A NEW GI BILL

More U.S. troops have seen action in the last five years than in the previous two decades. After their service is completed, the government that sent these men and women into harm’s way has an obligation to care for their medical, psychological and, yes, even their educational needs. A new version of the GI Bill, proposed by Sens. James Webb, D-Va., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., may be the best way to address those needs.

Because money for the new GI Bill is included in President Bush’s request for continued funding of the U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is stalled in Congress. The president has vowed to veto any version of the bill that includes the expanded GI Bill, and most Republicans and some Democrats are wary of it because there is no identified way to pay for its $51 billion cost over 10 years.

The original GI Bill – titled the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 – was one of the last century’s most transformative pieces of legislation. It allowed millions of young men to get some sort of postsecondary education, which seemed eminently fair, considering many of those young men were plucked out of school, or were asked to devote their late teens and early 20s to serving their country, rather than climb the employment ladder.

An ancillary benefit, observers have noted, is that the GI Bill kept the employment ranks from being flooded when World War II ended, because many young men went to school rather than work.

One of the reasons Sens. Webb and Hagel have struggled to persuade their Senate colleagues to support the new GI Bill – more than 50 do, including Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, but not enough to withstand a filibuster – is that many believe the troops are already getting generous education benefits. Not so; unlike the GI Bill of the World War II, Korean War and Vietnam War eras, the current version pays for only a fraction of college costs.

The Webb-Hagel version would pay the full tuition for any in-state public university, along with a monthly housing allowance, for those who serve for three or more years in the military, according to The Associated Press. Veterans would have 15 years to use the benefit, instead of the current 10-year window.

Fiscal conservatives say they oppose the measure because of its projected cost. The Department of Defense also opposes the plan, arguing instead for increasing college assistance but requiring six years of service, not three.

Given the recruiting challenges the military faces with the protracted Iraq conflict looming over every enlistment contract, the new GI Bill would seem a smart investment. And on moral grounds, a government commitment to educating those who risk their lives is an easy sell to the public, much easier than justifying continued spending on the Iraq occupation.

If the president and congressional Republicans continue to oppose the expanded GI Bill, they are handing Democrats a very effective way to measure which party supports the troops when the fall elections roll around.