GI Bill and UI Bill: Grand Illusion and Unintended Irony

By David Swanson

I would support a GI Bill if Congress were to pass one and send it to the President.

I oppose from the bottom of my soul and with every fiber of my being the near universal pretense (OK, universal except for me) that Congress is about to do just that.

Congress is NOT. What Congress is considering sending to the President is a GI AMENDMENT. It says the same things about providing education for veterans as what everybody tells you is in the "GI Bill" but it comes attached to an unimaginably enormous piece of funding legislation that is absolutely guaranteed to give tens of thousands of members of the U.S. military brain damage and/or PTSD and to lay hundreds of them in their graves and seriously injure thousands more, not to mention causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, enraging people around the world against the United States, wrecking what's left of the US economy, and putting our unborn grandchildren in debt to China for life.

Oops, did Senator Webb forget to mention those little details? Must have slipped his mind.

The great GI Bill debate is a Grand Illusion. For the amount of money in the bill to which the GI AMENDMENT will likely be attached you could provide existing veterans with college money, AND provide every active duty service member in Iraq with approximately $1 million cash. That would be a very unorthodox procedure, but far superior to any being contemplated now. So, do you want to "fund the troops" or do you want to create newly injured veterans and then offer them the chance to take their PTSD to college? Or, if you understand how badly our military needs fewer troops, rather than more, then consider this: For the same amount of money, we could make college free for everyone, all veterans and all non-veterans. Doing so would provide young people not from the overclass with the option of not entering the military unless they really want to.

I would also support a bill to provide unemployment insurance to those who need it.

Congress is likely to insert that legislation, as well, into the so-called "supplemental." The great UI campaign is little more than Unintended Irony. A bill that will wreak havoc on the U.S. economy, even if Bush doesn't take some of the money and bomb Iran with it, is going to include a temporary pittance for some of the people thrown out of work, and the discussion is going to focus on THAT (and on the "GI Bill"). Are you kidding me?

Now, the Democrats will tell you that they have to keep funding the occupation because to do what three-quarters of the country wants them to do would be very dangerous to them with an election coming up. It's only sensible that they should do exactly what we elected them last time to STOP doing, in order to persuade us to elect them to do it next time.

Fine, let's accept that piece of nonsense as gospel truth. Now explain to me why they have to fund the occupation well into the next Congress and the next presidency? Why do that now? Could it possibly be because once the money finally runs out yet another most-important-election-of-our-lifetime will be just a "few months" away in 2010? (Yes, it'll be a year and a half away, but the accepted usage of "a few months" includes 18 months, since congressional and media references to when Bush and Cheney will be leaving office have included "a few months" since mid-2007.)

Well, let's assume there's a resonable explanation that would be acceptable to the Iraqi people suffering hardest under the occupation, since morally they are the ones who would have to accept it to justify it. Let's assume that. Now, can you explain to me why you would use two decent things (veterans' education and unemployment insurance) as cover for a third far larger criminal law, knowing full well that Bush has a habit of selectively erasing portions of bills with "signing statements" or of simply not obeying them even without announcing his criminal intent? What in the world can the point be, unless it is to use veterans and the unemployed as pawns in an extended election campaign at taxpayer expense?

This bears repeating, because many of you reading this will be unable to understand it no matter how many times I say it in plain English: I support GI education funding and unemployment insurance. I support GI education funding and unemployment insurance. I support GI education funding and unemployment insurance. Pass them as bills and I'll cheer. But I do not support them as lipstick AMENDMENTS on genocide, and neither should you.

The Air Force is able to give students a full ride to college. And these students aren't always the top in their class nor the most physically suited for military service without waivers. Why is the Air Force allowed to provide these top benefits to their students, and the other branches can't do the same?

not the DOD. Each service use to have education programs for enlisted men get a college education on the governments dime and become officers. Do not know what these programs look like today or even if they exist anymore

And they aren't always the best of the best. So, why shouldn't the other branches of the military be given the same opportunity to draw in good prospects?

None of the Services will give you a college education after you leave the service. None of them will guarantee you one for enlisting. As I said, each service use to have college education programs for top notch enlisted personnel. It was on the service dime and when completed you became a commissioned officer. That is not a bad deal when you look at it. But the programs always remained reletivly small in comparison to in officer input from the service acadamies or ROTC or OCS

for high school students to get them to enroll in their programs. The Air Force will commit to pay up to 100% of a student's college tuition, a benefit which will cost the taxpayer more than $100,000 per kid, and they get this full ride commitment BEFORE they even begin boot camp. And we're all assuming that these kids are the best of the best. Now, if you say, oh, I know about that program, then we can go on to my next point. We all know that military recruiters are beginning to get the reputation of used car salesmen, and if they are beefing up the resumes of some of these kids to make them look like the best of the best to justify that kind of public investment, I'm just saying this: It's okay by me as long its recognized that the benchmark has been lowered, and if that is understood, then the final conclusion is this: Why can't the Navy and the Army get a chance to offer 100% tuition to students to draw in the best possible recruits since the benchmark has been lowered and the reason for the special treatment for the Air Force no longer exists?

