Warbird Information Exchange

Is this just a slogan, often seen on the back of an SUV or other gas guzzler?

In the DENVER POST, editorial. May 19, it calls for a new GI Bill, such as the one from 1944.

This idea is proposed by Sen. Jim Webb of NY a veteran. Bush has threatened a veto if it passes, saying it is too expensive at $5.2 billion. That is less than we spend every two weeks on Iraq. The Congressional Budget Office put the total war cost between one and two $trillion.

The would be paid for by a tax on incomes above $500 k, and it has already been passed by the US House.

Bob Herbert of the NY Times writes the first GI Bill returned $7 to the economy for each $1 invested.

Back when I began flying in the 70, s there were a lot of flight schools and I am pretty sure the GI Bill had been good source of funding for them.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

My understanding is that one of the big sticking points is transferability of GI Bill benefits. I'd love to be able to pass on my GI Bill to my wife or kids. The likelyhood of me ever being able to use it is pretty slim.

There may be other reasons....the media seems to leave out certain parts of news stories. Especially if it'll cast whomever they don't like in a negitive fashion

_________________
Rob

I'm all for this. We can pay for it by cutting Department of Education funding or farm subsidies.

What country has ever taxed itself into prosperity?

Regardless of what we spend in Iraq, how is spending $5.2 Billion more than that good? Is this how you budget at home?

BDK, there are certainly those who will agree with your view or bias. Every state govt knows is it a lot easier to get some voters to approve money for more prisons or more police, than it is to get funds for more teachers or better schools or better teachers. Is it smart to spend much more money to attack a problem after it has developed into crime, rather than try to prevent crime from building in the first place? The after the fact, more prison approach is not only woefully ineffective, but very expensive. For me, it feels wrong to spend lavishly to send young people to be killed or maimed, but be tight when it comes to carrying for these vets. Is it, give em a gun, tank, or jet, but books, or decent hospitals are too expensive?

As for as "tax us into prosperity", the info on a $7 return for each $1spent on the original GI Bill is not my figures, it is from the editorial. It may be true, may be exaggerated. Either way a fairly small tax on those with incomes over one $million (joint). doesn't seem too onerous. Perhaps the CEO of Exxon or Haliburton might be able to afford it. And even if half true, it seems a return of 300%, $3 for every $1 spent is worthwhile.

The great majority of current military vets do not have higher education degrees, and may profit by this program. If not a full four years of college, then
at least one to get started or perhaps two years for a Jr. College or Associate degree, some other type of vocational or technical training. I don't know the details of how the bill was set up in the past.

There are now proposals to carry the war on At Least to 2013, a total of 11 years. If the same guys who claim we are winning, also say we need 3 times as long in Iraq as we took to defeat the Axis,then somebody thinks the American taxpayer is pretty gullible (may be right there). Perhaps they could cut it just a month short of 2013, thus the spending saving would fund this bill for two years.

Rob, as for not being able to transfer benefits, I don't know. But now there are no benefits to transfer. It sounds like the new bill would be better, if not perfect.And if and when we ever leave Iraq, I'll bet some well connected US companies will be lining up at he taxpayer feed trough to get contracts to "reconstruct" Iraq. Might be well over the cost of this bill. If you think the media has distorted the story, what is your source and facts? The Denver Post is not known for liberal propaganda.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Bill, sorry, but your facts are just plain wrong here. I didn't take 4 years to defeat the Axis nor did it take 6 years. It took the better part of twenty. The US was actively engaged in seeking out and eliminating holdouts of both the Japanese Empire and Nazi Party for many years after the official end of hostilities (which, BTW, a declaration of conclusion of major combat operations was issued, which would be the equivalent in this case) and now we are in the stage (in Iraq and Afghanistan) of mop-up and counter insurgency operations, the same phase we were in at this period after the end of major operations in WWII and the same phase we were in after the cease-fire was signed in Korea.. In case you forgot, Korea is still an active operation as there was never a treaty signed. We still sign a cease-fire every so often with the North Koreans, so if you want to look at it, we've been actively engaged in North Korea for almost 60 years.

