RK ARCHIVE - George Allen's Record of Deceit, Cynicism, & Hypocrisy

My name is Ralph Parrott. I am a 65 year old retired Navy Supply Corps Captain and retired businessman from Fairfax Station, Virginia. I served in the US Navy from March 1963 until September of 1990, over 27 years.

I started Empowering Veterans, Inc. as a PAC dedicated to the proposition that the country needs more Democratic Veterans in the Congress to counteract the recklessness of a Republican Administration and a Republican Congress made up of largely of members of the wealthy elites that have not served their country in uniform.

Empowering Veterans, Inc. is supporting Jim WebbGペs effort to oust George Allen (wealthy elite, did not serve) from the Senate. In this posting I put before you George AllenGペs voting record on issues relating to members of the Armed Forces and their families and veterans and their families. It is a record of deceit, cynicism, and hypocrisy. Please visit our website at empoweringveterans.org.
***********************
The best place to begin understanding George AllenGペs voting record is to begin with Senate Roll Call 0170 of 05/26/2001. That vote, with George AllenGペs GェayeGォ, passed $1.35 Trillion dollars in tax cuts that mainly benefited the wealthy. However, before these tax cuts, that exploded the deficit almost dollar for dollar, could be approved the Congressional Budget Act had to be waived. This act requires either spending cuts or revenue increases to pay for the tax cuts. Note that this bit of sleight of hand occurred before 9/11 and long before the Iraq War. This deceit can best be remembered as, GェWaive pay as you go to provide Tax Cuts for the Wealthy.Gォ

Now fast forward to 2006. The country is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But wait, the country is not really at war. The Armed Forces are at war. The only people in the country that have been asked to make any sacrifice are members of the armed forces and their families. Senate Roll Call 008 of 02/02/2006 crystallizes George AllenGペs deceit, cynicism, and hypocrisy. George Allen voted GェnoGォ with the Republican majority against waiving the Congressional Budget Act in order to fund the following in direct support of the war effort:

* $25.41 Billion for increased military equipment procurement
* $16.9 Billion for increased equipment maintenance for the Army
* $4.5 Billion for increased equipment maintenance for the Marine Corps

This deceit can best be remembered as, GェWaive pay as you go to provide Tax Cuts for the Wealthy in Peacetime, but to Hell with the Troops in Wartime.Gォ

George AllenGペs and the Republican majorityGペs record on veterans is just as dismal. George Allen loves to proclaim, GェI have been and will continue to be a strong advocate for our nationGペs veterans.Gォ In reality George Allen has voted against veteransGペ interests. Specifically, George Allen voted GェnoGォ on the following:

* $21.9 Billion for VA compensation, pensions, medical care and hospital improvements in Senate Roll Call 007 of 02/02/2006
* $500 Million increase for veteransGペ mental health services in Senate Roll Call 347 of 11/18/2005
* Increased Funding for the increased demand for VA services due to the Iraq War in Senate Roll Call 251 of 10/05/2005

George Allen should have said, GェI have and will continue to be a strong advocate for our nationGペs millionaires.Gォ Veterans continue to ask, GェWhere is the shared sacrifice?Gォ

How about votes that affect families, many of which are families of members of the Armed Forces and veterans and their families? Here again, George Allen and his Republican friends are firmly on the side of budget purity having voted GェayeGォ to $39.7 Billion Reduction to MEDICARE in Senate Roll Call 0363 of 12/21/2005.

But wait, George AllenGペs the deceit, cynicism, and hypocrisy continue unabated as he and his Republican fellow travelers standing on the sanctity of the Congressional Budget Act by voting GェnoGォ on the following family support issues:

* Increased Katrina for food assistance, bankruptcy relief and tax help in Senate Roll Call 234 of 09/15/2005
* $5 Billion to increase funding for Elementary and Secondary Education in Senate Roll Call 269 of 10/26/2005
* $4 Billion to increase funding for educational services for disabled children in Senate Roll Call 273 of 10/26/2005
* $836 Million to increase Pell Grants for poor college students. Note:155,000 active duty, reserve, and veterans receive Pell Grants.

This deceit can best be remembered as, GェWaive pay as you go to provide Tax Cuts for the Wealthy but to Hell with Families.Gォ The sheer hypocrisy of standing on budget principle when it comes to supporting families and waiving all the rules to support millionaires is astounding. Veterans ask, GェWhere is the SHARED SACRIFICE?Gォ

Clearly, George Allen and the Republican Party have forfeited their right to govern. Please visit empoweringveterans.org.

Comments

THIS is what I've been talking about!! (Catzmaw - 10/15/2006 3:56:57 PM)

Thank you, Captain Parrott, for a hard-hitting, fact laden, practical analysis of George Allen's record. Are you listening, ad people? We need ads which can take this information and make people understand Allen's role in mortgaging our children's future and endangering our military's welfare. The Bush Administration is currently crowing about an alleged decrease in the deficit from $413 billion to $247.7 billion. It's all lying with statistics. They didn't include that they'd intentionally overstated the 2004 deficit projection and had to revise it by $100 billion. They didn't include the money they've borrowed from the Social Security trust fund ($550 billion added to the deficit last year). They didn't include the over $200 billion borrowed from Asian banks. They didn't include their deferral of medicare payments to health care providers so the funds could be counted for their big "reduction". I hate math (there, I said it), but right now a good part of this election is about the numbers. We have to get this information out there. Let's stop letting Allen trot out his old reliable "the Democrats will raise your taxes" bushwa and go on the offensive.

Why slow him down? (kestrel9000 - 10/16/2006 1:20:48 PM)

"Flank speed" is actually faster than full!

Dear Word Detective: Where did the term "flank speed" come from? It is used by both Navy and merchant vessels as the absolute maximum speed for a vessel. -- Len Sutter, via the internet.
Oh boy, a nautical question. We love nautical questions around here, because no matter how diligently I research my answer, I can always look forward to receiving lots and lots of reader mail correcting me. I don't even mind the fact that many of my correspondents see fit to question whether I, personally, have ever actually seen a boat. I just find the enthusiasm with which they say it inspiring.
Onward. As you say, "flank speed" is the absolute maximum speed of a vessel, faster, in fact, than "full speed," which itself is only one-eighth faster than "standard speed" for the vessel. Unfortunately, while I have found many references explaining what "flank speed" is, none of them feels it necessary to explain where the term itself comes from. But I think that once we trace the history of the word "flank" itself, we'll be able to concoct a reasonable theory about "flank speed."
The basic meaning of "flank," which is of Germanic origin, is that part of an animal or human being located between the lowest ribs and the hips; in other words, the "side" of a critter.
One of the earliest figurative uses of "flank" was to mean the side of an army or military formation, one of the areas most vulnerable to attack. Indeed, as early as 1599, the verb "to flank" meant to make such an attack on the "flanks" of an enemy's forces, especially by moving rapidly around the enemy and then curving back to assault him from the side.
Now, presuming that such a "flanking attack" is as popular in naval battles as ashore, the key element in such an attempt would be getting your ships around to the side of the enemy's as quickly as possible. This maneuver would thus call for the highest speed possible. Voila: "flank speed."
As I said, however, this explanation is just a little deduction and a lot of conjecture on my part, so I'd be happy to hear from anyone who has the straight poop on "flank speed."