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."

[UCANSEE2]

Thank you for your response.

Also, thanks for posting the pertinent information. You are correct, I had not read in detail what exactly the news media is qouting Rumsfield said and telling us what Bush would do. First, I don't necessarily believe that the newspaper qoute of someone elses pronouncement of what the President will or will not do is accurate.

Something 'ironic' I find is how many are screaming about runaway spending, and there is a new thread on how BUSH is going to crash the economy.

I would agree that priority-wise, I would give this the highest concern, If I were in a position to do so.

I noticed that your partial article contained this:

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.

So my statement that we are the ones responsible for it being this way *(since 1891, jezuz crhys) is correct. We have had 212 years to fix it and haven't notified our representatives and Congressmen that this is what we want, or they won't have a job! WHERE HAVE WE BEEN?

Now, George Bush says (maybe) he will veto.

Did you consider that when a bill starts, it usually is clean and good, but by the time it gets through (especially bills that NO ONE will vote down due to the subject) our politicians, it had so many parasites on it , if it was a dog, the humane society would have to put it to sleep.

Maybe there are reasons you and I have not been told, as to why the President might veto it.

The other choice is that President Bush is a heartless, uncaring individual who feels no responsibility to the men and women of the armed forces, past and present. I know what I think.

[icu2]

Won't vote republican. A wise man once said "just because your not complety happy in your current relationship it doesn't make sence to put your self in a position where you know your going to be abused repeatedly.

[UCANSEE2]

Thanks. I didn't mean that specifically for you. I intended it for all who were getting into some 'heated debate'.

You were the last post in a line of fire, so to speak, so I pinged from there.

[montag813]

I can only assume that you would like Dean, Kerry, or another Clinton handling the national security, taxes, and the appointment of the judiciary!!

You're so right! How DARE I criticize the President!!! Thanks for taking me to the woodshed. I will just join the amen corner, and smile as he throws $15 billion to "Africa" while shafting disabled American veterans their $5 billion. I am really a horrible traitor to my party for thinking otherwise. Thank you for setting me straight!

[poet]

You memory serves you well. It would seem that he would direct a measly $5,000,000,000 ( the way he's spending, it truly is measley) to people who gave their limbs, their sight and their lives while fighting for their country in addition to directing some of those billions to our soldiers and their families in uniform now.

[exodus]

exodus - 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.
jwalsh07 - So he didn't lie? I was probably on the thread but that's not where I got the speech from. Google.
***************

I'm not very good at searching, but my memory is usually accurate.

Bush did not specify "stem cell lines" when he said he would not support embryonic research, he just said he wouldn't support embryonic research.

Embryonic research includes research conducted on stem cell lines derived from embryos, as you can see even Bush agrees, by reading the speech where Bush justified research on existing lines, but prohibited new lines, on the grounds that on the existing lines, the embryos were already dead.

Research on dead embryos is still embryonic research.

[UCANSEE2]

I am grateful for what I have been provided courtesy of the American taxpayer. I was honored to defend this nation and will continue to defend it to my last breath.

Well, then, what happened to you that caused you to act like you have on this thread?

[UCANSEE2]

I like your qoute. However, many will not accept it and will make these kind of wild blind remarks,or actions, like voting Demo based on a bunch of leftist newspaper articles, without finding out the details of the WHY.

Emotion rules over rationality.

[exodus]

So my statement that we are the ones responsible for it being this way *(since 1891, jezuz crhys) is correct. We have had (112) years to fix it and haven't notified our representatives and Congressmen that this is what we want, or they won't have a job! WHERE HAVE WE BEEN? Now, George Bush says (maybe) he will veto.


***************

112 years of history have nothing to do with the fact that Bush says he will veto any increase of veteran's benefits today.

Donald Rumsfeld said Bush will veto it.

Donald Rumsfeld is not a "special interest group," he is the Secretary of Defense, a Cabinet member. Donald Rumsfeld's word can be taken as the official word of the President, barring Rumsfeld's being fired for putting words in the President's mouth.

President Bush said it; his flunky Rumsfeld wouldn't dare lie about that.

[austinTparty]

Are you trying to imply that promises made to our veterans should not be kept, or is intelligent discourse simply beyond you?

Yeah, those whiny-ass veterans. Putting in a mere twenty years of their life on the line and then wanting the government to keep its promises... they ought to have all died on the battlefield, buncha losers.

You are, as usual, vile and pathetic beyond all hope.

[woodyinscc]

Bush signed and the Republican Senate and House approved the very first FUNDED concurrent receipt program in the history of the nation. In other words, Pres. Bush DID KEEP HIS PROMISE! (The program applies now to those with a Purple Heart, or to those with war-connected disabilities AND 60% or higher disability ratings. It's a START!")

