Conservatives defending John McCain against
this LA Times article about his disability pension are missing
the boat. OF COURSE McCain merits a disability payment for the
injuries he suffered in captivity. But that doesn't mean he should
accept it. The man is wealthy beyond the imaginings of most of us
mere mortals. And he clearly is in good enough shape to work, and
work very hard, at his profession. There is no reason whatsoever
that he NEEDS the pension -- just as, he rightly points out, there
is no reason for wealthy Americans to receive full premium support
for the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, and just as, he
rightly points out, all sorts of entities receive federal largesse
(grants, earmarks) that they don't really need. McCain should
voluntarily do as he says others ought to be forced to do:
Relinquish his claim on money that he might technically be more
than qualified for, but that he just doesn't need and that, in
times of obscene federal deficits, the federal government can't
afford.
Not only that, but McCain should set an example make a public
issue of relinquishing his claim on the pension, and challenge all
other people and entities that receive unnecessary federal largesse
to do the same. Multi-millionaires who get farm subsidies?
Relinquish their claim. Liberal politicians who want to raise
everybody's taxes? Voluntarily pay their own taxes at their
proposed higher rates. Wealthy folks who still accept monthly
Social Security checks? Forfeit their checks to Uncle Sam. And so
on.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's wise or
right.
topics:
Taxes, John McCain, Earmarks, Social Security, Medicare
