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."

[Miss Marple]

"Ere ya nuts?

I should have posted "ONE is not free to etc. etc." rather than "YOU."

I didn't mean to imply that YOU were guilty of this..sorry!

[carenot]

All I said is that she is confused,

I have never been confused.

But thanks for yer thoughts.

[jmc813]

Everyone seems to think WINNING is what FR is about.

I understand your point completely. I realy do think there are FReepers who view politics like professional sports and only want their "team" to win. Rest assured, I am not one of them.

[tpaine]

He's on my side in the respect that it is best to stick with Republicans at the presidential level at this point. There's plenty of other things that you can find that make me look like an ass.
-jmc-


Choosing 'sides' at this early point in the next race for the Prez is futile, imo.
Other than that, as you say above, we agree.

[exodus]

PhiKapMom - "You and me both -- becoming more moderate instead of more conservative because of what I see from the so-called ultra conservatives that post on here. Their attitude with he must do as I say or I won't vote for him makes me absolutely disgusted. "
Godebert - 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.
***************

Well said, Godebert.

Bush supports gun control, Bush supports the drug war and it's illegal tactics, Bush goes to war on a whelm instead of getting a Declaration of War from Congress, Bush signed the Patriot Act, and Bush formed the Homeland Security Department to implement the illegal Patriot Act.

Those acts are not the actions of a conservative.

[farmfriend]

JMO, but you have backed my claim by your replies on this thread. It is there for everybody who has read this thread to see.

No it isn't. Here is your claim:

In post #254 you made this claime:

Yeah right, you have been on FR complaining about Bush since day 1 of your registering, IMO.

And couldn't back it up dispite my providing links in #265.

Then you made this excuse and claim in #295

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.

I had also given a link to my bookmarks which you obviously didn't look at. Now I have provided links again in post # 306 to the threads that I have posted myself or posted on.

Now you claim that the proof is on this thread. I'd like to see where on this thread I have proven that I have been "complaining about Bush since day 1 of your registering" or "that you, IMO, have been a hopeless malcontent since you have registered on FR".

[carenot]

JMO, IMO

Why in the world do people feel the need to tell everyone it is "just my opinion"?
We already know that.

[jmc813]

Other than that, as you say above, we agree

LOL!

[Sir Gawain]

Because unless otherwise stated, Dane only speaks facts. ;-D

[carenot]

Shame on you. It's your responsibility and duty as an American citizen to vote.

Shame on the Republican Party for not giving us a good candidate.

[Calpernia]

Soooo.... The Vets would vote for Kucinich who is working to break down national security even before being nominated....vs...Bush who is fighting a war within the US, within the standing officials who have communist/socialist interests and an international war?

[carenot]

Then if you didin't take the time to see the differences between the candidates, then you have no right to bitch and moan.

I don't like to vote for the lesser of two evils. Not didn't vote at all. I voted for Harry Browne.

I wish they had a "none of the above" vote.

[sarasmom]

Re #60.
A voice of sanity!
We veterans come in all shapes and sizes.
I want to make clear I am not disabled.
Courtesy of Uncle Sugar, there are three types of disabled veterans.There are various percentages of disability.To keep it short, I disregard degree of disability, and lets just focus on "disabled"
1.Disabled due to military service,but denied disability benefits.
2.Disabled due to military service,receiving disability benefits,not retired from the military.
3.Disabled due to military service,retired.
(There really are only three groups of military disabled,even with all the shades of gray of disabilities.)
Now of these three groups,those who fall under #1, really get my attention, and have my full "compassion" for their fight with the Feds for healthcare, money and righteous anger.
Those in group *2, you dont hear a lot from,but what you do hear has to do with quality of care.They also deserve my attention and things are not at all what was promised regarding healthcare.
Group #3 causes me major heartburn.
If they were able-bodied enough to retire on full military retirement pay...just how disabled were they?
Folks, I thank everyone who served honorably in military service to the USA.
But I will reserve my small store of compassion and righteous indignation for those who fall into groups 1&2.
Donning flame suit for group #3.

[VRWC_minion]

Shame on the Republican Party for not giving us a good candidate.

He is the most conservative person that can be elected. He cannot move farther right than 50.1% of the population in the states comprising an electoral majority.

[carenot]

Then if you didin't take the time to see the differences between the candidates, then you have no right to bitch and moan.

I don't like to vote for the lesser of two evils. Not didn't vote at all. I voted for Harry Browne.

I wish they had a "none of the above" vote.

[ohioWfan]

Goodness, you have a chip on your shoulder, don't you?

As pleasant as it's been getting to know you, carenot, I have a life to live, and I prefer to live it quite apart from you and your 'chip' and your confusion about whose 'base' you belong to.

[carenot]

Please stop the Clinton games, you only demean yourselves further, IMO.

In your opinion?
I always figure that right out!
Why do you feel the need to say that?

[Calpernia]

>>>VAMC where doctors who have lost their licenses due
to malpractrice only to find a home in the Federal System

WOA! I don't piss on the vets. Don't you DARE go implying that only docs that lost their licenses work at VAMCs! How dare you!

[exodus]

To: nmh;
HOW LONG have these men and women that we are discussing, been VETERANS? Quite a while,huh. HOW LONG HAS GEORGE BUSH been President? Not too long. Maybe he (Bush) hasn't been able to get a bill through for them, like he intended yet, but that is not the same as blaming him for what we have/haven't done for the VETS for about 60 years, now is it? 316 by UCANSEE2
***************

Bush does not want to help our veterans get the free health care promised to them. In fact, if Congress passes a law helping the veterans, President Bush has promised to veto it.

UCANSEE2, Lazamataz has a tagline you might want to borrow.

"PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!"

From the article:

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.