Editorials

A few weeks ago, this page noted the anniversary of the post-World War II passage of the GI Bill, one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation ever to come out of Congress.

The timing of that editorial was ironic, since in Washington leaders were again debating a GI Bill which, while not as sweeping as its predecessor, may have effects almost as historic.

Among the provisions of the so-called 21st-century GI Bill are handsome incentives designed to attract bright recruits who will see military service as a way to get a cost-free education at almost any university.

Although the various branches of the service have been meeting their recruiting goals in recent years, the quality of new recruits has declined. Since 2000, the percentage of recruits who are high school graduates has dropped from 91 percent to 83 percent. Entrance-test scores also are down.

To turn this around, the new GI Bill would offer tuition and fees at state-run colleges to any member of the military who has served three years of active duty since 9/11, along with a monthly living allowance plus money for books and supplies. Provisions were also included to allow private colleges and universities to take part if they waive a portion of their tuition.

However, there was opposition to the plan.

Many in the Pentagon felt recruits would come in, serve and be gone — a turnover that would destabilize parts of the military that needed stability.

Some felt the plan was too generous and would threaten the concept of the all-volunteer Army. Some did not like the idea of what they felt represented bribing people to serve. Others still chafed at the cost. None were persuasive.

With an unpopular war raging and scandals over the treatment of veterans being uncovered, this was not a time to oppose such a measure.

When a "transferability" provision was added that would encourage recruits to stay in the military four more years — so unused portions of their education benefits could be transferred to their spouse or children — the Pentagon's opposition faded.

Meanwhile, President Bush, who had threatened to veto the legislation because it was too expensive, reversed his position; when it passed overwhelmingly, he signed it into law.

Sen. Barack Obama took a break from campaigning to return and vote for the bill. Sen. John McCain, who had philosophical problems with the measure, stayed away. Because the two candidates responded differently, it will likely come up again during the coming campaign flurry.

However, since it is now law — and goes into effect Aug. 1, 2009 — it would be wise for young people considering the military as a career, or at the very least as a starting point after graduation, to look closely at what the new GI Bill provides.

At the same time, colleges and universities should get ready for an influx of new students — not as great as the one that occurred after World War II, but potentially just as significant.