<p>I would like to ask you a favor in getting the word out to the military community regarding an important change to Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits that may adversely affect military families. Under the initial version, active duty members and their spouses were entitled to 100% tuition and fee reimbursement regardless of whether he or she attended a public or private institution. The latest revision which was just signed into law limits private education benefits to $17,500 per year effective August 1st, 2011. In effect, if anyone enrolled in a private institution that exceeds this cap will now have to pay the difference out of pocket. While this is intended to save the government money, it has no grandfather clause which drastically impacts people who were using their entitlements as allowed by the VA. </p>
<p>I think we're all in agreement that the government needs to save money, but pulling the rug out from under people who already made educational and financial commitments based on existing entitlements is just wrong. What's next? Will the government just change the law to change your retirement benefits? Will the government change your other VA benefits such as disability and health entitlements just when our military personnel need them most? Soon the entitlements we paid for in blood wont be worth the water used to wash them away.</p>
<p>I encourage you all to write to your Senators and Congressmen to get a grandfather clause added to the current legislation of the Post 9/11 GI Bill. Thanks for the help.</p>
<p>The short answer is absolutely, yes. And painful as it is, our reps. MUST commence doing so. Higher education has so many options these days, and increasing flexibility. I’m fully in favor of the tough choices our legislators are beginning to make. </p>
<p>Stop and consider this benefit promised. Does it make any sense? Sure, as long as it’s all paid for with someone elses $$$. If there is any outrage or disappointment, it should be directed at the lawmakers who decided that votes could be had by paying for Sargent Bilko’s wife’s decision to go to Radcliffe …or Agnes Scott. Now, there are only approximately 5,000 institutions of higher learning, with now nearly 90% of students attending public (lower price) places. Are we supposed to be persuaded this merits some kind of outrage, simply because there are no longer funds to enable attending Harvard in lieu of Long Beach State???</p>
<p>Wow, this one strikes me as a classic silly and ridiculous entitlement intended to purchase favor and power …with the monies of others. It all works …until the monies run out. And they have. </p>
<p>Please tell us this is not one of the president’s “skin in the game” so-called sacrifices?!!! I trust the OP meant well, but this kind of gooey mush must stop. Now, if the gov’t. ceases to provide payment for my new GM-gov’t manufactured Cadillac? Now that’d be a crime.</p>
<p>WP - I can see your point, but let me ask you something. Place yourself in the shoes of someone who has already made educational commitments to a private school based on earned entitlements. For the sake of argument, lets say you’re an officer stationed in the DC area. There’s a ton of private schools in the DC area, but how many public schools are there? There’s University of Maryland, which if you live in the district, you don’t qualify for in state tuition. There’s University of DC, which is a piece of crap school. So instead you go to George Washington, or Georgetown, or American University, or Catholic University because those are good schools. So now you’ve been in school for a year and the government says “Despite the fact that we said you could have your tuition covered, we’re changing our minds. Now you have to pay out of pocket or withdraw from school.” So now what do you do? You already made educational commitments and financial commitments based on your entitlements.</p>
<p>Lets take another scenario - you’re an active duty member and your wife wants to get a degree. You move every 2-3 years because the government tells you to and she has to go to an online school because going to a local school is infeasible. You research the GI bill and again, it says you’re covered so you sign up. Now the government pulls the rug from under you again. What do you do?</p>
<p>My point is this - when the government provides you an entitlement, it is something you are entitled to. You make commitments based on what you’re entitled to. It’s not like you signed for a mortgage you couldnt afford, or loaded up your credit card with stuff you can’t pay off, you signed up for education based on what you can afford with the government backed assistance. It’s not like you consciously intended to go to the most expensive school and stick it to the taxpayer, you just went to a school with tuition higher than $17,500 a year. There’s even a lot of state schools that cost more than that. UMass Amhearst for one, I can name a few others as well. </p>
<p>Now lets take a different scenario - you’re an injured Marine with 70% disability. You depend on your VA entitlements to put a roof over your head because you just got out of the military and can’t find work. Now the government says “Sorry, we’re going to only pay you at the 20% rate.” How’s this any different? Your entitlements are your entitlements, they are earned, it is NOT free money, and they should be fought for. </p>
<p>I’m not saying lets keep the benefits the same for everyone forever, I’m saying that there’s people out there who were granted something and without a grandfather clause in the current legislation, it’s being taken away. The non PC term for this is Indian Giving. Is that acceptable treatment for our servicemembers? The last time I checked, the soldier who dies on the battlefield can’t take that back.</p>
<p>Under the initial version, active duty members and their spouses were entitled to 100% tuition and fee reimbursement regardless of whether he or she attended a public or private institution.>></p>
<p>This is not correct. The current version pays for tuition and fees UP TO the cap for that state, which is based on the highest rate for a PUBLIC institution in that state. If tuition/fees for a private institution were above that state cap, the VA’s Yellow Ribbon program might or might not cover the difference, depending on the school. </p>
<p>The problem was the wide variance of the amount covered - several states had a specialized program or two that resulted in artifically high rates for those states, rates that did end up covering private school tuition. That was never the intent of the program and the change to a nationwide cap was made to close that loophole. The change takes place Aug. 1.</p>
<p>I do agree that current students should have been grandfathered in. If DD had gone to her second choice school in Texas, her tuition would have no longer been fully covered after this year.</p>
<p>Under the initial version, active duty members and their spouses were entitled to 100% tuition and fee reimbursement regardless of whether he or she attended a public or private institution.>></p>
<p>This is not correct. The current version pays for tuition and fees UP TO the cap for that state, which is based on the highest rate for a PUBLIC institution in that state. If tuition/fees for a private institution were above that state cap, the VA’s Yellow Ribbon program might or might not cover the difference, depending on the school. </p>
<p>Sorry - but I’ve done a lot of research on this, and this is in fact correct. Active duty and spouses qualified for 100% tuition and fees regardless of school type and without a maximum in state rate. Non active duty qualified for the maximum in state rate and also received a housing allowance (for non online schools) and a book allowance which active duty doesn’t receive.</p>
<p>“Note: Active duty members receive 100% tuition and fees of whatever school they attend, but do not receive the housing allowance or books and supplies stipend.”</p>
<p>Active duty indicates people currently serving on active duty, not veterans from active duty that are most often listed on the VA’s website.</p>
<p>Active duty means the service member, not the spouse. Spouses are dependents and fall under the state by state cap, as do eligible children. And they were not eligible until Aug 2009 when the bill took effect and began allowing transfer of benefits. Active duty spouses cannot receive the housing or book benefit at the current time, but children can. </p>
<p>The service member gets 100%; spouses get the cap. Your school may cover the difference for spouses, but the bill itself does not.</p>
<p>Everyone already in school should have been grandfathered though.</p>