Congress Betrays WWII/Korea Era Military Retirees

Since 08-03-05

From: Waspscpo@aol.com [mailto:Waspscpo@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:58 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: Fw: Congress Betrays WWII/Korea Era Military Retirees 

 
Subj: Congress Betrays WWII/Korea Era Military Retirees 
Date: 8/2/2005 8:52:18 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: hmriley@cox.net
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent from the Internet (Details)

Now on www.presidentbushblog.com
 
Congress Betrays WWII/Korea Era Military Retirees
 
Harry Riley
 
"The bedrock of our very "freedom and liberty" rests on the love of Christ and sacrifice of our warriors and spouses."
 
Take a look at www.presidentbushblog.com

  Congress Betrays WWII/Korea Era Military Retirees

Government views keeping faith and honoring commitments to our warriors a drain on National Security

There is ample evidence the United States government makes contracts with soldiers and of course soldiers are expected to live up to contracts. Does the same principle apply to the United States government? Or can the government change it’s horse in mid-stream and be supported by the courts and congress?

If the United States government through verbal and written policy states “if you (soldier) will give me (government) 20 or more years of active duty service in the United States military, I (government) will provide (you) soldier and your eligible family members government funded medical care as long as you live.

(The United States government made this commitment) If the United States Congress funds military retiree medical care for decades, would that indicate the Congress understood there was an obligation incumbent on our nation to honor it’s commitment to our warriors and their families or were they oblivious to what they were funding?

If you read this legal statement what would you conclude? “We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life.

The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon.” (note: This promise was made to all soldiers, officer and enlisted) The above is a quote from the 2002 United States Federal Appeals Court conclusion in a case brought by Medal of Honor Attorney, Col Bud Day.

The conclusion went on to state “Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim.

“Even though the promise of lifetime government funded medical care was made from Secretary of Defense, speaking for the President, to the squad leader in the fox hole who believed the Secretary of Defense was an authority - it meant nothing; Congress appropriated funds to pay for military retiree medical care for over 50 years, however, the court was able to conclude Congress had neither ratified what they were doing nor would the funding for over 50 years indicate Congress acquiesced to the fact that military retiree medical care was a debt owed to military retirees.

In essence what the court said, these are my words, “the President is not adequate authority and the United States Congress does not know what they are doing.”The court’s bottom line stated “We understand and appreciate the dissatisfaction of the plaintiffs with the change in the retirement pay system, as they have rendered long and faithful service to our country in time of peace and war. However, if they are to get any relief, it must come from Congress, as this is not within [a court's] jurisdiction.

”In dissenting, the Chief Judge stated “Promises of lifetime medical care were made to military officers by military officials for more than 50 years. Likewise Congress knew, or certainly should be charged with knowing, how the billions of dollars it appropriated for military medical care were allocated and that the amounts it appropriated for military pay were diminished by the imputed value of medical care on active duty and after retirement. Congress is presumed to know the terrain against which it legislates.

To suggest it was oblivious, that it did not know military officials were promising medical care in accordance with its appropriations is pure sophistry. If it were otherwise, if Congress can appropriate billions for this aspect of national defense and not know how it is accounted for, then God save the Republic.

There was a time when we had a "draft"...military pay was low, low, but those drafted as well as volunteers worked 12-18 hours per day, months on end and some who chose to remain as "lifers" rested on the promise of certain benefits being there if we made it through to retirement...low pay was not and never has been a deal breaker.

Trust and faith has now become the issue. Here comes the disgusting betrayal and both Republicans and Democrats are part…the Clinton Administration kicked all military retirees and their families over 65 out of military medical care in 1995.

They told us to take a hike…you’re too much of a burden and, oh by the way, have a good life…you say you don’t have any insurance? Well, some nice insurance agency will sell you insurance for the remaining arm or leg you still have. You don’t have funds to buy insurance as your retirement pay is only $300.00 per month and your wife is bed-fast? Sure wish we could help with your existing medical history but there are so many important issues that need our attention…

The Bush Administration and Congress has had an opportunity to make good on the obligation owed to military retirees by supporting the “Keep Our Promise To America’s Military Retirees Act”, first introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep Ronnie Shows of Mississippi. All members of Congress have gone home to tell you how hard they have worked for all veterans. 

You might want to tell the Keep Our Promise Bill has been bottled up in congressional committee ever since… cosponsored by over 200 Representatives in two or three congresses…does this mean anything? Yes, it means a lot of Representatives are covering their backsides, cosponsoring the Bill as not to alienate the veterans.

They know the Republican leadership has no intention of ever bringing the Keep Our Promise Bill to the floor for a vote…so they can cosponsor without fear of having to vote but being able to boast of “support for my military”…

Congress is waiting for all of us to die, problem solved - we should throw them all out before we “fade away”. Most in Congress view military people good for photo opportunities on Memorial Day, July 4th, and perhaps Veterans Day…they hug, pat, make grand pronouncements of their support without any intention of fighting for us in Washington, D.C.

The Secretary of Defense management clones tell Congress “military pay and benefits are a drain on national security”, the benefits we earned are limiting beans and bullets. Hogwash!How many Congressmen/women do you know of that has taken DOD to task for basically referring to military retirees/veterans as “leaches, free-loaders, whiners” simply because we expect what we earned?

This piece has focused on WWII/Korea era military retirees but the slippery slope will affect all military if government can use our old soldiers as cannon fodder and then abuse them as something less than honorable. What the government said to WWII/Korea military retirees is “you keep your end of the bargain, fill the fox-holes, spill the blood, but failed to mention, when the threat goes away, we (government) may have to modify our side of the medical care agreement.”

The military services should not expect recruits flocking to join, certainly not family members of military retirees…most of us are not telling our family not to serve, just making sure they know how their grandfathers were treated…does this mean we are unpatriotic?

No, just mad as hell at a government that would view the blood and body parts left on battlefields as a “drain on national security”. Many variables influence young men and women when considering military service. Keeping faith, honoring commitments and obligations with warriors of an earlier generation may be the best antidote to the dreaded “D” word that Congress and the Bush Administration fear.

Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret
----------------------------------------------------------
Contributed,
YNCS Don Harribine, USN(ret)