“If you went to war for the U.S. before World War II, you were left to your own devices for education, housing and job training when you returned to civilian life. It wasn’t exactly easy, because college and homeownership weren’t attainable dreams for the average American at the time,” the U.S. Department of Defense wrote in “75 Years of the GI Bill: How Transformative It’s Been,” (written in 2019).

Yep, “transformative,” for the whole country.

I was looking into the GI Bill after I got to wondering about precisely for which era a certain political segment is yearning when it appears to want to go backward to a time during which those people believe America was “great.” (But isn’t now?) I could be wrong, but I think I’ve settled on approximately the Eisenhower administration — 1953 to 1961. They were years during which many of the loudest among that bunch would have been young and impressionable — and part of thriving, relatively prosperous families. They were years before much-needed upheaval that still seems to aggravate a few of them.

And, frankly, if you ask some of them what they’re searching for, they’ll flat out tell you “Mayberry.” The “Andy Griffith Show” first aired in 1960.

Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower was in office during one of the country’s most economically prosperous and fast-growing decades. Personal income increased by an astounding 45% during his terms. People living in a time of economic prosperity have hope. Many of them are comfortable and content. Of course those who were children during that era believe it was “great.”

But how did Americans get to that point? Many economic historians believe the GI Bill deserves much of the credit.

From 1944 to 1956, the bill gave approximately 16 million people “federal aid to help veterans buy homes, get jobs and pursue an education, and in general helped them to adjust to civilian life again,” according to the Defense Department.

Approximately 8 million of them took advantage of the ability to finish their high school diploma, get a college degree or receive specialized training. That’s 8 million people who became better educated and trained. That alone might have made a difference in our economic trajectory. But those 16 million — more than 10% of the country’s population at the time also had easier access to home mortgages or business loans, they had access to counseling, and a living allowance too. And, in 1946, Gen. Omar Bradley led the Department of Veterans Affairs during the establishment of the VA’s Department of Medicine and Surgery and several other programs that brought VA clinics (at the time) up to speed with private facilities.

So these people, for whom no such opportunities had been available in 1943, now had education, healthcare, programmatic support and much easier access to home and business loans. (Well, most of them. The socio-cultural standards of the time were still in place, and neither Black nor female veterans had any easier time getting a loan.)

They got all these things, it must be said, on the taxpayers’ dime. By the time the original program expired in 1956, the education and training program alone had disbursed $14.5 billion (yes, with a B, in 1956). The estimate for the face value of the home loan program during that time is $33 billion.

And with all those prosperous veterans buying cars and having enough money to travel for leisure with their families, Eisenhower oversaw the launch of construction of the Interstate Highway System for $144 billion in 1956. That was another “great” leap forward for the country, driven by the prosperity the GI Bill fueled.

The late President George H.W. Bush talked about the impact the legislation had on the country. “The GI Bill changed the lives of millions by replacing old roadblocks with paths of opportunity,” he said.

And Americans paid for it.

I can hear some of you screaming, “But those people were willing to fight and die for their country!!”

I know. I’m not arguing that with you. You’re right. And thank God for them.

My point is not the reason the money was given, but the effect that money and those opportunities had on the country as a whole. It was an effect so “great” that the desire to return to that era has gripped an entire segment of the population. It was “transformative.”

How many young people once again feel as though they have been “left to (their) own devices for education, housing and job training,” and that such things aren’t “attainable dreams” for them, either? Yet many of those whose youths were so idyllic because of the GI Bill are the very same who are insisting those old roadblocks remain back in place.

I understand I’m not talking apples to apples, and I understand some of the objections to modern spending efforts, I really do.

It’s hard to deny, though, that the change America needs must be “transformative.” Research for your self how much the original GI Bill is credited with doing for this country. At the very least, it is food for thought.

Christina Myer is executive editor of The Parkersburg News and Sentinel. She can be reached via e-mail at cmyer@newsandsentinel.com