Something has changed over the past few presidencies. The current occupier of the White House seems to be held to a higher standard geared toward a militant response when it comes to foreign policy. This despite Obama being the only candidate in 2008 who said that he would violate the sovereignty of other countries to pursue terrorists wherever they can be tracked down and killed. His record of achieving by far and away more kills in four years than his predecessor is beyond dispute. It is also well known that Ronald Reagan did absolutely nothing when terrorists killed 240 marines in Lebanon. Nothing. Then there is the USS COLE. This U.S. Navy warship was badly damaged with concomitant loss of life by terrorists on October 12, 2000. Clinton was still president at the time, but it wasn’t until late December that the CIA tentatively identified al-Qaeda as the author of the bombing. More conclusive evidence came in shortly after Bush was sworn in as president on January 20, 2001. In June 2001, Osama Bin Laden released a tape bragging that he was behind the attack. I am unaware of one single response that the Bush administration took against al Qaeda or OBL between his inauguration and shortly after 911. And I don’t recall Bush facing the harsh criticism that Obama has met with concerning the embassy attacks. I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt at the time thinking that maybe he was doing something behind the scenes. If he was it is still a very well kept secret. Times change.
Then there was last week’s remark by Mitt Romney about the 47 percenters who receive government benefits. It has been fun to watch all the explanations on talk radio defending what Romney “really meant”, as though they could take his words and divine from them an intent that wasn’t articulated. Romney would have been a little bit more honest if he had included other forms of government largess that would probably bump up the percentage considerably. Government loan guarantees given to banks where heads they win and tales you lose, are common. For starters they include FHA, VA, and SBA loans. Let’s not leave out government subsidized flood insurance and farm subsidies. Then, of course, are the tax loopholes that allow the wealthy to take advantage of code provisions that their friendly Washington representatives vote into law for them. Would I be cynical if I suggested that their whopping contributions and PAC money didn’t have any effect on these representatives? One letter writer and blogger attacked Obama for the 360% increase in Tricare, which benefits military families and retirees. What she left out is that the annual cost for Tricare for a family was set in 1995 at $460/year. It will go up on October 1, 2012 to $538.56/year. That doesn’t include deductables and co-pays, which everyone pays, including Medicare recipients. The cost will continue to escalate on a scale with the cost of living. It is also worth noting that the increased cost was pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by both houses and signed into law by the president. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pushed for the law stating that the medical costs for retirees was taking up much larger portions of the defense budget to the detriment of our fighting capabilities. Gates is a Republican. In a time of deep recession where everyone has to have an oar in the water, Gates got it right.
And speaking of our elected representatives in Washington, many readers have seen the internet claim that they receive lifetime pensions, lifetime healthcare, and other benefits after serving just one term. This is false. They don’t. But here is some of the rest of the story. Our representatives/senators created the current federal employee retirement law in 1984. It allows for a representative to receive a retirement annuity and subsidized healthcare based on years of total government service. But, and here is the big but, our representatives voted to include themselves in the much better retirement plan afforded to federal law enforcement officers. Federal law enforcement officers are provided a larger annuity because they must retire no later than age 57, and because of the special demands and nature of the job. I guess our representatives concluded that facing constituents who may have tough questions is the functional equivalent of what federal law enforcement officers face. I wonder if Romney included them in his 47 %.