Republicans want to increase tax on new military recruits

[RandomGuy]

http://taskandpurpose.com/exclusive-gi-bill-reform-memorial-day/

"Since March, the House Committee on Veterans Affairs has solicited input from veterans groups — but just a few of them — and quietly scheduled a subcommittee hearing on the GI Bill proposals for 10 am on April 26, even though that hearing has not yet been posted on the House calendar or the committee’s web page.

“The hearing was announced when everyone was gone,” a Democratic staffer for the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, who requested anonymity to speak about internal matters, told T&P. “Our members aren’t here, they’re in their districts.” That means the congressional panel that will mark up the GI Bill won’t have much time to prepare for the process.

“It was hastily and quietly put together,” the staffer said, adding that the committee wants “to go fast, even though we all have questions.”

...

For those proposals and more, there’s plenty of support among vets groups. But “closing loopholes costs money,” one representative of a major VSO said, and GI Bill 3.0’s funding mechanism is a stumbling block for many advocates. The current draft bill would double the optional GI Bill buy-in for new enlistees to $2,400, in $100-a-month increments, starting in 2018.

“The idea of charging young service members rubs a lot of people the wrong way,” the VSO representative said. “The government is asking a lot more of them than just their service.”

“The concern is, what happens down the line, when the sea of goodwill is no longer present. What do we do?”

In fact, that’s a big chunk of a junior enlisted service member’s base pay — and future vets are already paying out of their salaries for dependent health care and new “blended” retirement benefits. “You know E-1s make nothing,” one VSO representative told T&P, “in addition to paying for Tricare and a 401(k).”


----------------------------

Kind of hard to recruit when you start cutting benefits...

[TSA]

No point in responding if you plan on going fetal position in the cave for another month. You going to stick around this time?

[TeyshaBlue]

You know, when you read the entire article, the tone changes somewhat.

[Th'Pusher]

It'll be interesting to see if Donald can get these bi-partisan yet relatively minimally impactful bills passed just to show some sort of legislative accomplishment.

I realize it's early, but Donald has been wildly ineffective when it comes to moving any sort of legislation considering republicans own the house and senate.

[TeyshaBlue]

Agreed.

[RandomGuy]

No point in responding if you plan on going fetal position in the cave for another month. You going to stick around this time?

I dunno, you ever going to address Trumps conflicts of interest?

[TSA]

I dunno, you ever going to address Trumps conflicts of interest?

As on as you start presenting articles accurately and stop the selective editing to misrepresent what was actually said

============

Not all veterans groups agree that the new charge to GIs would be a bad thing, however. Student Veterans of America conducted extensive research into how veterans use their educational benefits, and believes that making service members pay into the program increases the likelihood that they’ll use it — and defend it against potential future cuts.

“For the amount that individuals would be paying in, this is a no-brainer,” SVA’s Hubbard said. “It’s actually lower, by inflation,” than the buy-in that Montgomery GI Bill recipients had to pay. “And it creates an offset to reinvest in the program” — $300 million a year, according to scoring of the bill. With the service member’s paycheck contribution, he said, “We can keep this around almost indefinitely.”
‘It’s all well-intended.’

Despite the discomfort some VSOs feel toward the pay provision and the congressional calendar, few oppose GI Bill 3.0 at this point — they’re simply calling for more inclusion in the deliberations. “It’s all well-intended and we’re glad HVAC is addressing it,” a major VSO representative told T&P, but “the way they came to it doesn’t work.”

That advocate, and others, said they would like more hearings and roundtables for members of Congress to hear from a variety of stakeholders. “The members need to be brought in” for far-ranging conversations, the Democratic House staffer said, “including with the House Armed Services Committee, think tanks, and VSOs.”

“We want to make sure discussions around this issue are responsible and held in a nonpartisan way,” one VSO rep told T&P.

But advocates say there should be some urgency to codifying new benefits — and making it harder for a future Congress to roll back some of the Post-9/11 GI Bill’s expensive promises to service members. “The concern is, what happens down the line, when the sea of goodwill is no longer present,” SVA’s Hubbard said. “What do we do?”