I'm not saying do away with the Air Force's recruitment advantage. I'm saying, expand it to include the other branches of the military.

Navy recruiter’s false promises allegedly snare Kapolei students

Petty Officer 1st Class Jimmy Pecadeso’s tactics have drawn previous complaints

With the U.S. military under pressure to keep producing fresh troops for an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, a few recruiters stretch the truth - or worse - to meet their quotas.

Cory Miyasato and Joseph Mauga Jr., both 18, say they recently found that out the hard way. Days before graduating from Kapolei High School, they say, they were enticed into enlisting with the Navy, lured by false promises from a fast-talking recruiter.

By Susan Essoyan, Honolulu Star Bulletin

Enlist in the Navy now, the recruiter told Cory Miyasato and Joseph Mauga Jr., and get a free, four-year college education before going off to sea.

The two Kapolei High School seniors thought they could believe the talkative Navy recruiter in the spotless white uniform. Mauga wanted to become a naval officer after college. His father is a 20-year Navy veteran and 11 of his uncles have served in the military.

Miyasato, an honor student, also was intrigued. "The full-ride scholarship really interested me," he said. "I am a very trusting person. I thought the U.S. government would be truthful to me."

With the military under pressure to keep producing fresh troops for an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, a few recruiters stretch the truth - or worse - to meet their quotas. Mauga and Miyasato, both 18, say they found that out the hard way.

It wasn't until after the pair enlisted in the Navy's Delayed Entry Program on May 29 that they discovered they would be going off to boot camp and then full-time active duty, scrubbing and painting ships, before earning any college benefits. And it wasn't until their irate parents raised a ruckus that they learned that the recruiter who lured them into enlisting had already run into trouble for his heavy-handed tactics with students.

Kapolei High School Principal Alvin Nagasako told the Star-Bulletin that Petty Officer 1st Class Jimmy Pecadeso had been banned from recruiting on campus for being "overly aggressive" and "doing things that appear not to be ethical. It was told to his supervisor by our counselor not once but multiple times," Nagasako said.

Recruiters are allowed to meet with students at the school only with parental permission and if a counselor is present. In this case, the recruiter tracked down Miyasato off campus after getting his cell-phone number from another student. The seniors were about to graduate from Kapolei High and had already enrolled at local colleges.

Cory's mother, Jayne Arasaki, was skeptical, so she went along on one visit to the recruiting station and heard the same promise from Pecadeso. "He did lie to me," she said. "He said the Navy would pay for four years of college and then Cory would be obligated to serve four years."

Pecadeso did not return a call from the Star-Bulletin, and his supervisor, Petty Officer 1st Class Latasha Kahana, said they were not authorized to speak to the press. But the spokesman for the Navy Recruiting Station Los Angeles, which includes Hawaii, said the case would be investigated.

"Nobody should be railroaded into buying a car, a house, or joining the military under false pretenses by being misled," said Petty Officer 1st Class David McKee, public affairs officer for the district.

"When it comes out that a recruiter has misled an applicant, it reflects poorly on all recruiters and the Navy and the military," he said. "The military does take this seriously. The family can be assured that the recruiter is going to be investigated."

Concern over recruiter tactics prompted a study by the General Accounting Office in 2006 that found claims of recruiter misconduct were on an upswing, although they remained rare. It noted that the military services do not track all allegations and the data likely underestimates the problem.

There were 2,456 claims of recruiter "irregularities" among 22,000 recruiters and nearly 318,000 new enlistees in 2006, according to more recent data from the U.S. State Department. Most involved "concealment, falsification or undue influence." About one in five claims was substantiated.

"I feel my son was railroaded into enlisting for active duty with the Navy," Arasaki said. "The whole process took less than a week. Cory was enticed with money, prestige as an officer, college and other military benefits."

At 5 p.m. the day after she met Pecadeso, the recruiter picked up both boys and whisked them off to spend the night at an airport hotel, courtesy of the Navy, saying they needed to get an early start on medical testing and security clearance at the Military Entrance Processing Station at Pearl Harbor. He promised to have them back by noon.

It was nearly 24 hours before the brought them back, late for graduation practice at 4 p.m. Their worried mothers had been trying to reach them by phone, but their cell phones were confiscated on base as a security measure.

"They were just going to see what they had to offer," Gloria Mauga said. "I did not know my child was going to come back enlisted. They couldn't even call to ask us advice. It's like they kidnapped our sons."

