Burn Pit Bill blocked ...
-
How sausage is, or isn't, made:
The Pennsylvania senator’s long-held objection to this legislation rests on the fact that about $400 billion in spending over the next ten years has been deemed “non-discretionary,” meaning that it doesn’t need to be deliberately appropriated by Congress and will be spent, no matter what. But that spending isn’t dedicated to veterans’ affairs; it isn’t dedicated to anything, in fact. It is a blank check that Toomey believes will be made out to Democratic priorities or favored constituencies without a public debate over the value of that spending.
“It’s about Congress hiding behind an important veterans care bill a massive unrelated spending binge,” Toomey alleged. His proposed amendment to this legislation would strike that provision, preserving the $280 billion specifically devoted to veterans’ care as mandatory spending. But Toomey’s amendment was tabled by Senate leadership and remains unconsidered. These are perfectly valid considerations that could be easily resolved. But Democrats held the vote anyway. And when it failed, they defaulted to a theatrical display of befuddlement over Republicans’ motives.
Their confusion, and Stewart’s, is rooted in the fact that so many Republican lawmakers voted in favor of cloture in June but against cloture last week. “They’re manufacturing reasons to vote against legislation that they literally voted for just last month,” said one frustrated veteran who appeared alongside Stewart. “And so, it’s really a new level of low.” Advocates for this worthy cause don’t even address the simplest explanation for Senate Republicans’ reversal, which is by no means exculpatory of Republicans, that Toomey and his staff read the legislation more carefully than his GOP colleagues. It must be that those senators, some of whom are veterans themselves, “don’t support veterans.”
“This is the oldest trick in Washington,” Toomey said with due contempt for those who accused him of being a “f***ing coward.” Lawmakers “take a sympathetic group of Americans,” he continued, “craft a bill to address their problems and then sneak in something completely unrelated that they know could never pass on its own and dare Republicans to do anything about it.” It’s such a tired tactic that only those with virtually no exposure to legislative affairs in Washington could fail to comprehend Republican objections, even if they don’t agree with them. That does not describe Senate Democrats. It doesn’t even describe Jon Stewart. They bet that profound displays of anguish over the Republican Party’s heartlessness would find a credulous audience in the press, and they were correct.
That does not, however, legitimize this callous politicking. It is not heartless to object to federal spending for spending’s sake at a time of rampant inflation, which was partly exacerbated by the federal government’s introduction of too much capital into an economy typified by shortages in goods and labor. The handful of responsible political actors who have engaged with Toomey’s objections directly and in good faith claim that this additional funding is padding to avoid “rationing of care” to veterans. They have nevertheless failed to explain why the non-discretionary spending in question isn’t dedicated to veterans’ care. But even this level of discourse has been the exception. The rule, such as it exists, has been to paint a portrait of Republicans as malevolent skinflints who put their political objectives above the suffering endured by soldiers exposed to toxic conditions in overseas battlefields.
The facile dramaturgy we’ve been forced to endure is the first clue that what we’re witnessing is not a reasoned debate over competing policy priorities. We’re to be led by the hand to the conclusion that Republicans care more about money than veterans’ lives. But as Toomey predicted, there is a simple solution to this problem. And given the broad support for the underlying goals of the PACT Act, resolving what Toomey deemed a budgetary “gimmick” is the likeliest outcome. But not before this moment of Democratic catharsis has passed.
You can say a lot about Senate Republicans’ conduct here, not all of it complimentary. But you cannot call their defense of American taxpayer dollars from wanton abuse cowardice, particularly given their understanding of how this news cycle was likely to play out. The party in power or its phalanx of celebrities hope you ignore what Republicans are saying, read their minds, and divine their wholly nefarious intentions from your couch. That brand of trite demagogy doesn’t advance anyone’s interests, much less those of America’s veterans, but it does help beleaguered Democrats. Perhaps the press should spend a little time pondering the governing party’s motivations, too.
Is Toomey lying? You decide.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
That does not, however, legitimize this callous politicking. It is not heartless to object to federal spending for spending’s sake at a time of rampant inflation, which was partly exacerbated by the federal government’s introduction of too much capital into an economy typified by shortages in goods and labor. The handful of responsible political actors who have engaged with Toomey’s objections directly and in good faith claim that this additional funding is padding to avoid “rationing of care” to veterans. They have nevertheless failed to explain why the non-discretionary spending in question isn’t dedicated to veterans’ care. But even this level of discourse has been the exception. The rule, such as it exists, has been to paint a portrait of Republicans as malevolent skinflints who put their political objectives above the suffering endured by soldiers exposed to toxic conditions in overseas battlefields.
Yep. This is what I was trying, unsuccessfully, to draw out of Ax. I felt it was a teachable moment, to develop some compassion and reason that can bridge gaps between the left and the right. Unfortunately my attempts were thwarted and while I was unambiguously victorious in our disagreement, my primary point, to educate a tribal lefty in how to be a better person, was, sadly, a failure.
-
@George-K said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
Is Toomey lying? You decide.
A vanishingly small percentage of the outraged left could name specifically what Toomey is supposedly lying about. Ax certainly never could, and he's relatively bright and informed.
-
-
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The burn pit bill passed the Senate, 86 “yeas” vs. 11 “nays.”
The change in accounting method that Sen. Toomey wanted to introduce as an amendment did not make it into the final bill, and the bill passed the Senate 86-11 anyway.
Yep, too bad about that. But this was educational for many, and I'm glad we spent a couple days learning about this particular budget trick. Maybe in the future it'll be more difficult to slip into legislation.
-
The version of the burn pit bill that the Senate passed today on August 2 is identical to the one previously passed by the House, identical to the one the Senate GOP blocked on July 27. The July 27 blockade was a complete ruse, an utter waste of time. The 25 vote switchers deserve much criticism.
-
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The version of the burn pit bill that the Senate passed today on August 2 is identical to the one previously passed by the House, identical to the one the Senate GOP blocked on July 27. The July 27 blockade was a complete ruse, an utter waste of time. The 25 vote switchers deserve much criticism.
A ruse for what, Ax? Please try to describe a plausible motivation.
-
According to this article changes were made in addressing the GOPs concerns.
-
-
-
From the article:
Currently veterans have had to prove that illnesses were connected to their service, and the Department of Veterans Affairs did not consider exposure to toxins a service-related condition. The department has denied about 75% of veterans’ burn pit claims.
This is surprising. My wife and others worked for the Dept of VA in the benefits division and I was always shocked to know that veterans could often get a ton of disability benefits (money, etc) for disabilities they got while serving EVEN IF the disability was completely unrelated to their service. For example, if you got diabetes while active duty, that is considered a service-connected disability. Anyway, my point is I'm surprised exposure to burn pits was not already lumped into the service-connected disability bucket, unless claims were being abused and/or impossible to prove.
-
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
But this was educational for many, and I'm glad we spent a couple days learning about this particular budget trick. Maybe in the future it'll be more difficult to slip into legislation.
What "budget trick"?
There has been no "budget trick" in the bill to begin with. -
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
But this was educational for many, and I'm glad we spent a couple days learning about this particular budget trick. Maybe in the future it'll be more difficult to slip into legislation.
What "budget trick"?
There has been no "budget trick" in the bill to begin with.What are you talking about? Unless you think we're talking about actual magic tricks... yes the bill very much included budget tricks that congress adds to unrelated bills in order to create "funded buckets" they can pull cash from more easily in the future.
-
@89th said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The back and forth in the legislation is really pretty darn common, btw. Just got media exposure here because of the claims of GOP not liking vets, which is ironic since generally speaking the GOP is more pro-military than the DEMs.
-
No, it is not common for a 25% of Senators to vote one way one a bill, then vote the opposite on the identical bill, then flip-flop yet again on the identical bill. Feel free to find another example of this if you believe this is common.
-
Point #1 aside, just because something is "damn common" does not mean it is right.
-
Whether the GOP (or any party) is "pro-military" has to be evaluated against their actions, e.g., their legislative voting record, rather than their stump speeches or campaign ads. (You may recall something Jolly likes to say, along the line of "pay attention to what they do, not what they say.")
-
Furthermore, "pro-military hardware" is not the same as "pro-military personnel" or "pro-military veteran". Keep funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into expensive weapon systems every year is not the same as taking care of the ex-warriors who have returned from the battle field.
-
-
@89th said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
... yes the bill very much included budget tricks that congress adds to unrelated bills in order to create "funded buckets" they can pull cash from more easily in the future.
What "budget tricks" are you talking about that has been included in the burn it bill?
What "funded buckets" have been created that "they" (who is this "they") can pull cash from more easily in the future? -
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
- No, it is not common for a 25% of Senators to vote one way one a bill, then vote the opposite on the identical bill, then flip-flop yet again on the identical bill. Feel free to find another example of this if you believe this is common.
There were 48 amendments to the bill in the Senate.
-
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
But this was educational for many, and I'm glad we spent a couple days learning about this particular budget trick. Maybe in the future it'll be more difficult to slip into legislation.
What "budget trick"?
There has been no "budget trick" in the bill to begin with.The budget trick was explained in several of the linked articles. 400 billion dollars was changed from discretionary to mandatory, opening a 400 billion dollar hole in the discretionary budget to add anything to, not related to military. Is there something about that that you do not understand or do not believe? That is how it has already been explained many times in the material linked to in this thread.