Bush is working within the system and we all know what that is like! Not one Party or Adm. has changed this law since 1891! Before it is all over he will keep his promise. In the meantime there has not been one red cent of the 15 billion paid to Africa. Bush will honor the pledge if Africa complies with conditions and goals that must be met. If these things do not happen it would be like throwing the money down a rat hole. Bush knows this! I just take umbrage because Bush can be knocked for a lot of things, but not his credibility with the military.

Clinton /Gore lopped 40% off of defence spending, do you think changing this law even entered their minds?

[jackbill]

Frankly, I couldn't read the whole article. It made me so mad that I couldn't see straight.

I am becoming more and more disturbed by what seems like a "gimme" attitude among so many veterans. Good Lord, can't anyone take care of themselves???

I have friends and former colleagues who served and who have made their way to a great life, helped by the GI Bill and other VA benefits. They are now retired, take trips around the world, have two homes, and generally live the good life. They have absolutely no service-connected-disability, yet they rush to get in line for VA benefits, like prescription drugs, even though our former employer pays 50% of every prescription drug that we buy.

And before you turn on your flames, I served my time in the 40th Infantry Division in Korea in 1952-53. I was fortunate enough to come home whole, got an engineering degree with the help of the government and I don't think that the taxpayers owe me one more damn thing - except perhaps a burial plot in a veterans cemetery.

[BenR2]

You, Sir, certainly sound like one!

////
Like what? A Libertarian? So others in here have told me.

LOL. On another thread I am being pummeled by a couple of Libertarians.

I can't win.

[olliemb]

You trying to tell me that character and dazzlement will take care of the illegals on the border? Ha!! Are you blind? What did the democrats do the 8 years Clinton was in office for national security? Bush has had to clean up the mess that Clinton left behind.

[exodus]

Did you consider that when a bill starts, it usually is clean and good, but by the time it gets through (especially bills that NO ONE will vote down due to the subject) our politicians, it had so many parasites on it , if it was a dog, the humane society would have to put it to sleep. Maybe there are reasons you and I have not been told, as to why the President might veto it.
***************

There are reasons we weren't told that could justify Clinton's selling of military secrets to China.

I haven't been told those "good" reasons, so I oppose both the act of selling those secrets to our self-declared enemy and the fact that our new President, Bush, allowed that treason to go unpunished, and by being unpunished, unopposed.

If Clinton didn't have a good reason for his treason, his treason is probably still an active crime. Bill Clinton still has his freedom and his contacts, and Hillary is a well-connected, powerful Senator. Both are in a position to do untold harm to our country.

Maybe Bush has good reason to promote gun control and oppose veterans's benefits. Like Clinton, if Bush wants my support, he's going to have to share his "secret" reasons. (Including the reason he let Clinton walk.)

[exodus]

The other choice is that President Bush is a heartless, uncaring individual who feels no responsibility to the men and women of the armed forces, past and present. I know what I think.
***************

I know what you think, too.

I don't agree. I think Bush is a liberal.

[olliemb]

La Raza is so far left. La Raza = NAACP. Again, my friend I think you are wrong.

[austinTparty]

R-E-A-D what I wrote before you start these MoDo claims.

I said "all of the veterans who signed on the dotted line for over 20 years of service". There is something called a "phrase" after the "all of the veterans" part. Phrases cannot be ignored without changing the meaning of that which they modify. In this case "who signed on the dotted line for over 20 years of service" is modifying "all of the veterans". In other words, that in no way says the same thing as "ALL Vets". Your understanding of "imply" is lacking, too. I never said NOR implied that they won't VOTE for W. I said that they were pissed off. Pissed off as they are, they may or may not vote for W. Pissed off is NOT the definition of "won't vote for". Either way, they got screwed.

You must have gone to public school. Here's some help, though: How to Diagram Sentences.

[exodus]

To: SLB
You trying to tell me that character and dazzlement will take care of the illegals on the border? Ha!! Are you blind? What did the democrats do the 8 years Clinton was in office for national security? Bush has had to clean up the mess that Clinton left behind.
***************

President Bush has done just as much as Clinton did to close the border - nothing.

Bush could have our borders closed in as little time as it would take for the National Guard to drive to that border. He's done nothing. Apparently Bush doesn't think our borders are a problem.

Clinton had no reason to do anything about the border. Bush is in the middle of a "War on Terror," with thousands of Americans dead.

Which President would you consider has the worse record on border control, the one who had no reason to control the border (Clinton), or the one fighting a war caused by enemies slipping through our border to kill Americans?

[woodyinscc]

And before you turn on your flames, I served my time in the 40th Infantry Division in Korea in 1952-53. I was fortunate enough to come home whole, got an engineering degree with the help of the government and I don't think that the taxpayers owe me one more damn thing - except perhaps a burial plot in a veterans cemetery.

Great attitude, if everyone thought like you this country would be twice as strong, and that is saying something.

My cousin served in the 40th ID 52 and 53 also, came out of the Nat. Guard, did his basic at Camp Cook in Calif.