Monday, December 23, 2013

Paul Ryan, RINO sell-out, on why he tossed disabled veterans under the Obama bus

As regular readers know by now, the RINOs in the GOP House, as well as those in the Senate, threw veterans generally, and disabled veterans particularly, under the Obama bus in their cowardice.

As always, our worthless twit of a congresswoman joined in the RINO perfidy by voting for this garbage, betraying those veterans she so laughingly claims to support.

From This Ain't Hell:

Paul Ryan justifies cutting military pension growth

Chock Block sends us a link to the USAToday piece today written by Congressman Paul Ryan who tries to explain away his legislation to cut the growth of military pensions. Somehow, he thinks that retirement pay is going to suck up the whole Defense budget;
The federal government has no greater obligation than to keep the American people safe and we must take care of the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line. For that reason, Congress is understandably hesitant to make changes to military compensation.
But even hesitance has a cost. The need for reform is undeniable. Since 2001, excluding the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost per service member in the active-duty force has risen by 41% in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a combat vet himself, has said “that we can no longer put off military compensation reform. DOD’s leadership, Chairman Dempsey, the service chiefs, the service secretaries, and myself, we all know that we need to slow cost growth in military compensation. Otherwise, we’ll have to make disproportionate cuts to military readiness and modernization.”
Ya know, I used to go along with the reductions and alterations to our pay and compensation, thinking that it was my patriotic duty. But then I noticed that the military were the only ones making a sacrifice. Ryan would be more believable if there weren’t so many other cuts that could be made to the budget which have more of an impact on the debt, other than veteran compensation – you know, like cutting $4.2 billion dollars in child-credits to illegal aliens as opposed to the less than $2 billion/year in savings on the backs of veterans.
Ryan has decided that veterans can afford $100,000 loss of compensation during their retirement for their service. I don’t remember anyone asking me if I could fit that into my budget, but then federal government knows more about my financial situation than I know.
But it’s more about politics than fairness, anyway. Voting to eliminate cutting the checks to illegal alien families is more likely to impact the votes a candidate might get than cutting veterans’ compensation for their unquestioning service to the country.
Exclusive of the fact that the cost of damned near EVERYTHING has "risen 41% in inflation adjusted dollars," the fact remains that if "pension reform" is supposed to save us, then  it requires that "shared sacrifice" babble our "Blitherer-inChief" used to go on about... and that means whacking the civilian government work force as well... where the explosion in numbers and pay and retirement benefits makes the military look like a fender-bender in comparison.

The GOP did this.  Ridgefield Barbie did this.  And it's this kind of stupidity that's part and parcel of why I left that party.

No comments: