Posted on 07/28/2003 7:32:04 AM PDT by 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."
Try not to let those who are uncivil affect your core beliefs. You and I might not agree on all that much, but I've fallen into similar traps in the past.
Most recently, it had to do with the Lawrence v. Texas decision. I have had many run-ins with the vocal FR anti-gay crowd in the past, and am still baffled over their obsession with homosexuality to this day. In fact, the reason I don't recommend everybody I know to FR is because of this vocal minority.
Because of this, when the Lawrence v. Texas decision came down, I fell into the trap of going onto the threads discussing it and gloating about the result. It was only after reflecting on it for a while that I realized that as a small-l libertarian, this ruling was a terrible blow to states rights, and a really crummy decision overall, despite my indifference to people's sexuality. Therefore, as hard as it was, I was forced to argue along side my "enemies" in opposition to the ruling.
I suppose my point is stick with what you believe in, and don't change your core beliefs just to be contrary to those you greatly disagree with.
Did my little rant make any sense? :-)
Now if you'll please excuse me, this is getting silly.
And I didn't say that she WAS a gorebot. All I said is that she is confused, and that 'supports the gorebot theory.' There's a difference.
Why should she tell you? It's none of your business and you have been so willing to attack just because she said she didn't vote for Bush. I wouldn't open myself up for further attacks either.
The obibious question in response to her post was not "who did you vote for" but "why didn't you vote for Bush". But then you aren't interested in discussing the pros and cons of Bush's policies are you?
JMO, if they can't answer a simple question like that, they are on FR to stir up trouble.
IMO, the work of the DNC.
At the very least there is something strange going on here with all this Rah Rah stuff from apparent 'reinforcements' for one who refuses to answer your simple question, yet feels free to make fun of those who are questioning her.
Well carenot was the one who emphatically stated that she did not vote for Bush on this thread.
Is it being impolite to ask to who she voted for in 2000 Presidential election?
Sheesh you all act like the demos sometimes, and I am not surprised.
P.S. - I didn't vote in 2000.
NFP
I voted for Bush. I am not a Bush opponent. I am not on FR to stir up trouble as any post search on my name will show. Idiots who attack without knowledge are doomed to fail.
P.S. - I didn't vote in 2000.
NFP
Then if you didin't take the time to see the differences between the candidates, then you have no right to bitch and moan.
Case in point, you both assumed I am a US citizen. One of you even said "shame on you". Yet my profile page clearly states I am a Canadian. And all I said was I didn't vote in 2000.
NFP
Yeah right, you have been on FR complaining about Bush since day 1 of your registering, IMO.
One of your comrades is honest enough to say she didn't vote for Bush and yet is cowardly in telling the forum who she actually voted for.
Please stop the Clinton games, you only demean yourselves further, IMO.
Now if you'll please excuse me, this is getting silly.
Yes, it is. You assumed she was one thing and then when 3 of her friends show up to defend her honor, you find you don't really have a leg to stand on.
Ok what is untrue when a person(carenot) states that she did not vote for Bush.
She had to vote for somebody or not vote at all.
At least I can go to bed with a clear conscience in stating that I voted for Bush in 2000, and not play Clintonian games like you seem to fancy.
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.
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.
We don't have enough money to support our veterans?
We have enough extra money to send fifteen BILLION dollars to African dictators.
And a good response question would have been why. That would have initiated a debate on Bush's policies, good or bad, agree or not.
Is it being impolite to ask to who she voted for in 2000 Presidential election?
Yes, it is. It is none of your's or anyone else's business and demonstrates your desire to use it against her rather than a true desire to have an honest debate.
Sheesh you all act like the demos sometimes, and I am not surprised.
No, we have loyally come to defend our friend. That is not Dems behavior. Your's on the other hand, requiring everyone to toe the Bush loyalty line, does strike me as Dem behavior.
Did you spot me?
What is my old name?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.