Steve Israel And Paul Ryan-- Working Together To Screw Military Veterans

Israel and Ryan, bad for veterans, bad for America

Although the NRCC has a deal with Steve Israel not to back Republicans who oppose his reelection efforts, Stephen Labate, a straight-shooting 25-year Army officer now in the Army Reserve, is taking him on again. On Friday, after the Ryan-Murray "compromise" passed in the House, Labate explained how Israel-- and Paul Ryan, so, essentially, the corrupt transpartisan Beltway Establishment-- betrayed military veterans to benefit their wealthy campaign contributors who are part of the Military Industrial Complex. "Yesterday," wrote Labate, "the House of Representatives passed a budget agreement that reduced military retirement benefits in order to pay for increased Federal spending. Federal government employees, members of Congress and their staffs were untouched in the deal… Once again Steve Israel has thrown military retirees under the bus by voting for this bill. Not one dollar was taken away from any other entitlement program and that is despicable. Military members and their families sacrifice tremendously for our nation over the course of a career. Besides the obvious hardships caused by war injuries and deaths, the military family is faced with a myriad of social and economic stresses. Many live in sub-standard housing, some need food stamps to feed their family, divorce rates are rising, and military children are at risk for emotional problems due to parent deployments. The one thing they were promised in exchange for these sacrifices was their military retirement benefits. Steve Israel never misses an opportunity for a photo op with military veterans to promote his own image. However, when the time comes to defend veteran benefits, Steve Israel is all too willing ignore them for political expediency."

And Labate’s criticism wasn't limited to his corrupt Democratic opponent on Long Island. He ripped into Republicans who are just as corrupt and slimy as Steve Israel. “Paul Ryan’s assessment that military retirement benefits are too generous is outrageous, especially when compared to the benefits he will get when he retires. It’s time Ryan and the other members of Congress get out of their ivory tower and walk in the shoes of a military family and then get back to us about why they don’t deserve what was promised to them. While the disaster of sequestration should be addressed, it shouldn't be done on the backs of our retired and active duty troops."

Someone who enlisted at age 18 and retired twenty years later as an Army Sergeant First Class (so, age 38) would see approximately a 6% reduction in lifetime retirement pay because of the COLA reduction Israel and Ryan just pushed through Congress. That would amount to about $108,000 less in retirement pay over a lifetime that hundreds of overpaid Members of Congress-- many of them millionaires-- just stole from veterans who already served. Ryan refused too even grandfather in the men and women who had fought in recent American wars he voted for. Several senators-- including far right Republicans Jim Inhofe (OK) and Roger Wicker (MS)-- say the reason they plan to vote NO on the compromise is because of what the bill does to military vets. Israel, as usual, won't answer any questions from angry vets about why he voted to steal their money and Ryan's excuse-- much of it patently false-- was so lame as to be embarrassing for anyone who voted for his bill: "We give them a slightly smaller adjustment for inflation because they're still in their working years and in most cases earning another paycheck. Our goal here is to make sure that no other country comes close to matching the U.S. military, and the stress on the budget in the future brings that whole entire notion into question."

At the same time Labate was sending out his press release about the betrayal of veterans by the slimebags who run the show in DC, Carl Hulse was reporting in the NY Times that Boehner was once again stoking a Republican Civil War, probably on behalf of not just his Establishment paymasters but on behalf of Ryan's political ambitions as well. Seeking to further marginalize the Tea Party that the GOP used to win the House in 2010-- which brought Boehner and Ryan to power-- Boehner told a closed meeting of the House Republican Caucus that “They are not fighting for conservative principles. They are not fighting for conservative policy. They are fighting to expand their lists, raise more money and grow their organizations, and they are using you to do it. It’s ridiculous.”

62 Republicans, mostly from the furthest right fringes of the party-- teabaggers like Steve Stockman (TX), Michele Bachmann (MN), Tom Cotton (AR), Matt Salmon (AZ), Louie Gohmert (TX), Paul Broun (GA), Stevan Pearce (NM), Kerry Bentivolio (MI), Phil Gingrey (GA), Steve Daines (MT), Mark Sanford (SC), Steve King (IA), Tim Huelskamp (KS), Jim Bridenstine (OK), Scott DesJarlais (TN), Brad Wenstrup (OH), Taliban Dan Webster (FL), Steve Scalise (LA) and Mike Pompeo (KS)-- would beg to differ. Some told Hulse that Boehner's denunciation is nothing but a "diversion tactic."

Conservative leaders said they viewed Mr. Boehner’s attacks as tantamount to a declaration of war and accused him of trying to change the subject from a budget plan that increases spending and sacrifices earlier hard-won fiscal victories by House Republicans.

Dan Holler, the communications director for Heritage Action, said he found it particularly remarkable that one of the biggest fund-raisers in Washington would suggest that a group was doing something to generate contributions.

“This is absurd,” Mr. Holler said. “Only in Washington could you have guys who go to PAC fund-raisers at swanky restaurants accuse outside groups of doing something for fund-raising. It is one of those petty attacks that is intended to shift the conversation away from the policy.”

The activists also say the effort to point to the shutdown as a rationale for trying to limit the clout of the groups is something of a feint to disguise the fact that some House Republicans felt hemmed in by the existing spending levels and were eager to generate some new money through the budget deal.

“There are a lot of Republican appropriators and Armed Services Committee members who hate being limited to $967 billion,” said Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, another group that strongly opposes the budget plan. Without a deal, discretionary spending would be reduced to that level next month under sequestration cuts.

Activists differed on the political fallout from the intensifying feud. But at a minimum, one warned, it has the potential to sap energy from the conservative base that will be critical for the party in the midterm elections. Others said it would almost certainly fuel efforts by movement conservatives to challenge incumbent Republicans and try to move the party further to the right.

“It’s time for Americans to rise up and begin replacing establishment Republicans with true conservatives in the 2014 primary elections,” said Matt Hoskins, the executive director of the Senate Conservatives Fund, the group that has drawn Mr. McConnell’s wrath. “There’s no question anymore about where these leaders stand.”

Top advisers to House and Senate Republicans say their bosses have reached their limit with the threats of primary challenges and retribution from supposed allies on conservative policy. And they note that many of the groups opposing the budget deal because it breaks the spending caps set in the 2011 Budget Control Act fiercely opposed that deal as well and now see it as inviolable.

As for Mr. Boehner, he did not seem too alarmed at the prospect of political repercussions. He just seemed fed up.

“I don’t care what they do,” he said.