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."
What would you like him to do ? Isn't it fair to give a new program time to work out the bugs ?
Now, did BUSH switch them over to TRICARE?
Did you complain to the man who was PRESIDENT at the time and ask to have it changed?
Thanks for the response. The original article is just an attempt to lure the weaker minded into the claws of the Dems (or as I call them, the EVIL ONES), and they seem to have a lot of easy marks, even among FREEPERS.
I believe President Bush has reasons for his decision, and has made them clear, and most are ignoring that in favor of bitching, but, that's just my opinion.
Well that is a problem I'm trying to sort out. It seems that the present military are getting much more medical care then they ever imagined at the time the promise was made because the kinds of care we have presently was unimaginable as well as the resultant costs.
Unlike the impression the article leaves, my impression is that there are several methods by which military retires can access care. Some who choose to live in out of the way places may find it moe difficult but that is the price they pay for choosing to live in out of the way places.
Unlike the claims of the article that the gov't is choosing to spend its money on foriegn aid and not the military because its too expensive, I dodn't se that either. The "too expensive" comments go to the mode of delivery and not the choice of supplying them.
As to the implied claims that its unamerican that we don't just give the retired military everything they might ask for, (such implication made when the folks make the case that they deserve it apart from the promises made), I also take issue with that. These folks fought for our freedom. Its hardly logical that they want to require future military folks and ciitizens to have to fork over there hard earned dollars so that the retirees can have better care than the current military. That hardly makes sense.
What you are asking is that my son, a new recruit, be liable to pay for a benefit the retired military will enjoy today that he himself is not entitled to. That just sounds wrong.
They deserve at least what they were promised and they seem to be getting much more than promised.
People have retired near military bases, under BRAC, those bases have closed, along with it their health care on base. So they are supposed to pack up and move under your senario?
So what ? What if they moved to Belize, would we have to send doctors to them ? If they want the free medical care then the least they can do is go where its being offered.
I last wrote:
Of course, it's also possible that certain interest groups are taking advantage of what may be an intractable problem, in order to "blame Bush" and undermine his traditionally high support from the military ...
To which you replied:
*************** What interest group does Donald Rumsfeld belong to?
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say..."intractable" is the operative word here, and I didn't mean Rumsfeld's statement about President Bush's veto was not true, but rather that some "interest groups" would certainly capitalize on the unpopularity of a veto, and possibly even exaggerate or misrepresent the issues in order to make Bush look as bad as possible...
There are those folks out there with "ulterior motives"! I can't believe this President would take these problems lightly, or consider vetoing any remedial legislation without a very good reason, but he certainly needs to communicate his views and reasons more clearly (or, they need to be reported and understood more clearly)...
You wrote:
... 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.
My questions about this would be:
How could Clinton unilaterally make this decision to alter benefits? Apparently a lower court ruled in favor of the Clinton policy, since the policy was reversed by an Appeals Court panel; why did the full Court of Appeals then reverse the panel, and more to the point, why did the Bush administration feel it was necessary to bring the case to the full court instead of just letting it stand? (There's got to be some really good reason he would take such an unpopular and seemingly unjust position on this.)
You also wrote:
...the government argued...the services and the Secretaries of the services did not have the authority to make such promises (for 40+ years)...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).
This reminds me of a ruling I just read about today, where a Federal judge upheld the government's position regarding the use of Iraqi assets; according to AP, 17 POWs from the '91 Gulf War had been awarded $653 million in compensatory damages from Iraq, but the President has authority to determine how the frozen "Iraqi funds" are used, and he judged it should be spent on re-building Iraq rather than compensating these former POWS. On the surface of it, that seems unfair and "cold", but my thought would be that presuming (?) these soldiers already have their basic benefits (such as they are), that's a lot of money for 17 people to divvy up from what is an undesirable but not expected consequence of their "job" (and God bless them for choosing to serve!)...the A.P. article doesn't give any reason for the size of the award, but I think too there may be distinction made between the assets of the "Iraqi people" and the assets of the previous "regime" (which were actually stolen from the citizens)...
This President has certainly had more than his share of "no win" situations, IMHO...why did you think the veterans' Appeals suit was weak? and what do you think of this POW compensation ruling?
I'm sure we've not heard the last of either of these, nor should we...I'd be very curious to know both the exact details of what "promises" have been made, what President Bush can feasibly do to try and keep them, and what the legislative, legal or fiscal problems are that are preventing it...
If you were the President, how would you fix these problems? Have you thought of running for office?! (not President, of course, but I'm serious! you might could do a lot of good for a lot of folks by taking this cause and some good ideas to the state house, for starters...!)
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.