference committee ironing out differences
between the two bills.
The Bush administration, in opposing the Lincoln provision, also
pointed to projected costs of $1.5 billion over 10 years and urged a
delay on any changes to benefits until a joint VA-Department of Defense
task force completes a comprehensive review of MGIB issues.
Among proposals under review is a Total Force MGIB conceived by the
Partnership for Veterans Education, a coalition of military, veterans
and educational associations. The Total Force MGIB would end the
inequities cited by Snyder, move responsibility for all GI bill
benefits under the Department of Veterans and raise benefits to
mobilized reservists. They would earn a month of active duty MGIB
benefits for every month of activation beyond 90 days.
Dominguez said that if given an extra $1.5 billion for reserve forces,
he would recommend spending it on Reserve equipment not MGIB benefits.
Retired Navy Vice Adm. Norbert Ryan, testifying on behalf of the
partnership, warned that three of six reserve components won’t
make their recruiting goals for fiscal 2006. Continued neglect of
Reserve MGIB benefits, he said, could be what drives the all-volunteer
force “into a ditch.’
Steve Kime, with the American Association of State Colleges and
Universities, said Dominguez, for DoD, gave “a perfect
articulation of 30-year-old thinking” about reserve forces and
the value of education benefits.
Reserve and active forces, he said, are patrolling the same streets in
Baghdad, “getting shot at by the same bullets. It’s time
for a new vision and some new direction from Congress to DoD” on
the MGIB, Kime said.
This archive consists of a topically organized selection of
articles culled by members of the Counter-Recruitment List Serve from printed
publications and web sites. The archive is not complete. We have chosen
material relevant to the work of Eugene,
Oregon’s Committee for Countering
Military Recruitment that we think may be of use to others individuals and
groups with similar goals.
Because our web site is public, personal comments about the
articles and (frequent) corrections of reporters’ errors are also not included.
If an article interests you, we encourage you to return to the
Counter-Recruitment List Serve and put the article’s headline into the search
line, which should bring up (often wise and useful) commentary and corrections.
If you do not belong to the List Serve, it can be found at counter-recruitment@yahoogroups.com
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles
on this site are posted without profit to those who have expressed prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposed.
|