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."
woodyinscc - Not one Party or Adm. has changed this law since 1891!
I think Bush wants to spend the money on something more "important" than veteran's benefits.
Now-
It is not our fault that a law passed 112 years ago has not been changed.
It is President Bush's fault that he said he would veto an increase in veteran's benefits that would counteract that 112 year old law.
You believe that Rumsfeld's words were taken out of context? Not likely, it's too easy to countradict a report that says
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.
BUT,FIRST, that particular change in the bill is not what BUSH promised the VETS, so he isn't wrong on that part.
SECOND, BUSH has not been PRESIDENT of the United States for 212 years. You have been a citizen for longer than BUSH has been PRESIDENT, just where the hell have you been all this time? Why didn't you write to your Congressman and Senators for the past (let's say you might be middle age, so) 20 years? Why haven't the AMERICAN people gotten their government to fix this, if it is so bad?
Why, heck, that would amount to REAL WORK. Can't have that, let's just sit on OUR ASSES and BLAME BUSH for it.
I would suggest you read the whole article again.
Don't suppose the line in the article about how the cost of that BILL was ridiculous and not anywhere within reason or budget considerations meant anything to you.
But I did mention that, UCANSEE2.
I pointed that out every time I posted Rumsfeld's quote, that Bush thought the 5 billion dollars a year cost was too high.
I also pointed out once or twice that even though Bush thought the 5 billion dollars cost was too high, he considered the 15 billion dollars to African dictators to be a bargain.
Also, don't assume I have no support of the Veterans or their needs.
I remember the men returning from Vietnam, and the way the MEDIA, and the PUBLIC treated them. I remember the way the government treated them.
This was not George Bush that did this.
HERE:
Since you can't find this let me help.
You claim that the qoute from RUMSFELD is accurate for several reasons. OK. I accept those reasons. Same reasons the other guy's statement must be accepted by you.
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.
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."
Geeeeeeee, didn't you read those parts?
Now I am going to try this one more time for you in bold that maybe, well hopefully even ucansee2.
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.
Stay Safe !
Man you're ignorant
Tricare is the best thing that ever happened for vets in 40 years.
I'll spare all the facts because you don't care but look them up and you'll be in for a shock how much tricare beats the hell out of champus !
Here's a few:
You still get free med care and prescriptions at military hospitals. You also get this after you turn 65 which is new.
Add to this the choice to go to thousands of civilian hospitals and doctors off base for free or a few dollars if you don't want to go to a base !
It's not perfect but it beats 99% of anything out there now !
Add to this the lifetime co-pay cost went down from 25% under champus to only a $5000 under tricare. A triple bypass costs $150,000 so this is a huge savings !
(David Shippers) goes into more then the weak kneed Pubs and the hypocrite dims He outlines(with fact) the Clinton/Gore/Dorothy Meisner connection on immigration!
Could you summerize that Clinton/Gore/Dorothy Meisner connection on immigration?
I haven't heard anything about that.
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.