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."
Dane - Then if you didin't take the time to see the differences between the candidates, then you have no right to bitch and moan.
"None of the above" would have been a good choice in the last election.
I have a feeling that "None of the above" would win a lot of elections, both State and National.
I have no problem with that, just don't complain that the candidate that does get elected reflects what the majority of the voters in the majority of electoral states want. Thats our system. And currently it virtually guarantees that the kind of candidate the purists want to elect have as much a chance of getting elected and a flaming liberal.
Thats the system, like it or not.
PS, what is false about my comment that it takes 50.1% of the population in states comrpising the electoral majority ? Did the constitution get amended ?
Why are you saying that?
jwalsh07 - I'm curious, what did Bush lie about?
Candidate Bush promised not to support embryonic research.
President Bush lied by redefining "embryonic," saying that the existing research was being conducted on embryonic material already dead, so it wasn't really embryonic research.
Quoting Bush, from the speech you posted:
"My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. A large number of these embryos already exist..."
"... Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life. Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being ..."
"... As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem-cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made ..."
Until then, it's all bologna.
Like who???? Harry Browne?? ROFLOL!!
I saw him interviewed on Fox and I fell on the floor laughing! He wasn't a serious candidate, and you voted for him! LOL!!
carenot - I don't like to vote for the lesser of two evils. Not didn't vote at all. I voted for Harry Browne
True, Kevin Curry, Browne was also a "lesser" evil. I voted for Browne, not because I agree with him or with the Libertarian Party, but because of the candidates actually allowed to be on the national ballot, Browne was the best of the lot.
In the primaries I voted for Keyes, because he was the best in the primaries. Keyes supports the drug war, so I also consider him to be an "evil," just not as great an evil as the other Republican candidates.
If the Republicans won't give me someone better than the various third parties have to offer, my "not as evil" vote will go to a third party conservative.
Both Republicans and Democrats tried to foist off a liberal on me.
I will not vote for a socialist.
OH, DANE!
God bless you Kevin Curry, and thank you for your service.
exodus - Candidate Bush promised not to support embryonic research. President Bush lied by redefining "embryonic," saying that the existing research was being conducted on embryonic material already dead, so it wasn't really embryonic research.
Bush did not state his opinion on "stem cell lines" before the election, but he did say that he wouldn't support embryonic research with federal money.
When Bush decided as President to allow embryonic research, it made a big stink because candidate Bush had promised not to support embryonic research.
You were there, and apparently you saved the thread, or you wouldn't have posted Bush's speech so fast, where he justified supporting embryonic research by redefining what embryonic research is.
As I said, you were there. Send me a link to the thread and I'll search the page for the link you say I need to support my opinion.
So he didn't lie?
I was probably on the thread but that's not where I got the speech from. Google.
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.