Their contracts noted that they were eligible for the Navy College Fund, and the boys say they thought they were signing up to go to school full time.

At first, the Maugas thought Joseph might have signed up for ROTC, but when they reviewed the contract, they realized he would be entering as an enlisted man at the lowest level. It was 10 p.m., but they immediately jumped up to call Pecadeso on his cell phone to cancel it.

"He said, 'Just don't have him show up (for his ship date) at the end of December, we'll consider it canceled,'" Joseph Mauga Sr. recalled.

Instead, the families are working to get immediate discharges and written assurances that the boys' careers will not be affected. McKee, the Navy spokesman, said the two young men can opt out with no penalty.

"At any point in the Delayed Entry Program, if a person decides that they do not want to join the military, they're not obligated," he said. "We discourage people from just walking away from the process. But before you go to basic training, you are under no obligation to continue."

McKee apologized for any miscommunication, and noted that recruiters may feel time pressure as their monthly deadlines approach. Hawaii recruiters are expected to produce 30 new enlistees for the Navy this month.

"Not everyone who becomes a recruiter is a talented communicator," McKee added. "Some are used to working in an engine room. ... Please don't write the military off completely."

Pecadeso, who has been a recruiter since 2005, joined the military in 1998 and is trained in surface warfare as a gas system turbine technician-electrician.

He told Mauga and Miyasato they could earn higher pay if they recruited a few friends before going off to basic training. Navy regulations do permit bumping a recruit up to the E-3 level from E-1, a $240 difference per month, if they recruit two or more others.

But at this point, neither boy is interested in trying to sign up anyone else.

"Right now, all I want to do is get out of the military and continue my schooling by going to Leeward Community College," Miyasato said.

BY THE NUMBERS
Recruiting for the U.S. Military, 2006
Number of recruiters: 22,000
Number of recruits: 318,000
Claims of misconduct: 2,456
Claims substantiated: 518

Source: "Military Recruiting and Recruiter Irregularities," U.S. Department of State

REPORTING MISCONDUCT
To report Navy recruiter misconduct in Hawaii, contact the recruiter's supervisor or district headquarters:

» Navy Recruiting District Los Angeles
5051 Rodeo Road
Los Angeles, CA 90016
Tel. (800) 252-1588
» For the Army, Air Force or Marines, contact the recruiting district headquarters for that branch of service.

THE AIR FORCE WILL COMMIT TO PAY FOR FOUR YEARS EDUCATION BEFORE THE KID EVER STARTS DAY ONE OF THEIR MILITARY SERVICE. I live in a Republican County, I've seen kids get these commitments and they are in college or an Academy, not in some military camp. Not yet. I'm just saying that, why isn't this benefit being extended to the other branches? What is wrong from what you said about the Naval recruiter, is that they did not pay for the kid's college. I agree, that is wrong. But that isn't the case with the Air Force. Why is there a disparity when, with a little detective work, you can find out that the Air Force has had to bend its requirements too, and the field is getting a little more even as far as quality of recruit is concerned?

continue to have no idea

AF enlistment incitives. I find it difficult to believe that the AF would offer A full college ride to a guy enlisting for four years. did you hear of this from an AF recruiter?

http://www.afrotc.com/scholarships/scholFaq.php

and

http://www.academyadmissions.com/admissions/prepschool/scholarships.php

If someone is really motivated, they can get one without even having to hit a 4.0.

It's ROTC as well as the actual Academy.

services offer ROTC scolarships. All of their programs are pretty much the same. Also, an enlisted member any of the armed services that meets the qualifications can apply for admission to the 4 Service Academies. A certain number of seats in each academy class are reserved for enlisted members of the armed forces that apply, meet the criteria and are accepted.

I'm just saying, why not extend this benefit to most everyone? I don't see where offering it to just a few is helping us, since it is encouraging an elite mentality where we don't need it.

You want to know who will be the first people in a community who will override a weakened government process to ram-rod whatever their little group socially-engineers? Ex-military. Democracy is messy and they just don't have the patience for it. I find that odd, actually. This is not all ex-military, but certainly those who have received leadership training.

Don't you find that odd? Maybe if we don't have such elitism going on in the military, they would adapt better once they retired?

Look at the title of the program ROTC, "Reserve Officer Training Course". The services are trying to fill their requirements for junior officers. These
programs pay a portion of a persons collage education costs in exchange for X number of years as a junior officer in Air Force, Army or Navy/Marine Corp. The objective is not to help us, the objective is to provide educated junior officers at the entry level to support the mission of the armed services. The vast majority of these officers will serve only their initial obligated tour then leave the armed services for civilian life. May not be fair but that is what the Congress of the United States is paying for.