Nation’s Military Men and Women in Need of Support
With a major war in the Middle East and a world war on terrorism, we as a nation are going to require a significant increase in military manpower, not a drawdown.
The attempts to cut medical and other benefits that attract young men and women to the military and for disabled veterans and their families is a slap in the face to those who serve, those who have served and those who have yet to serve.
The disparity in compensation between politicians and the military is sickening. The difference in lifestyles, including the risk of permanent disability or death due to service of country, is not a requirement for politicians. There is no higher calling to God, family and country than serving in the military.
Those politicians who advocate or support decreasing the promised benefits for military personnel and their families should be drafted for two years and sent to the front lines and to have their families live on the income in effect.
If it were not for those who made the necessary sacrifices over the past 100 years in the service of this country, there would not be a United States of America.
If you are not content with those you elected into office, you have the power to vote them out this coming election. Our nation’s military men and women, past and present, need your support.
Peter Slempa
Chehalis
Parties Must Cast a Much Wider Net for Presidential Candidates
Now that the Super Bowl is over, attention begins to focus on the upcoming presidential race, another event that may be thrown by poor judgment.
Among George Washington’s many gifts to the newborn United States was the modesty of his rule as our first president. Wealthy and athletic with a commanding physical presence, Washington probably was not modest by nature.
But the general who almost single-handedly had rescued the Continental Army from despair and disintegration at Valley Forge had not been spoiled by his own success.
As his second term as chief executive drew to a close in 1796, Washington spurned numerous pleas that he stand for a third term. The perpetuation of personal rule beyond a reasonable limit, he believed, would bloat the self-importance of the president, corrupting his soul and suppressing the citizenry.
No man was indispensable and eight years were enough.
Earlier, Washington had dismissed all urgings that he become the king of the new nation. Upon hearing of this in London, King George III commented: “If he turns that down, he will be the greatest man in the world.”
While not enforced by legal statute, the selflessness of Washington’s proscription against a third term so impressed the nation as to become almost sacrosanct. Other early presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe willingly followed suit. Many years later, Ulysses S. Grant tried for a third term, but was soundly defeated.
The only exception to the two-term limit was Franklin Roosevelt. Amid the international emergency of World War II, FDR actually served three full terms and recently had been elected to a fourth when he died, prematurely aged and exhausted, on April 12, 1945. Roosevelt’s conduct of the war had been brilliantly successful, but his death, in a partial sense, vindicated Washington’s view.
To prevent another FDR, the Republican-controlled 80th Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment in 1947, which was ratified in 1951. Henceforth, presidents would be limited to two terms, although as much as two years of an immediate predecessor’s term could be served as well in the event of death or resignation.
But the practical effectiveness of the 22nd Amendment is now endangered.
Jeb Bush, the former Republican governor of Florida and the son of one president and the brother of another, is edging ever closer to a White House run of his own.
Democrat Hillary Clinton, the wife of former president Bill Clinton, clearly harbors similar ambitions.
Although not in contravention of the letter of the Constitution, these candidacies contradict its spirit.
Any thought that another Bush or Clinton presidency would not cede undue power and influence to these families is unrealistic and naive.
Despite the travails of the past decade or so, the United States remains the most powerful nation on Earth with a vibrant and industrious population of some 320 million.
The American pool of talent and commitment is broad and deep.
Both major parties should cast a wider net.
Joseph Tipler
Centralia
