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."

[exodus]

woodyinscc - Not one Party or Adm. has changed this law since 1891!
UCANSEE2 - And we are in charge of telling them what we do and don't want, or else we won't reelect them. I keep stating this, but no one wants to acknowledge it. IT IS OUR FAULT, and not President Bush's.

I even believe that the whole thing is a statement used out of context to what is going on with the bill. No one seems interested in knowing if there is any other reason for the President wanting to veto it, other than because he's a meany who wants the veterans to suffer.
***************

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.

[UCANSEE2]

OK. I won't argue with your proposal there. Sounds reasonable.

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.

[takenoprisoner]

Some here are standing for thousands upon thousands of men and women military retirees. While others stand with the lone Bush. I'll stand with the retirees. Givem their due and don't be BSn them.

[UCANSEE2]

P.S. If I have Insurance coverage and my wife does, both companies won't pay me. Can you get BUSH to fix this too? We PAY for both INS COMPANIES, why can't we get payments from both?

[UCANSEE2]

Look. I don't wish to get more riled up. The truth is in the article. The answer to WHY he would veto it is given in the article.

I would suggest you read the whole article again.

[takenoprisoner]

I don't how you've missed that thousands upon thousands have been petitioning and trying to get it fixed. A group of retirees have petitioned President Bush himself.

[Ciexyz]

btt

[exodus]

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.

You didn't mention that in your remarks.
***************

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.

[taxcontrol]

The Vets would vote for xxxxx

---

I did not say any such thing. My point was that his base, the conservative base, is being eroded. I do not think that the erosion will turn into revolt, but the margin of last years race was less than 1,000 votes.

How many people can GW afford to piss off enough for them to "just stay home"?

The Deomocrats will rally the base - it wont MATTER who they put up because their slogan will be "anyone but GW". And I can assure you THEY will mobilize their base.

[takenoprisoner]

Well if it's true that it would cost 5 billion a year to quit reducing their SS benefits based on their disability income, and providing the full medicals as promised, then
Bush would have no aid package for Africa...since the cost of this aid to Africa package Bush has promised is estimated to be about 5 billion per year.

[UCANSEE2]

If you are going to try to hide behind a long line of veterans while you make your claims, at least be sure of your information.

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?

[takenoprisoner]

Odd how Bush can find billions upon billion for Africa, but just can't find the money to keep promises to our retired veterans.

[takenoprisoner]

1. Return to them their full medical benefit as promised including no deductibles, meds, (they weren't members of an hmo now were they?) and whatever their medical needs may be.
2. Allow them to receive the full amount of their SS check without deductions just because they may also receive a service connected disability check.

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.

[Squantos]

Hmmmmm ???........my secret decoder ring must be busted.....splain dat for me again if ya have the time.

Stay Safe !

[Crossbow Eel]

"I haven't paid a dime to Tricare and don't plan to either. I'll just die young"

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 !

[Retired_Disabled_Military]

"It's difficult to see how President Bush is responsible for either of these circumstances, and in fact it's not clear he campaigned on reversing these policies, which "campaign promise" on his part would seem imprudent, to say the least."

Honestly, he did not campaign on these specific issues, however, on several occassions, pre-election, he campaigned to veteran's groups that "a promise made (to veterans) will be a promise kept", and also introduced Anthony Principi as his VA Secretary that "knows promises are to be kept".

Then there was a class action suit, which was won after 6 years in 2002, from a decision from the Court of Appeals. This suit was to restore free medical benefits to WWII and Korean War era retirees and their dependents. This all started in the Clinton years (1995) when Clinton cut off healthcare to military retirees that were over 65. The Bush administration appealed the winning of the reversal and asked the Court of Appeals to hear the case "en banc" instead of just with a three judge panel from the Court of Appeals, which was lost. This is what the veteran's hold against Bush - His administration fighting a favorable court decision instead of just letting it alone.

The bad part is, is that the military never denied making the promises of lifetime medical care, and over 100 pieces of evidence were entered that proved it was used as a recruitment and retention enticement well into the 1980's. Instead, what the government argued is that the services and the Secretaries of the services did not have the authority to make such promises (for 40+ years...), and the government prevailed, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

(Personally, I think the Supreme Court did veteran's a favor, because I have read the suit and felt it to be legally weak. Had the Supreme Court ruled (negatively) on a weak issue, it could have continued to haunt veterans for decades).

Anyway, this is the major "genuine" complaint I have seen - The Bush Administration fighting a won Appeals Courtruling that was favorable to "America's Greatest Generation". Look up the Appeals court decision(s) on Google. (Schism V US). Read the dissenting opinion from the en banc court of appeals- It is scathing.

[exodus]

(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.

[Retired_Disabled_Military]

"Just curious, what group ? What ax did they have to grind ?"

They asked the "Veteran's voting Bloc" on Yahoo Groups if it veteran's were genuinely annoyed with Bush. I saw it on 3 other veteran discussion groups as well. It pretty much made the rounds, much like the link to this site discussion has.

It wasn't a loaded question, just that the author of the article wanted to know if veteran's were truly disgruntled with Bush. I felt the resulting article was rather tame compared to the left-wing ranting I often see on those groups (the majority of the vets are republican, so the dems seem to get especially annoyed at that.... :-)

[Retired_Disabled_Military]

"Retired vets are the base? Is this true? Don't they all vote Democrat all the time because of retirement bennies?"

I never met a retired veteran that wasn't Republican until the Bush Administration appealled the Schism decision.

Most retirees are ultra-conservative. Stereo-typing us as welfare recipients kind off chaffs our hides..

Look at it this way:
You work for a large company for 20-30 years. You contribute to your retirement fund to the fullest amount you can, and you pay for disability insurance through your employer.

While at work one day you get run over by a fork lift. You apply for your disability benefits and get them, you then apply for your retirement benefits that you have been contributing to for 20+ years, and the company tells you that because you are on disability they are going to reduce your retirement pay by one dollar for every dollar of disability insurance you collect each month.

Would you fight it, or just sit around and keep quiet so people would not call you a welfare hound?

[Retired_Disabled_Military]

"Remember the American Legion and how they welcomed Clinton over and over again with loud applause. That spoke volumes to me! "

We always show respect for our Commander-in-Chief when in a group setting, regardless of how vile a person we personally feel them to be. It is one of the things that sets us apart from the rest of America.