RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,185734,00.html

Which veterans did you all consult to act on our behalf?

Paul,

You need to help explain this better.

The title of your piece is "IAVA Not for GI Bill Cap." But when I go to the Legislative Agenda for IAVA, on page 6, it states: "Rather than an unwieldy state-by-state benefit system, the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit should have a national tuition cap tied to the price of the most expensive public school (currently about $13,000/yr)."

Okay, that is not a great start, but this confuses me more. "IAVA supports a fairer, national ceiling which would increase the benefit for many veterans who wish to attend private colleges or universities, and would have no effect on anyone attending a public school." How would a cap of any type, fair or not, increase the benefit? This would be a floor, not a ceiling. So, what has me concerned is if you or IAVA mean a floor rather than a cap or whether you are trying to say that a cap would somehow elevate benefits. I am unclear on what you mean, but what you say does not appear to be accurate.

I think that it is unclear what IAVA is upset about from your article. You mention a student attending private school in Arkansas and then mention a Veteran across the border in Texas. What you fail to mention is that the student in Texas is attending a public school, right? If this is what you meant to convey, it is not clear. If it is the case, you are not addressing the other provisions of the Post 9/11 Bill that give incentives for private schools to make up the difference in tuition payment shortfalls. Surely this has to factor into an analysis of the "problem."

Final thing that has me stumped- why is IAVA's solution to this "problem" to lower benefits for some Veterans rather than to raise it for the others?

All right, not all is doom and gloom. While I think this proposal is way-off the mark, addresses non-existent problems, and is not being portrayed clearly, I do have a positive comment for IAVA on another legislative proposal: "Veterans with remaining educational entitlement should be able to use their benefit to pay back student loans." This is a good idea and it would benefit the IAVA to expend their efforts to advance this idea rather than the preceding poorly conceived proposal.

I understand your confusion with this issue. I was trying to grapple with this as well. According to IAVA's own website [http://www.stripes.com/09/feb09/Uneven_Scholarships.html] they laid out their argument for their proposal with a simple table.

Their scenario had two vets, 1 from TX and 1 from AR. If each vet attends their respective in-state public school, than the new GI Bill would pay the full tuition, therefore it is not a concern. However, if both the AR and TX vets attended a private university (Northwestern in IL from their example) then there would be an inequality because the TX cap and AR caps were dramatically differeant. So the TX vet would get approximately $26,984 more for the same school.

This argument is wrong though. According to 38 CFR Part 21; Post-9/11 GI Bill; Section 3313: "an eligible individual, other than an individual on active duty, is entitled to recieve educational assistance equal to the amount of the school's established charges, up to the maximum amount of established charges regularly charged to full-time, undergraduate, in-State students by the public institution of higher learning having the highest rate of regularly-charged established charges in the state in which the individual is enrolled"

This simply means that in their own argument both the TX and AR vets attending Northwestern in IL would recieve the maximum rate allowed in IL (state residency does not matter). The max IL rate is $13393.92 per year. Therefore, both vets receive the same education at the same cost so there is NOT a difference. In fact, if Congress put a cap on the new GI Bill then BOTH vets would only get $13000 per year. So, each vet would loose $393.92 per year because of the IAVA trying to "protect" veterans.

I emailed the IAVA about this disparity yesterday. They replied to my concern saying this was a horrible misunderstanding, that they were trying to make it more fair for veterans nationwide. They told me that they were misquoted in the VA Pilot Newspaper. It looks like this was a canned reply. Because I did NOT get my information from the VA Pilot's article, but from the IAVA's own website. I personally believe this is a measure for the IAVA to gain some sort of political advantage in the future. If they are supposed to "protect" OIF and OEF vets like myself, then they should find other issues rather than CUTTING my federal benefits for me. If this is how their organization wants to operate they will not be around much longer. If I wanted to join a veterans group that was too big and didn't care about me, then I would join the Legion (which also supported this proposal). To the IAVA, if it ain't broke...don't fix it! Where were you for the guys at Walter Ried (right down the road from your office)? Thanks, but no thanks!

In reading the IAVA site, it seems that in some cases they mean a cap or ceiling on benefits, while in others they mean a floor or minimum benefit. From what I have read, they are internally inconsistent in their statements. I hope they clarify what they mean. I still think it is a bad idea, but a little clarity would help a lot.

Again, I think they would be better served advocating for repayment of student loans from unused benefits. What's more, the Veterans they are supposed to be advocating for would be better served. Until they straighten out, I would not support this organization.

chopperjohn, I hope you are wrong on the motivation being political advantage. Unfortunately, I can't say that I think you are wrong. Something just is not right here.

I just noticed this so I wanted to clarify. The link I provided above was created by Stars and Stripes, but it is a hyperlink I pulled off of IAVA's press release.

jadm71, I hope I am wrong too, about their intentions! But I think there is something going on here that they are not telling us. IAVA insists that it is not a cap. Then they say, well not a cap "for anyone in a public school". So it is a cap for people in a private school. If it is a cap. Why won't they just say that?

Did they even talk to any vets about this. I mean guys actually in school like myself? Just because 3 or 4 of them are vets, that doesn't give them the right to speak on our behalf? We as a group bequeth that right to them, by not speaking up for ourselves.

chopperjohn,

I found this interesting. In their Blog post, "GI Bill Implementation: Where are we now?" posted on 2/23, they basically repeat the argument from Paul Rieckhhoff's piece. At one point, the blog directs you to the page about their Legislative Agenda. Near the bottom, they state that they came up with their agenda by polling their membership. So, I went to the results of that poll and see what the concerns of their membership are: IAVA Legislative Agenda Survey Results. These are the only comments on this issue:

quote:

92% of respondents rated education and the GI Bill as either “very important” or “the most
important” issue for new veterans.

quote:

Even with the passage of the landmark new GI Bill, many participants reported lingering
problems with the transition from warrior to student:
“If they are planning on attending school, a counselor should help them look at the
educational opportunities in the area that the soldier is going to live, and provide
assistance with the application process.”
“The optempo was so high when I was in that it was very difficult for me to take advantage of education benefits while on active duty. Now, I have to start from scratch.”
“Many veterans want to apply to school & use their veterans' benefits, but simply do not know where to start, as they get confused by all the information on the web.”

It strikes me as disingenuous of them to claim they came up with their ideas from the membership when their own materials do not indicate this "cap proposal" as a concern.

The other thing that has caught my eye is that if you go to the IAVA website, this issue is buried. It takes several clicks on various links to even find this issue discussed. My view is that if this is something of concern or an important issue, they would be promoting it upfront. I suspect that they realize that if any Veteran takes the time to read their materials, they will not agree or be happy with what this organization is advocating. Hence, they bury it deep on their website.

I have a problem with Veterans advocates who do not advocate for the interests of Vets. My question to them, again, is why is it better to lower benefits for some rather than raise it for the others?

I hope they renounce their position on this. It fails the stink test.

Gents: Military.com supports ALL VSOs insofar as they are involved in efforts to improve the lives of military veterans. But allow me to add this about IAVA and their intent WRT the Post 9-11 GI Bill: Without IAVA there is no Post 9-11 GI Bill.

quote:

Without IAVA there is no Post 9-11 GI Bill.

Without denigrating IAVA's contribution along with many other service organizations, you base that on ... what?

This IAVA is "suspect." I think they got caught with their shorts hanging out and are now trying to backtrack.

Another IAVA hack job, I wish they would ask other veterans. This IAVA can only speak for the vets in their organization.

Ward,

While it is always good to have people and organizations working to advance Vets issues, I do not think IAVA's involvement with the passage of the Post 9/11 GI Bill (however great or small) gets them a pass on now advocating for less benefits. In my opinion, they do not deserve applause for trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I think they have a duty to advance the interests of Veterans and I cannot see how their proposal does that. That is really what I am looking for, an explanation of how a cap on benefits helps Veterans and why that is a better policy than a floor on benefits.