Tag: gi bill
How Three Dollars A Day Can Buy America A Rich Future

How Three Dollars A Day Can Buy America A Rich Future

Reprinted with permission from DCReport

How much would you be willing to invest for a better future for yourself, today's youngsters, and beyond?

Would you be willing to invest $3 a day?

That's more than the gross upfront cost of President Joe Biden's human infrastructure bill.

Read NowShow less
‘Dunkirk’ Is A Morality Story For Shared Blessings Of Peace

‘Dunkirk’ Is A Morality Story For Shared Blessings Of Peace

Reprinted with permission fromCreators.

The movie Dunkirk recounts an astounding story of courage and self-sacrifice, without which Hitler might have won World War II. One can draw a straight line from Britain’s heroic solidarity in the war to the welfare state that emerged in peacetime.

Set in 1940, the movie features two sets of heroes. One is the military forces. We see British soldiers waiting in orderly lines for rescue from a French beach as German forces shoot, shell and bomb them. And we see British airmen taking tremendous losses in fierce aerial fights over the English Channel, all to protect their countrymen on the beaches.

It was of these Royal Air Force pilots that Winston Churchill said, “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”

The other heroes are civilians who, at Churchill’s urging, sailed their fishing boats, pleasure craft and ferries to rescue compatriots stranded in Dunkirk’s shallow waters. Churchill had expected that only 35,000 of his 400,000 soldiers would get back home. The small-boat armada evacuated 330,000.

What does this have to do with the welfare state? Three years later, when the Allies appeared headed for victory, Churchill broadcast his plan for postwar Britain. It called for, among other things, establishing a National Health Service to medically insure everyone “from cradle to grave.”

Though a Conservative, Churchill understood that the shared suffering demanded a new social compact. The rewards of peacetime also had to be shared.

The actor Mark Rylance portrays a civilian steering his boat into grave danger with steely resolve. To prepare for the part, he studied firsthand accounts of the battle.

“The tone of society was different at that time,” Rylance said in a CBS interview. “There was a selflessness and a belief in communal effort and togetherness.” British society today is much more centered on the individual, he added.

America has always been that way. But this country did create the GI Bill in 1944 for returning servicemen. It established veterans hospitals, provided low-interest mortgages, paid for college or trade schools and dispensed billions in unemployment compensation.

In 1945, President Harry Truman proposed a “universal” national health insurance program. Democrats backed the idea. Republicans killed it.

The American idea of “every man for himself” surfaced in attacks on Obamacare’s requirement that insurance plans cover a variety of conditions. Rep. John Shimkus voiced that view with radical clarity when the Illinois Republican complained that the law’s mandated benefits have forced men to purchase prenatal care.

(Suppose insurers could offer women cheaper policies that don’t cover prostate cancer. Imagine what men with the cancer would have to pay for their coverage.)

In the spring of 1945, the war in Europe had just ended, and Britain’s exhausted voters delivered a political shock. They replaced their great warrior Churchill with Clement Attlee, a Labour Party leader who called for a more comprehensive welfare state.

For all the complaints about the National Health Service, the NHS remains a third rail in British politics. When Conservative Margaret Thatcher campaigned in 1983, she said the NHS would be “safe with us.” She wanted some privatizing done but would never have uttered the words “repeal and replace.”

This country is different. But do note that once a modicum of health care security was extended to all Americans, there was no going back.

Without an acceptable replacement on the table, “repeal and replace” was obviously just “repeal.” No amount of legislative gimmickry could hide that fact. Many Americans might recoil at the term “welfare state,” but when it comes to health care, they clearly want at least some of it.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.

Header image: Wikimedia Commons.

The One Candidate Who Did Something In Congress

The One Candidate Who Did Something In Congress

By David Hawkings, CQ-Roll Call (TNS)

WASHINGTON — When the expansive presidential field tops out the week after next, five current and six former members of Congress will officially be in the hunt. Only one can claim to have driven the enactment of landmark legislation.

Jim Webb, who announced his bid for the Democratic nomination a week ago, spent just a single term as a senator from Virginia and realized his crowning achievement as a freshman. The bill he introduced on his first day in office in 2007, the most comprehensive update of the GI Bill in 25 years and the biggest expansion of educational aid to veterans since World War II, became law a year and a half later.

Voters continue to say they’re hungry for a president who can conquer gridlock. The question is whether a proven ability to get a really big bill into law with broad bipartisan support — and one expanding the social safety net under more than a million ordinary Americans — will be enough to propel Webb’s candidacy over a gauntlet of significant challenges and into the zone of viability.

Three years after giving up his spot in the Senate, he has low national name recognition, hardly any organization and a professed disinterest in (and limited aptitude for) raising the enormous sums required for a traditional campaign.

He is launching his run as the most conservative Democrat in the race, but at a time when his dominant rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is already edging to the left in response to spurts of enthusiasm for the liberal ideals voiced loudest by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

He’s an ideological iconoclast — a Republican for much of his adult life who delivered the official Democratic response to President George W. Bush’s 2007 State of the Union address.

Webb remains hawkish on national defense yet vigorously opposed to the Iraq War. He’s an economic populist when it comes to globalization and excess corporate profits but a free-marketer in opposing many environmental regulations. He’s for higher capital-gains taxes but against higher income taxes. He’s always been an advocate for gun rights, but is a relative newcomer to backing gay rights. He’s passionate about criminal sentencing limits but sympathetic to those who would fly the Confederate flag. He was a crucial “yes” vote for the 2010 health care law, but has been a scold about it ever since.

Such maverick behavior rarely fuels sustained success in this polarized area in modern American politics. Neither is it a reliable recipe for an easy life at the Capitol. Webb has only complicated matters with his prickly and no-nonsense personality, which leaves no doubt that he’s got little patience for the glad-handing and small talk required on the campaign trail at least as much as in a Senate cloakroom.

His July 2 candidacy announcement, unsurprisingly, came in the form of a policy-rich 2,000-word statement online – without any accompanying stage-managed rally or other photo op. “We need a president who understands leadership, who has a proven record of actual accomplishments, who can bring about bipartisan solutions, who can bring people from both sides to the table to get things done,” he said.

Webb’s singular calling card for proving he is the man he describes is the 2008 expansion of the GI Bill, which prompted Esquire to label him one of the 75 most influential people of the 21st century for doing “more to repair his party’s relationship with the military” than anyone since the Vietnam War. His measure provides tuition for a public university undergraduate degree, plus a housing allowance, to veterans who served at least three years on active duty after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

To get there, Webb had to overcome the resistance of the Bush administration, which worried the generosity of the package would create big retention problems for the armed forces. He had to beat back a campaign by budget hawks, who wanted to deny the new benefits unless taxes were raised or spending was cut to offset their projected $63 billion cost in the first decade. And he had to outflank the Senate’s most prominent veteran, John McCain of Arizona, who was promoting a less generous alternative as part of his campaign as the GOP presidential nominee that year.

Photo: Jim Webb via Wikimedia Commons

Veterans Win In-State Tuition Benefit

Veterans Win In-State Tuition Benefit

By Adrienne Lu, Stateline.org

As president of the Collegiate Veterans Association at Florida State University, Abby Kinch often heard from veterans who ran into a stumbling block before they even started their college careers.

Veterans new to the state who enrolled at Florida State soon discovered they had to pay out-of-state tuition for their first year –– an additional $15,000. (By the second year, they had lived in the state long enough to have established residency.) For some, that meant the difference between attending college or not. For many others, it meant the burden of student loans they hadn’t planned on.

In May, however, Florida joined a growing list of states that have made it easier for veterans to qualify for in-state tuition. And starting next year, recent veterans in every state should be able take advantage of in-state tuition rates, thanks to a little-publicized provision in a $16 billion federal law signed by President Barack Obama this month.

Aimed primarily at improving veterans’ access to health care, the law allows any veteran who has served at least 90 days of active service to pay resident tuition rates in any state within three years of leaving the military. The law also covers spouses and dependent children of veterans meeting certain criteria. Effective July 1, 2015, the law would apply to any public college or university receiving federal funding through the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

In 2013-14, the average in-state published tuition and fees at public colleges was $8,893, compared with $22,203 out of state.

“I think that because student veterans spent their careers defending the United States, it’s important to welcome them back to the United States with an education wherever they would like to study, not just in their home of record,” said Kinch, who spent more than two years working for the passage of the Florida legislation.

Veterans and veterans’ advocates applaud the measure, which will help alleviate the problem of veterans failing to qualify for in-state tuition after leaving the military because they have been required to move for their service. But others wonder what the change will cost state colleges and universities, and what the effect might be on tuition or services, which may be impossible to know until veterans start taking advantage of the new law.

More than 1 million people have attended college with the help of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which covers most in-state tuition costs and fees in a veteran’s state of residency. In the next few years, 1.5 million more veterans will be discharged from the military, and about a third are expected to use GI Bill to attend college, according to Wayne Robinson, president of Student Veterans of America, a nonprofit coalition of student veterans groups on college campuses.

Suzanne Hultin, a policy specialist with the National Conference of State Legislatures, said at least 32 states already offer veterans resident tuition rates. Many states have adopted legislation in recent years. In some states, such as Alaska and Georgia, public university systems have created such policies.

The rules vary across states. Some require veterans to declare or establish residency, some cover only veterans who have been honorably discharged and some call for veterans to live within the state throughout their enrollment in college, for example. Rules for spouses and dependents also differ across state lines.

Washington was among the states that enacted legislation this year to remove a waiting period for veterans to be eligible to pay resident tuition. The state is home to the largest naval station on the West Coast, on Whidbey Island, as well as Joint Base Lewis-McChord, which joined the Army’s Fort Lewis and the Air Force’s McChord Air Force Base.

“I hope that we will keep our veterans and their families when they separate from the military here,” said state Sen. Barbara Bailey, the Republican who sponsored the legislation. “They are great members of our communities.”

In North Carolina, Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, this year proposed a $5 million scholarship fund for the state university system to cover the gap between in-state and out-of-state tuition for veterans, as well as a waiver granting veterans in-state tuition rates for community colleges. The legislature ultimately approved $5.8 million for public colleges and universities, including community colleges, to participate in the federal Yellow Ribbon Program, which provides schools matching federal funds to cover part of the gap between in-state tuition and out-of-state tuition or tuition at private institutions.

Jon Young, provost and vice chancellor for academic affairs at North Carolina’s Fayetteville State University, where about one in five students are affiliated with the military, welcomed the federal legislation. Young said it would help to clarify some of the confusion about when veterans and their spouses and dependent children become eligible for in-state tuition, which is about $10,000 less per year than out-of-state tuition.

In a June letter to Congress, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities expressed deep concern that the federal legislation would mean the loss of Yellow Ribbon educational benefits paid to public universities, while private colleges, including for-profit institutions, would continue to receive the money.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the new law would save the federal government $175 million in Yellow Ribbon benefits from 2015 to 2024.

The association also asked that the legislation be pared back to cover only veterans and not their spouses or dependent children, and urged Congress to consider that state governments have historically determined their own residency requirements for in-state tuition rates.

Beyond the loss of the Yellow Ribbon benefits, no one knows yet how much the federal law will cost public colleges and universities in lost tuition.

AFP Photo/Frederic J. Brown

Interested in national news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!