There is a difference between active warfighting, counterinsurgency, and peace. We are in the second phase. It may well take until 2013 or longer to get to the third phase. That's a reality of life. Most people never realized what the second phase was like after WWII because we got embroiled in the onset of the Cold War and Korea. Most don't remember that we're still actively engaged in Korea because of the escalation of the Cold War and then Vietnam. The public's memory is sadly lacking in those very important facts and those facts are not being reported by the media who's job it is to remind the public of what they've forgotten, not enhance the lie that this hasn't happened before and that it's not a part of how you win a war.

Bill, it sounds to me like a good program. I will strive to bring my income over $500K so I can help pay for it. Bdk's suggestion of taking it all out of farm subsidies is also an excellent one, but I doubt that the farm lobby (mainly big agribusiness) that receives those handouts would let it happen.

There are many examples of taxes that increase prosperity and preliminarily, this sounds like one of them. Underwriting education and innovation generally has a pretty high ROI.

Of course, there are many who would prefer simply to honor the vets by saying a prayer to a supernatural being who may or nay not be listening over the Memorial Day barbecue. Not clear how much good that does, but it's much cheaper.

CAPFlyer's post makes it nearly to the top of my roster of examples of reinventing history in the service of current political positions. How could we have forgotten all those GIs killed by the German and Japanese insurgencies in 1955? And after all, a unilateral declaration of the conclusion of major combat operations is really the same thing as the other side's unconditional surrender, isn't it?

August

7:1 return on investment sounds like a great opportunity for the veteran and a BANK, not the US Government.

And what does any CEO, Exxon or Haliburton have to do with this? This one is even from Colorado: "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits" http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

Public colleges and universities are already subsidized to the hilt for everyone and student loans are also readily available.

Why are you afraid to let people invest in their own life? Things you give away for free are never appreciated as much as things you work for.

A few more quotes from Milton Freidman that apply:

Benefits to our troops for their service are "for free" and not "worked for"?

The truth comes out at last. Get off your butts, soldiers! Do some work for a change! What have you done to expect a handout?

August

BDK , however much you may be against any form of welfare for people, as opposed to corporate welfare or higher taxes; I think you miswrote when you label a program to repay people for their service as Free. You know better than that.

Capflyer, you have missed your calling. You'd make a great White House Press Secretary. I had no idea that all the history books, encyclopedias, and other reference sources were wrong about WWII ending in 1945. That was what I referred to about defeating the Axis, not Korea.

Whatever date you feel the war ended, that is not the substance of this Bill, anyway. Whether you want an 11 year war or 20 year war in IRAQ, whatever satisfies you, we should still provide for troops who have risked their lives in defense of US business. Even if not killed or wounded, as 35,000 or so have been, they have at least been away from their homes, their families for a year or more, in a place few of us would want to go even in Peace.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Bill, you're the one who brought up the issue. I said (and I'll say it again) that WWII ended in 1945. The fight to free the Japanese and German people didn't, however. The same can be said with Iraq and Afghanistan. The major combat operations (i.e. active warfighting) have ended and now we are in the period of counter-insurgency that is required to reach peace. No war ends when a Surrender or Treaty of Non-Agression are signed. It takes time for those who feel that their "nation" or "group" was wrong for ending the battle to be found and dealt with (i.e. insurgents) before you can reach peace.

My point on Korea was a continuation of the original - just because the major fighting has stopped doesn't mean it's "over". We didn't just go from one day fighting the Koreans (or the Axis) to the next day not. It's not that cut-and-dry no matter how much you or the history books want to make it seem that it was.

You're right, but not by taxing the top 1% of the nation even more. If they want to provide this bill, then why don't they cut some of the earmarks they've added to the other bills passed this year to pay for it? Why not cut the spending for welfare that so often goes to waste because the system is corrupt and easily defrauded?

If it's so important for us to have a new GI bill, then it should be something that either everyone pays for (i.e. a tax increase for all taxpayers) or it's funded out of the existing revenue by cutting back on non-essential programs and budget items of which there are literally tens of thousands. Or better yet, why doesn't Congress just give back it's pay increases for the next 5 years and suspend the Congressional Retirement Program to pay for it. I find it odd that they never consider that their own compensation package might be excessive and maybe think about making some consessions for the betterment of the country.

