If there’s a good reason for not passing this legislation I don’t know of it. It’s Republicans holding it up after having originally voted for it in majority. You might call your worthless, corrupt Senators and ask them to do the right thing for once. Or else, if you know a good reason they shouldn’t, explain it below.
5 comments:
Though the current motive is being disputed, the objection is one Republicans raised before the announcement of the Manchin compromise. The bill shifts some existing toxic exposure programs into the mandatory, i.e. fixed budget renewed annually, spending in addition to funding the new program. This lowers the total allocated discretionary spending and allows reallocation of those funds into unrelated programs.
Neither the language or the objection is new. I'm not sure why Democrats think proposing over a trillion dollars in new spending doesn't justify some hard looks at other spending proposals.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/burn-pits/2022/07/31/burn-pits-benefits-bill-concerns-arent-new-hinge-on-budget-moves/
Christopher has beaten me to it. The "R" explanation is that moving the funds from one budget category to another will allow those funds to be diverted to things which have nothing to do with compensating veterans. As an example of this tactic, consider Trump using military construction funds to build the border wall; or the use of Covid relief funds for paying salary bonuses to teachers in various locations. But the military budget and the Covid appropriations, while gigantic, are both finite and time-limited, which at least puts some lid on the potential shenanigans. This bill would create an obligation unlimited in either time or amount.
The "D" explanation is that the Repubs are trying to prevent the Dems from having a "brought home the bacon" talking point before the November elections. Note that both of these explanations can be true... and I'm thinking they probably are, given who we're talking about here.
Also note that the bill is not just about burn pits, but all sorts of toxin exposures-- Agent Orange, radiation, groundwater contamination on post, etc. So there are lots of people in the "potentially affected" population (i.e. lots of potential costs, lots of motivated voters). In fairness, I need to point out that I myself am affected, being a three-time Gulf vet with service-connected asthma.
Janet
moving the funds from one budget category to another will allow those funds to be diverted to things which have nothing to do with compensating veterans.
Really want to hand that prize to 'worthless, corrupt' politicians?
I reckon they've already got the 'prize' of free spending, from what I've seen.
Thank you, Christopher and Janet, for explaining the issue to me.
Unfortunately the House remove the section that had the Listing for Ft McClellan. We have been trying to get it listed since 2015. Ft Mc makes most other bases look like a kiddie pool in comparison. Congress keeps kicking the can down the road as more and more of us die, they keep it up there will be no one left to be treated.
Post a Comment