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."
He has already told you he was Canadian.
It's the Libertarian/OWK/DNC way. A textbook in juvenile taunts.
To: taxcontrol
They have those expectations because THEY ARE TOLD that they will have free health care if they dedicate their life to the Service. They're not told "we'll let you pay us back later if you need medical care."
Military recruiter's promises are a big joke, but those promises are where men get the idea that "free" does not mean "loan."
Comeon, PK. You are saying that if someone does not agree with Bush, it makes you more moderate?
That makes no sense.
And I changed my mind. I thought at first you were a nice person defending your friend. Now I'm not so sure. You seem very insistant on picking a fight with me, so I'm bowing out, since I have no quarrel with you, as you seem to have with me.
If you have problems with the President, I might suggest praying for him. You have a Scripture verse as a tagline, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume it means something to you.
Sorry that I didn't not ice his assertion about his homepage on FR. I didn't click it.
I also ask, then why is NFP is putting his nose into American politics. How come he doesn't clean up his own mess up in Chretien Canada.
Oh that's right Chretien is pro-pot and anti-American. Notforprophet is happy as a lamb, IMO, with the Chretien socialist/liberal government.
I generally support the President, and would have been honored to have voted for him in 2000. I may well yet get the opportunity in 2004. In fact, carenot and I have had many a go-round about Bush where I have vehemently argued in his defense.
Your style appears to be to fling accusations of being a Democrat, or being 'Clintonian' - then slip in a little sarcastic jab or two. It has the effect of poisoning real discussion and irritating those that take a different position.
Frankly, it has burned me out on any further discussion with you. Have a nice day.
NFP
Are you afraid of the team?
NFP
Hi, be careful.
Dane, you're winning this argument. Don't bring up the pot thing and make yourself look like an ass. Just some friendly advice. :-)
If you have problems with the President, I might suggest praying for him.
Did I say I had a problem with Bush somewhere on this thread? I do have some problems with his environmental policies. They encroach on our property rights.
My tag line, like my handle, was adopted when I was the Legislative Director for the California State Grange.
As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
Isaiah 55:11
I can only go back to your 50 last replies. But that still doesn't change the fact that you, IMO, have been a hopeless malcontent since you have registered on FR.
Get rid of that ass Chretien and the Liberal party in your homeland of Canada through the electoral process, and you will have an arguement on FR.
Nothing that I can remember. That is why I did not vote for him. :)
For us Conservatives....it's not about Bush doing what we say.....it's about our Constitution. If he can't uphold his sworn oath to protect and defend it then he's not deserving of our vote or our respect. Maybe that's just something you liberals and moderates will never understand.
He didn't come on this thread to "put his nose in Am politics. He came here to defend carenot as I did. He lives here in the US.
You still have not backed up your claim that I have been bashing bush since day one. I made it easy for you by providing links to my posts and bookmarks.
Huh I guess bringing up the fact of Chretien/Liberal/Socialist Canada is a "loser" somehow.
It's not a "loser", just a fact of the present.
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.