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."
On their own heads be it.
GETTING boring? Hell, they were boring in their old screen names back during the 2000 campaign.
I guarantee that most of these gripers never voted for him in the first place.
DING DING DING! No more calls, we have a winner.
BEFORE THE FLAMES START: I am not saying this is proper or just. But the rule has been around for over 100 years, and now the complaints seem to be reaching a crescendo with the pending retirement of those lampreys of government largesse, the Baby Boomers.
It was the pressure of the veterans community that forced Clinton's VA Secretary out of office and Clinton got routinely hammered for flatlined VA health care budgets.
Yes, on a site like this it's proper to criticize your political opponents, but for an organization, there is no reason to dwell in the past.
All that matters is that there are problems that exist and that this president has not done enough to fix them--or in the case of concurrent receipt, has been an obstacle.
ROTFLMAO, you call ME ignorant? In case you haven't noticed it, we're fighting a war, our country is threatened every day by fanatic Islamists, the democrats are acting like 4 year olds, the Cuban community is threatening to desert because we had to obey international law, the blacks are demanding we send troops to Africa, the europeans are trying to sink our economy, the North Koreans are threatening nuclear war, and YOU want me to get upset because Bush hasn't agreed to pay for someones dental insurance? Get serious! Grow up!
Welcome to FR.
I think you're right. What we really need is the political equivalent of 9/11 to motivate conservatives to move from the complaining stage to the action/involvement stage. A call to arms mentality. For sure, the "Crusty One" would do it.
"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.
Notice how both of the retired veterans opposing the President are former enlisted men.
Now, the officer class!
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."
Real subtle Knight Ridder! There is no media bias! Baah! And, in this case the Lt.Col. is right on target! I'm surprised they let that quote stand.
Regards,
TS
It's back to the future for you hopeless malcontents or demo basement computer hacks.
The same thing was said in 92 about Clinton.
Get a new schtick.
I think you are absolutely on the mark, Poohbah.
This a such a difficult issue; I would like to know what explicit promises and guarantees were made to which specific veterans, and by whom...from the article:
Veterans have two gripes...
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.
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.
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.
He is clearly trying to improve on the benefits, and although he's more than halfway through his first term, it's likely he's still having to work with a Veterans Ad. beaurocracy whose policies and "career personnel" are pretty well entrenched.
I do agree that these two "gripes" should be remedied to the extent possible and feasible, and the President is not doing a great job of addressing the veterans' complaints in a convincing way.
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 (along the lines of the "throw granny into the street" campaign)...after all, you don't see the disillusioned folks in the article saying "give us John F. Kerry, he'll do better by us"...
At least, not yet...but the GOP better get a lot more on the ball with this, IMHO! Not just for political purposes either...it's the right thing to do.
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.