What other reason would RuPaul go after Obummer. Paul is a kook.
Ron Paul is like two people in one: the smart guy and the crazy guy, both struggling for dominance.
I don’t understand “(So let’s surrender)” comment.
But the recent ideas being floated that military retirement and medical care can be whittled down as if we are just dealing with some over-compensated greedy public employees union is insanity.
A hitch in the military is not like filling a staff position in congress or teaching kindergarten.
People without the guts to cut back on bloated bureaucracies and to push back against corrupt labor unions are only too ready to talk about cutting back on the military.
Not understanding R.P's stance on foreign policy is not R.P.'s fault because he has written about it for years.
What other reason would RuPaul go after Obummer. Paul is a kook.
R-U-N Paul was against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq before he was (now) for these wars, apparently!
“The Pentagon has also said that current retirees would be grandfathered in to the program, and would not face proposed cuts to military pension programs.”
In other words, the program changes do not violate promises to veterans who have already retired, who have already been using and relying on the programs as they are today. Their “cost” will be as they were told it would be when THEY retired.
Additionally, if a veteran is also a person of “low income” they are as eligible as all other low-income Americans to all the other programs of income and health care assistance supported by the Federal and state governments. Why the entire tax-payer support burden for such individuals should be presumed to be the sole financial obligation of the Pentagon does not make sense. (If Pentagon changes raise a particular retiree’s out-of-pocket cost for health care but their income level makes them eligible for other programs outside the purview of the Pentagon.)
The retired veterans who will come under the program changes are veterans who on active duty have earned more than their peers in past generations as well. The operational adoption of more and more technology by the military has also made more career active duty personnel today more equipped than their peers of earlier generations to assume productive lives in the private economy.
The military should honor promises made and legitimate obligations to its retired vets. That concept does not presume we cannot change our promises to future retired veterans.
One hundred percent of those promises and obligations should not be required to completely ignore the incomes and the level of need of those eligible for veterans programs. Such considerations can make the benefit dollars go further and help insure that funding levels are most supportive where the need is the greatest.
This is already true for veterans who do not have Tri Care coverage because they were not “lifers”. They can be eligible for health care from the veterans administration, if they need it, but their co-pays for specific benefits can be different, depending on their income. The “promise” of eligibility is not denied. The level of benefit is not different. But the level of financial need is considered when it comes to some co-pays. I have no problem with this policy. I would have no problem with similar considerations for future retired veterans in the Tri-Care program.
All someone needs to do is look at the ballooning portion of the Pentagons budget being consumed by health care benefits.
The link below is not current, but the trend it reported then has not changed.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/military_health_care/index.htm
I understand Mr Paul reaching for veterans support after trashing all the missions recent veterans have put their lives on the line to support.