In researching, I have found what appears to be a discrepancy regarding the old Montgomery G.I. Bill and an alleged "yearly maximum" payment.
Check out these links that favored the legislation for the new G.I. Bill :
http://www.gibill2008.org/sidebyside.htm...
(look at item called "average value of benefit for 2009", with a footnote of [ v ].
Then, there is this website:
http://www.newgibill.org/facts-legislati...
...which states, "The maximum yearly benefit available through the current GI Bill (to active duty veterans) is $9,675 or $38,700 over 4 years".
Keep in mind that this is based off of a fulltime rate of $1,100 monthly. This obviously accounts for only 9 months worth of fulltime G.I. Bill payments a year- there is no other way to interpret this data.
I have been up and down and back and forth with the VA, and was specifically told that the yearly maximum is a full 12 months' worth of fulltime G.I. Bill payments. If I go to school all year (including the summer), I still get paid for it. There is no official yearly maximum that cuts short of 12 months of benefits, as these pro-new G.I. Bill websites have implied.
Of course I am not against a new G.I. Bill- I am even benefiting greatly from an increase in pay to the old Montgomery G.I. Bill, which was attached to the legislation for the new Bill.
I, however, do not appreciate propaganda, in this case lies and/or exaggerations, to play on the heart strings of the general public, which made people like McCain (who supported a different version of a new Bill) look like heartless villains. McCain supported more of a "longer service/more benefits" kind of Bill, which gave a flat, higher benefit to ALL, but even higher to those serving longer. I liked McCain's plan more, being a vet who served multiple enlistments.
Do you also feel these discrepancies were propaganda-based? Did YOU ever encounter a yearly max to your benefits that stopped you short of 12 months of fulltime benefits?
Tags: