Bush, Republicans losing support of retired veterans

Knight Ridder ^ | 07-28-03

[Brian S]

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - President Bush and his Republican Party are facing a political backlash from an unlikely group - retired veterans.

Normally Republican, many retired veterans are mad that Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress are blocking remedies to two problems with health and pension benefits. They say they feel particularly betrayed by Bush, who appealed to them in his 2000 campaign, and who vowed on the eve of his inauguration that "promises made to our veterans will be promises kept."

"He pats us on the back with his speeches and stabs us in the back with his actions," said Charles A. Carter of Shawnee, Okla., a retired Navy senior chief petty officer. "I will vote non-Republican in a heart beat if it continues as is."

"I feel betrayed," said Raymond C. Oden Jr., a retired Air Force Chief Master Sergeant now living in Abilene, Texas.

Many veterans say they will not vote for Bush or any Republican in 2004 and are considering voting for a Democrat for the first time. Others say they will sit out the election, angry with Bush and Republicans but unwilling to support Democrats, whom they say are no better at keeping promises to veterans. Some say they will still support Bush and his party despite their ire.

While there are no recent polls to measure veterans' political leanings, any significant erosion of support for Bush and Republicans could hurt in a close election. It could be particularly troublesome in states such as Florida that are politically divided and crowded with military retirees.

Registered Republican James Cook, who retired to Fort Walton Beach, Fla., after 24 years in the Air Force, said he is abandoning a party that he said abandoned him. "Bush is a liar," he said. "The Republicans in Congress, with very few exceptions, are gutless party lapdogs who listen to what puts money in their own pockets or what will get them re-elected."

Veterans have two gripes.

One is a longstanding complaint that some disabled vets, in effect, have to pay their own disability benefits out of their retirement pay through a law they call the Disabled Veterans Tax.

Since 1891, anyone retiring after a full military career has had their retirement pay reduced dollar for dollar for any Veterans Administration checks they get for a permanent service-related disability. However, a veteran who served a two-or-four-year tour does not have a similar reduction in Social Security or private pension.

A majority of members of Congress, from both parties, wants to change the law. A House proposal by Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga., has 345 co-sponsors.

But it would cost as much as $5 billion a year to expand payments to 670,000 disabled veterans, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld earlier this month told lawmakers that the president would veto any bill including the change.

The proposal is stuck in committee. A recent effort to bring it to the full House of Representatives failed, in part because only one Republican signed the petition.

"The cost is exorbitant. And we are dealing with a limited budget," said Harald Stavenas, a spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee.

The second complaint is over medical care. After decades of promising free medical care for life to anyone who served for 20 years, the government in the 1990s abandoned the promise in favor of a new system called Tricare. The Tricare system provides medical care, but requires veterans to pay a deductible and does not cover dental, hearing or vision care.

A group of military retirees challenged the government in a class-action lawsuit, won a first round, then were seriously disappointed when Bush allowed the government to appeal. Government won the next legal round.

"I voted for the president because of the promises," said Floyd Sears, a retired Air Force master sergeant in Biloxi, Miss. "But as far as I can tell, he has done nothing. In fact, his actions have been detrimental to the veterans and retired veterans. I'm very disappointed about the broken promise on medical care."

Stavenas said House and Senate negotiators were working this week on proposals to address the veterans' two specific complaints. He added that Congress has increased spending for veterans' benefits, including a 5 percent increase next year for the Veterans Health Administration.

Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said: "The Bush administration and the Republican Congress have taken and will continue to take steps to enhance benefits for our veterans."

Not all military retirees will vote against Republicans, of course. Some, like retired Air Force Lt. Col. Gene DiBartolo of Tampa, will vote for Bush again gladly.

Though he believes his fellow veterans have a just complaint, he said the government simply cannot "do everything."

As for Bush, he said, "he has restored honor and dignity to this nation ...

"It would take a lot more than this issue to dissuade me from my support of this man."

[VRWC_minion]

Typical editorial masked as a news story. At least do a statistical poll instead of calling up one disgruntled guy and calling him "many".

Who is this guy "many" anyways ? Does he have a last name ?

[taxcontrol]

GW,

Got to tell you man, piss off the Base and you will LOSE the election as their support evaporates. The next election will be TIGHT. Partly because the Democrats feel they were cheated out of an election. The will muster every single member of there base AND try to convince Republicans to stay home. Let's not help them in that effort OK?

[Rodney King]

Looks like Knight Ridder got a fax from the DNC.

[BellStar]

Some NonCom!

[Fred Mertz]

But it would cost as much as $5 billion a year to expand payments to 670,000 disabled veterans, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld earlier this month told lawmakers that the president would veto any bill including the change.

This Rummy guy is a major part of the problem.

I haven't paid a dime to Tricare and don't plan to either. I'll just die young.

[Uncle George]

The money is running low at the DNC, so I guess these "fantasy" editorials designed as news will someday fade out. This commie bunch knows no bounds.

[GB]

I agree fully with you, but the conventional wisdom around here seems to be that on July 28, 2003, G.W. has an easy victory in 2004 already in the bag, and anything that might indicate otherwise or cause someone to say "hold on there" comes from a DNC or DU fax.

Guys, I know about this one, because my father-in-law was a 30-year man in the service, and is so conservative he makes me look like Noam Chomsky ... but he's extraordinarily PO'd about stuff like this, although he isn't threatening to vote Dem or stay home just yet. And one can make the argument that such folks shouldn't have the level of expectations that they do about what the government owes them for their service, but the fact of life is that they DO have those expectations and that isn't likely to change without a fight.

[harpu]

"many' is a fictional class of people created by the lamestream media to work on getting W. defeated in 2004.

I'm a Vet, and I'm retired, and I know 'many' who are in mys status and we all realize that this story and others like it are nothing more than BS.

NO one in their right mind believes the democraps (and moderate RINOs) would or could do any better than W. has committed to do for us.

George W. Bush in 2004

[VRWC_minion]

I know 'many'

Which branch did he serve in ?

[McGavin999]

Got to tell you man, piss off the Base and you will LOSE the election as their support evaporates.

Got to tell YOU man, if the base is so selfish they'll get pissed off over something like this, I'm sure President Bush would just as soon go home to his ranch at Crawford instead of sacrificing the best years of his life to solve the biggest problems this country has ever faced. Why should he give up so much to serve people who will sell their vote so cheaply?

[BenR2]

Okay. So, help me here: President Bush gives Teddy Kennedy a Christmas Tree Education Bill, but he won't give up a lousy $5 Billion a year to give retired veterans the same disability coverage that, say, retired Department of the Interior workers receive?

Either GWB or Karl (Marx) Rove are growing stupider by the day -- or, are we simply starting to see their true (pink) colors? (You know: CFR, AWB extension, etc, etc.)

[jmaroneps37]

Stuff like this could seriously threaten the 50 state sweep. I don't like this.

[BenR2]

After all of this crap I'm only going to vote for W in '04 if Hillary runs.

////////////
Why? Hillary would be the best thing for the Conservatives in this country! She would galvanize opposition like you have never seen it.

[BenR2]

But it would cost as much as $5 billion a year to expand payments to 670,000 disabled veterans, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld earlier this month told lawmakers that the president would veto any bill including the change.

This Rummy guy is a major part of the problem.

I haven't paid a dime to Tricare and don't plan to either. I'll just die young.

////////////
Disagree. Don't blame the messenger.

The buck stops at GWB's desk, dammit, and he is HABITUALLY trying to wriggle out of the blame (it was the CIA's fault, etc).

To think that GWB -- who has not vetoed a SINGLE bill, yet, in his entire term -- would threaten to veto a bill that takes care of our retired military says a great deal to me about his total cluelessness (or, is it simply callous disregard?) of the Conservative voting base that pulled his chestnuts out of the fire in the 2000 election.

I am disgusted with Skull-and-Bonehead Bush.

[mabelkitty]

Not true. They got a $3 bil increase. It's the fact the Vet's spending is tied in to Housing that is so screwed up. They vote on it, and HUD, and Americorps in the same package. Americorp shouldn't even exist!

One tool from Mass (Mackey) wanted to divert $114 Million from NASA's budget to his EPA Superfund (HELLO! corruption!!). This guy should be called on the carpet!!

[mabelkitty]

Why would it cost $5 BILLION for less than a million retired vets? That's insane!

[ex-snook]

As politicians doublespeak, "Nothing" is too good for our veterans and those who serve (and we will make sure that is what they get).