New Webb GI Bill: Harmful to Veteran National Guardsmen?

I came upon something dealing with the new Webb GI Bill that will be replacing the old Chapter 30 GI Bill.

You can read about the new Webb GI bill here: www.gibill2008.org...

This may be important for members of the National Guard if you live in certain states and are Veterans.

Under the original chapter 30 GI Bill for veterans who went to school full time there was a $1101 monthly benefit for 36 months.

Under the new GI Bill there is a monthly stipend based on the local rate of E-5 with dependents BAH and an annual $1000 stipend for books and supplies. Tuition is also covered up to the highest amount charged by a state school.

Now this is great if you live in a higher cost of living state and are not a National Guardsman who recieved the Chapter 30 GI Bill. Most states already entitle Guardsmen to free tuition to any state school. In addition to this, if you live in a lower cost of living state your stipend will be lower than the current $1101 monthly benefit. In Oklahoma this stipend can be as low as $800/month. Even with the added $1000 dollar stipend it is still much lower than the original annual benefits. The current universal annual rate is $9909. Under the new system it is determined by state. So in Oklahoma which is the worst case scenario, it will be just $8200 for annual benefits. That is a $1709 drop.

If you are Veterans of active duty, and members of the National Guard of the follwing states, : Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming; You may be in danger of reduced benefits.

I would highly advise people who fit that criteria to contact their congressmen and representatives. This issue needs to be addressed or alot of Veterans and National Guardsmen across the nation will be hurt by this new GI Bill.



[edit on 19/6/08 by MikeboydUS]

I have to tell you that the GI Bill we veterans of the Vietnam war had was so pathetic that it makes the WWII version and those that have followed seem like pretty good deals.

I'm not sure how I feel about the Webb version or the McCain version, but I do feel that those who serve combat tours should get a good deal even if those who serve longer get a better deal.

Short changing veterans because they choose not to be career men isn't right.

The only thing that I can tell you from my own experience is that even if you get a deal as good as the vocational rehabilitation grant I went to graduate school on, you're going to have to either work or take out loans and either way you're still going to have to struggle to make ends meet.

If you want an education, you will make it work one way or the other.

As for National Guardsmen, I don't think it's wrong to tie the stipend to the cost of living, as long as a reasonable argument can be made for Guardsmen having a different arrangement than regulars.

I'm not sure what the logic is, but it seems to me that Guardsmen have served in harm's way just as regular troops have and deserve a fair shake. I think in many ways Guardsmen and Reservists have sacrificed more in this war than have regular service members.

I would agree that corresponding with your legislators is the way to go. I also suggest that you speak personally with them as well. You don't have to become drinking buddies, but let them know that you're a living breathing and voting human being and not just some whiny little crank.



[edit on 2008/6/19 by GradyPhilpott]