Senate Democrats Prefer Illegal Alien Welfare To Military Pensions

We’ve long known that Democrats are not particular supporters of the military. This seemingly grew out of the hippy/anti-Vietnam movement…interestingly, a war started by Democrats…and strengthened during the Carter years, to the point that the Left has been attempting to cut military spending at every turn. They’re still trying to do it today, supporting cuts to the military while protecting illegals

(Daily Caller) Senate Republicans were unable to stop military pension cuts when Senate Democrats blocked a vote on an amendment to prevent the cuts by closing a welfare loophole for illegal immigrants Tuesday night.

The two-year budget deal brokered by Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, would cut military pensions by $6 billion over ten years, leaving some Senate Republicans scrambling to stop the cuts.

“Removing this unbalanced treatment of our military retirees ought to be one of the key actions we should take before this legislation moves forward. In fact, greater savings than this can be achieved by passing a legislative fix recommended by the Inspector General of the U.S. Treasury that would stop the IRS from improperly providing tax credits to illegal aliens,” Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions said Monday, announcing his co-sponsorship of Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker’s amendment to restore the military retirement benefits Monday.

What this is about is a provision in the law that allows the parents of illegal children to obtain welfare benefits, to the tune of $4.2 billion dollars in 2010. Sessions’ amendment would have required a Social Security number to be used to claim the child tax credit, rather than a taxpayer ID number, as well as restore the military pension cuts.

Sessions’ motion failed on a 46 – 54 party line vote, with North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan crossing the aisle as the lone Democrat to vote with the Republicans.

“Reid’s majority just voted to keep pension cut for vets instead of cutting welfare payments to illegal aliens,” a Sessions aide emailed.

But of course. Democrats have determined that they really love illegal aliens. Military members? Not so much.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Senate Democrats Prefer Illegal Alien Welfare To Military Pensions”

  1. […] of day,” Sessions said in a statement after his motion was voted down.Read the whole thing.H/T The Pirate’s CoveTweetvaso linkgoogle_ad_client = "ca-pub-1395656889568144"; /* In Post Ad */ google_ad_slot = […]

  2. Jeffery says:

    Didn’t the military pension reform originate in the House which is controlled by Republicans? So your tirade against the military-hating Democrats who paradoxically start all the wars is irrelevant, isn’t it.

    The change in the current funding calls for reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) in retiree pay by 1 percent, but only for those who retire after 20 years of active service, are not disabled and generally are still in their 40s. So a soldier who retires at 40 after 20 yrs of service will see his annual increase reduced a little bit. He won’t get a cut but his increase will be less than previously thought. Of course, conservatives are in favor of doing this same thing to Social Security recipients and state and federal retirees, just not military who retire at 40.

    Personally, I think the budget savings are tiny and our military members deserve their pensions as they are now. In addition, it strikes me as unfair that we renege on pension contracts, as these military members had the expectation of a certain pension in lieu of a portion of their pay when they enlisted.

    From Tea Party darling Paul Ryan (R-Wis): In justifying the change, Ryan’s House Budget Committee called military retirement “an exceptionally generous benefit, often providing 40 years of pension payment in return for 20 years of service.”

    Jefferson Beauregard Sessions tossed in the Mexican welfare diversion to give Rush another talking point. It’s just grandstanding for the voters.

    Again, if you want across the board cuts in spending they have to be across the board.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Again, if you want across the board cuts in spending they have to be across the board.

    You mean the government can’t do what people and companies do – prioritize spending?

    I

  4. More_Snowy_Gumballs says:

    Paul Ryan is not a Tea Party candidate. I saw his big-gov’t leanings when he put forth his O’care-like global health insurance plan. It was not conservative nor limited gov’t.

  5. Earl Shumaker says:

    As someone who has had family members in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, I am very supportive of the pension promises made to our military. I also agree that our hard earned tax money should not go to illegals.
    What I found disturbing about your article, however in labeling all Democrats as anti-military. You are wrong.
    I know plenty of military people are politically conservative. But on the other hand I know plenty who are independent or who are Democrats. Also, by-the-way, some of these people served in Vietnam with honor–and yet today say that the Vietnam War was just like Iraq War wrong for this country

Bad Behavior has blocked 7750 access attempts in the last 7 days.