The answer, he said, should be to convince lawmakers to “see that program continue not as an era-related benefit,” tied to this war or that, but as an inviolable contract with vets for all time: “The return on investment here is incredible.”

That should leave congressional leaders confident that a consensus on reform is possible, as long as the discussion is broad and deliberate.

“None of us wants a big fight to stand in the way of big changes” to the GI Bill, the Democratic staffer said. “Everybody talks about it as one of the greatest government programs.” So far, that consensus isn’t changing.

http://taskandpurpose.com/exclusive-gi-bill-reform-memorial-day/

[RandomGuy]

As on as you start presenting articles accurately and stop the selective editing to misrepresent what was actually said

============

Not all veterans groups agree that the new charge to GIs would be a bad thing, however. Student Veterans of America conducted extensive research into how veterans use their educational benefits, and believes that making service members pay into the program increases the likelihood that they’ll use it — and defend it against potential future cuts.

“For the amount that individuals would be paying in, this is a no-brainer,” SVA’s Hubbard said. “It’s actually lower, by inflation,” than the buy-in that Montgomery GI Bill recipients had to pay. “And it creates an offset to reinvest in the program” — $300 million a year, according to scoring of the bill. With the service member’s paycheck contribution, he said, “We can keep this around almost indefinitely.”
‘It’s all well-intended.’

Despite the discomfort some VSOs feel toward the pay provision and the congressional calendar, few oppose GI Bill 3.0 at this point — they’re simply calling for more inclusion in the deliberations. “It’s all well-intended and we’re glad HVAC is addressing it,” a major VSO representative told T&P, but “the way they came to it doesn’t work.”

That advocate, and others, said they would like more hearings and roundtables for members of Congress to hear from a variety of stakeholders. “The members need to be brought in” for far-ranging conversations, the Democratic House staffer said, “including with the House Armed Services Committee, think tanks, and VSOs.”

“We want to make sure discussions around this issue are responsible and held in a nonpartisan way,” one VSO rep told T&P.

But advocates say there should be some urgency to codifying new benefits — and making it harder for a future Congress to roll back some of the Post-9/11 GI Bill’s expensive promises to service members. “The concern is, what happens down the line, when the sea of goodwill is no longer present,” SVA’s Hubbard said. “What do we do?”

The answer, he said, should be to convince lawmakers to “see that program continue not as an era-related benefit,” tied to this war or that, but as an inviolable contract with vets for all time: “The return on investment here is incredible.”

That should leave congressional leaders confident that a consensus on reform is possible, as long as the discussion is broad and deliberate.

“None of us wants a big fight to stand in the way of big changes” to the GI Bill, the Democratic staffer said. “Everybody talks about it as one of the greatest government programs.” So far, that consensus isn’t changing.

http://taskandpurpose.com/exclusive-gi-bill-reform-memorial-day/

Dang you have a chickenshit excuse for anything bad a Republican does,

An E1 makes, before taxes, 1400/month, and you fucking want them to pay 28% of that? Really? Really? So that some rich draft dodging piece of shit can get a tax break?

Is it moral to shift the costs of the GI Bill to someone who will be forking over 20% of their net income for it?

[RandomGuy]

As on as you start presenting articles accurately and stop the selective editing to misrepresent what was actually said

http://taskandpurpose.com/exclusive-gi-bill-reform-memorial-day/

‘The hearing was announced when everyone was gone.’

Since March, the House Committee on Veterans Affairs has solicited input from veterans groups — but just a few of them — and quietly scheduled a subcommittee hearing on the GI Bill proposals for 10 am on April 26, even though that hearing has not yet been posted on the House calendar or the committee’s web page.

“The hearing was announced when everyone was gone,” a Democratic staffer for the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, who requested anonymity to speak about internal matters, told T&P. “Our members aren’t here, they’re in their districts.” That means the congressional panel that will mark up the GI Bill won’t have much time to prepare for the process.

“It was hastily and quietly put together,” the staffer said, adding that the committee wants “to go fast, even though we all have questions.”

Sources say the Republican leadership is soliciting comments for the record from a variety of groups for the April 26 hearing, but the only invited speakers are from organizations expected to support a final revamped GI Bill.

Dishonest piece of shit Republicans knew exactly what they were doing.

[TSA]

Dang you have a chickenshit excuse for anything bad a Republican does,

An E1 makes, before taxes, 1400/month, and you fucking want them to pay 28% of that? Really? Really? So that some rich draft dodging piece of shit can get a tax break?

Is it moral to shift the costs of the GI Bill to someone who will be forking over 20% of their net income for it?

“For the amount that individuals would be paying in, this is a no-brainer,” SVA’s Hubbard said. “It’s actually lower, by inflation,” than the buy-in that Montgomery GI Bill recipients had to pay. “And it creates an offset to reinvest in the program” — $300 million a year, according to scoring of the bill. With the service member’s paycheck contribution, he said, “We can keep this around almost indefinitely.”

[RandomGuy]

Dang you have a chickenshit excuse for anything bad a Republican does,

An E1 makes, before taxes, 1400/month, and you fucking want them to pay 28% of that? Really? Really? So that some rich draft dodging piece of shit can get a tax break?

Is it moral to shift the costs of the GI Bill to someone who will be forking over 20% of their net income for it?



“For the amount that individuals would be paying in, this is a no-brainer,” SVA’s Hubbard said. “It’s actually lower, by inflation,” than the buy-in that Montgomery GI Bill recipients had to pay. “And it creates an offset to reinvest in the program” — $300 million a year, according to scoring of the bill. With the service member’s paycheck contribution, he said, “We can keep this around almost indefinitely.”


Not what I asked sophist. I will readily accede it is a good investment.



Is it moral to shift the costs of the GI Bill to someone who will be forking over 20% of their net income for it?

[TSA]

Don't like the terms don't sign up to serve.

[DMC]

http://taskandpurpose.com/exclusive-gi-bill-reform-memorial-day/

"Since March, the House Committee on Veterans Affairs has solicited input from veterans groups — but just a few of them — and quietly scheduled a subcommittee hearing on the GI Bill proposals for 10 am on April 26, even though that hearing has not yet been posted on the House calendar or the committee’s web page.

“The hearing was announced when everyone was gone,” a Democratic staffer for the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, who requested anonymity to speak about internal matters, told T&P. “Our members aren’t here, they’re in their districts.” That means the congressional panel that will mark up the GI Bill won’t have much time to prepare for the process.

“It was hastily and quietly put together,” the staffer said, adding that the committee wants “to go fast, even though we all have questions.”

...

For those proposals and more, there’s plenty of support among vets groups. But “closing loopholes costs money,” one representative of a major VSO said, and GI Bill 3.0’s funding mechanism is a stumbling block for many advocates. The current draft bill would double the optional GI Bill buy-in for new enlistees to $2,400, in $100-a-month increments, starting in 2018.

“The idea of charging young service members rubs a lot of people the wrong way,” the VSO representative said. “The government is asking a lot more of them than just their service.”

“The concern is, what happens down the line, when the sea of goodwill is no longer present. What do we do?”

In fact, that’s a big chunk of a junior enlisted service member’s base pay — and future vets are already paying out of their salaries for dependent health care and new “blended” retirement benefits. “You know E-1s make nothing,” one VSO representative told T&P, “in addition to paying for Tricare and a 401(k).”


----------------------------

Kind of hard to recruit when you start cutting benefits...

So now you're concerned about the military.

[RandomGuy]

Don't like the terms don't sign up to serve.


There have been various versions through the years. Although I don't know everyone in this thread I think the overarching theme is that the G.I. Bill is an recruiting incentive. It is at present a moderately priced investment for those whom choose or have chosen to participate. That it is in jeopardy given that which we "the nation" ask of our service men and women is a rather pathetic means to "save" money by our government.

On a personal note, as a 20 year veteran and retiree I find the characterization of the benefits and or entitlements I receive as "hand outs" offensive at best. It is absolutely galling at times. I actually thought I was earning what now seems to be nickeled and dimed away by men and women that sent us to war but now feel no obligation to honor the agreements made with service men and women for their faithful and honorable service.

[RandomGuy]

Don't like the terms don't sign up to serve.

Chicken.

Shit.

Astounding to see the lengths to which you will make excuses for Republicans who do shitty things.

Nickel and Dime recruits... and you get the military you pay for.