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."
Key words emphasized :o)
Do you (or anybody) know when spouses came to be covered?
"Left this forum" sounds so...voluntary.
A more correct statement would be "got ridden out of town, on a rail, attired in tar and feathers." :o)
Now that you mention it, $15b is just about the figure we handed to the airlines industry after 911 to "save it from collapse"...if I remember correctly.
Then how is the headline justified? All the veterans I know are huge Bush supporters.
Smile for the head copier and paster. Or as he has now started to refer to himself, a "legend Freeper."
They're here to help us, you know.
Bull Pucky! What have the Dems done to change the minds of vets? The vets who have never voted Dem may not show up for the Repubs but there is no way they will vote for the Dems.
John Wayne
President Bush's base is the Republican party, and he still has well over 90% support from them......and it's been as high as 98% at times. He hasn't lost, nor is he losing 'his base,' because Libertarians aren't part of it.
The 'anybody but Gore' voters have been griping since 2001 that if he does this or that he'll lose their vote. It is now, as it has always been, a vacuous threat that has never meant anything because they make up a miniscule percentage of the Conservative voting force.
And the idea that any real socialist would vote for him is downright silly.
Can the prize be that I don't have to read their sorry old refrain any more? :o)
Sadly, that is exactly what GW is counting on. Apparently the vets are a small enough minority that they can be dissed with impunity.
He told you this personally, did he? And your proof that he is dissing vets 'with impunity?'
I'd like some back up of your statements maligning the character of the President, please.....
So which 'base' do you think Bush would piss off if he spent $5 billion to change the retired military pay outs?
Got to tell you man, piss off the Base and you will LOSE the election as their support evaporates.
I don't think so.
I think Dubya is completely beatable in 2004, but the bigger question is: Who would he lose to?
Lieberman? He's a chronic nasal whiner, who could stand THAT for 4 years? Hell, there'd be a revolution.
Kerry? He looks like Lurch and his idea of foreign policy is imposing Koyoto type enviro regs on us to mend the "ties" that Dubya allegedly broke when he dissed our backstabbing and completely worthless UN. On the upside, Kerry did go out of his way to mention that he would cripple us economically without "comprimising the strength of our military" LOL! That's encouraging, isn't it?
Then there's Howard Dean.. He's pro-gun (But so was algor, remember..) and his idea of a Presidential issue is honoring queer marriages from Canada. (and before you ask, the answer is "yes" he is serious)
From a comic relief POV however, it will be interesting if Dean get's the nod.. I mean, can you imagine the campaign commericals? It will be a laugh a minute.
Dubya's biggest asset at this point isn't the loyalty of his base (generally speaking, I think the exceptions are over-represented on FR)) it's the complete and total vacuum from the democrat side of the isle.
PLUS, all of them.. the democrats collectively, in fact, have categorically failed with regard to national security.
They proved beyond anyones wildest dreams that they are simply out of their depth here, and cannot be trusted with life and death, national security matters.
By all right's, algore should have beat dubya in 2000 (good economy, sitting VP, etc..) and the rats should trounce him in 2004. But it won't happen, and it's a disaster of their own design.
He's going 4 more years..
IMVHO.
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.