Skip to main content

Senator Carper takes a stand . . . and Delaware Democrats need to do the same

A lot of people have asked me why, if I intended to be a serious candidate for the Delaware General Assembly, I didn't bite the bullet and run as a Democrat.

Here's a major reason why I can't do that:

Senator Thomas Carper (D-Fortune 500) has taken a firm stand as one of only three US Senators voting against the restoration of Cost of Living Allowances for retired military veterans.

Senator Carper is, of course, a former Naval aviator, who receives $1,400/month in retirement pay.

He says,
“We‘re making some progress on def­icit reduction in this country, but our def­icit is still a half-trillion dollars this year, and that's huge," he said.  "If we are serious about making progress, all of us who are able to do something to help out need to do that.  I think Americans are willing to do their part if asked, and I think they look to people like me to try to provide some leadership and set an example."
No, Senator Carper, we're not looking to you for any sort of leadership any more, unless we happen to work in the executive offices of a bank or a Fortune 500 company.

Despite being able to find a trio of retired general officers to call the military pension system "over-generous"--the reality is that military retirement is one of the fundamental agreements that the United States government makes on behalf of its citizenry with the people who bear arms in our defense.

Perhaps "people like me [Senator Carper]"--former officers who have led privileged careers as well-paid politicians with cadillac State and Federal benefits--cannot understand the future facing the men and women who volunteer for military service in this country today.

They face multiple overseas deployments into active combat, with all the included stresses of rampant sexual assault, Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome, military suicides, divorce, depression, family stresses, life-altering wounds, and the ever-present possibility of a nasty death alone in a ditch somewhere in a foreign land.  When they get home, they find that the part of the deal that included things like Veterans benefits in education or medical care is far too often not what they were promised.  They have difficulty finding jobs, finding counseling, finishing their education, or breaking out of the nightmares and drug habits acquired in service.

For far too many retirees (especially enlisted), that military pension is the difference between making it (just barely) and not making it at all.  You may not know, Senator Carper, about all the military retirees who are also on the SNAP benefits you voted to cut, or who rely on the stateside commissaries (that the Pentagon is contemplating closing) to feed their families.

Senator Carper has portrayed this as a vote of principle and leadership.

Principle and leadership would be demanding that our imperialistic military structure, bloated Pentagon budget, and militarized foreign policy be rethought.

So here's the deal:  as long as Delaware Democrats continue to support a man who thinks that military retirement benefits are overly generous, who won't challenge the defense contractors and financial institutions that fund his campaigns, and who believes that "people like me" (which means other Democrats, apparently) support cutting benefits for the junior officers and enlisted people who put their lives and body parts on the line . . . .

. . . you won't find me calling myself a Democrat.

Tell me, somewhere, that there's an elected Democrat in Delaware willing to challenge this man's callous grandstanding . . .

Comments

Thomas L. Knapp said…
"military retirement is one of the fundamental promises that the United States government makes to steal from its victims on behalf of the workfare clients who serve as justification for the military industrial complex."

There, fixed that for ya.
delacrat said…
Carper likes to strike the "Fiscal Responsibility" pose to press myth that the Federal debt caused the recession, not the mortgage debt generated by his Wall St. paymasters.
nice article very impressive blog love it

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...