If they aren't getting it now, what is it? My point is that when you spend your own money you are a lot more thrifty with it than when you spend uncle's. If the troops deserve more pay, just give it to them! Don't queer up the whole deal with a whole bunch of pork barrel programs to make the politicians feel good about themselves. "You guys" always want to spread the peanut butter to average everyone out, when in fact different people have different aspirations. It is like medical insurance, what you want to provide is great for a minority (of the politician's choosing) but screws everyone else. Why not give me my share of the money (or let me keep the money I make) and let me purchase the program that works best for me? Every government program causes things to be more expensive and of poorer quality than you can get them in the free market. Give the GIs a fair wage and then let them either pay cash (if they are good savers) or take out a student loan if they want to go to college.

Another Friedman quote:

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."

Friedman was not as unsophisticated or naive as your sound bites make him seem. All his career, he recognized and wrestled with the problem of externalities, which are the reason why your suggestion that investors or banks invest to create the new GI bill probably wouldn't work. A GI bill, like most investment in education, creates positive externalties -- it may have a high rate of return, but the benefit accrues to society and it is very difficult or impossible for the individual investor who funds the program to capture much of that return. Therefore the investor will not invest in it, despite the high rate of return. An answer, when the benefit of an investment will accrue to society, is for the society to make the investment, through the offices of the government. Friedman flopped back and forth over the years on this issue because the economics were so at odds with his politics. He ended up not really believing in positive externalities as he used to in his less ideological days. He still believed in negative externalities (e.g. pollution that harms your neighbor) and in the government using taxes to control them.

Okay, back to the empty aphorisms now.

August

I'm not going into politics, or history here, as this subject is getting mired in back and forth at this point. As a vet, I think the GI Bill is a great asset- both to the US as well as those of us who have chosen to PROTECT and DEFEND this country at the potential risk of our own life. I see no problem with it being an assignable commodity- as long as that assignment remains within the immediate family: It is a benefit we HAVE EARNED. Why shouldn't we be allowed to pass it on to our child if we ourselves don't have a direct need for it? We EARNED it, we should use it to improve our lives- lives often put on hold(sometimes terminally) to do the tasks assigned us, for the betterment and safety of this country. If we want to use our benefit to hep our own family, that should be our right.

I see a lot of people scamming to get a free education from the government- and they have not served, nor will they ever serve, a single day protecting the freedoms they enjoy. Personally, I think service should be required to earn a degree using federal funds... But that won't happen. However, those of us who wear the uniform deserve to be able to use our education funds as we see fit. I also believe they should get rid of the 10 year "Use it or lose it" clause- I think the money put into our GI Bill account should be available to us, or our families, until the following generation has passed, or we have used it.

As to the "7 to 1" discussed, it is simply that the revenue created by the education of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines benefited the US far more than just dumping them on the street, unemployed, and no better off than they were when they went in to the Second World War.(Which, by the way, did not end until the final peace treaty was signed- between the Soviet Union and Japan in the 1980's- so there)

The GI Bill is a debt the citizens of the US owe to those who have chosen to wear the uniform of this country, sworn to defend her to the death if necessary. As they say- it's the least you can do.

Robbie

I don't know much about the details; don't even have a strong opinion about the assignability part of any bill. However, don't let those who oppose the bill pick out one part to kill the whole deal. If you have no GI Bill, there are no benefits to assign, are there?
Robbie, some govt. assistance programs for college benefit us all, such as education for teachers who might not be able to afford it. A soldier is not the only deserving profession, nor the only one our country needs.
As for the war ending, go take a look at the newsreels of the signing ceremony on the Missouri in 1945. Both the Japanese and the Russians signed the peace accords. If you think the war between Japan and Russian continued into 1980, perhaps you can give us some of the combat photos of that time. Any aces, what were the great battles, what were the casualty figures?
I don't really care if we sign a peace treaty in Iraq, but it is obscene to continue the war there at a cost of $10billion a month and claim veterans benefits at $5b are too expensive.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK