Burn Pit Bill blocked ...
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@taiwan_girl said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace I get that. But my understanding is the same as Ax's.
The bill that passed with 84 votes is pretty much the same as the one that was rejected.
Either
A. The staff did not do their homework the first time and did not do a good summary of the bill for the senators
B. A memo from leadership went around that said that Republican senators should not work with Democratic senators on bills
C. The Republican senators feel there is some political gain by voting against it.
D. Combination of all of the aboveIf the bill was pretty much the same, it would not have come back to the Senate for a new vote.
The bill voted in by the House and the Senate has to be identical to become law. "Pretty much the same" but not "identical" will require a re-vote to get the two chambers to vote on an "identical" bill. It has always been so since the founding of this nation.
@taiwan_girl's post above calls out the specific difference between the two versions (the one approved 84-14 on June 16, and the one blocked on July 27 because 25 GOP senators changed their votes), it also links to the two versions of the bill so you can compare them yourself if you wish. You can look at that to judge for yourself whether they are "pretty much the same." In any case, it's clear that there is no "$400 Billion" pork being added between the June 16 version and the July 27 version.
-
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@LuFins-Dad said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@taiwan_girl said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace I get that. But my understanding is the same as Ax's.
The bill that passed with 84 votes is pretty much the same as the one that was rejected.
Either
A. The staff did not do their homework the first time and did not do a good summary of the bill for the senators
B. A memo from leadership went around that said that Republican senators should not work with Democratic senators on bills
C. The Republican senators feel there is some political gain by voting against it.
D. Combination of all of the aboveIf the bill was pretty much the same, it would not have come back to the Senate for a new vote.
The bill voted in by the House and the Senate has to be identical to become law. "Pretty much the same" but not "identical" will require a re-vote to get the two chambers to vote on an "identical" bill. It has always been so since the founding of this nation.
@taiwan_girl's post above calls out the specific difference between the two versions (the one approved 84-14 on June 16, and the one blocked on July 27 because 25 GOP senators changed their votes), it also links to the two versions of the bill so you can compare them yourself if you wish. You can look at that to judge for yourself whether they are "pretty much the same." In any case, it's clear that there is no "$400 Billion" pork being added between the June 16 version and the July 27 version.
Right the pork was not added between the two bills. If anybody is making that claim then they are mistaken. However the pork is the reason for the opposition, at least as stated by the senator who took the floor to speak on it.
-
@Jolly said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
There are two major reasons the bill failed.
- The $400B and accounting practices as laid out by Toomey.
This "reason" is disingenuous because the bill previously passed the Senate 84-14 with that "$400B and accounting practices" intact.
- Schumer welched on a deal. There were two amendments that were to be added on the final bill by Republicans. Schumer decided to renege on his word, therefore the GOP killed the bill.
What deal? What amendments? The bill previously passed the Senate 84-14 without those "amendments." Why do the Senate GOP insists on those "amendments" now when they did not care about those "amendments" when they voted for the bill on June 16? Are they so amateurish that they did not know that had the House simply passed the June 16 version then they would not have gotten either "amendment" anyway?
-
Education is extremely important.
-
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
Jolly do you have a link for this Schumer welching thing? I’m not seeing anything when I google it.
Cornyn was the Senator who brought it up in an interview on CNN. It was subsequently reported in Newsweek.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/28/republicans-burn-pits-veterans/
Wednesday’s failed vote was rooted in the budgetary policy dispute that was first raised last month by Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), who objected to the way the bill would change the accounting of about $400 billion in preexisting veterans spending.
That previously authorized spending had been designated as discretionary — that is, subject to yearly congressional appropriations. But the bill, known as the PACT Act, authorizes $280 billion of new mandatory spending — that is, not subject to yearly appropriations — and also converts the prior $400 billion in authorizations from discretionary to mandatory.
That, Toomey first argued last month, amounts to a budget “gimmick” that could facilitate massive amounts of new appropriated spending: “Why would they do a thing like that?” he said in a June 24 floor speech. “The reason is because that way you create a big gaping hole in the discretionary spending category, which can be filled with another $400 billion of totally unrelated spending — who knows on what.”
In the subsequent weeks, Toomey worked behind the scenes to make his Republican colleagues aware of the issue and pushed to get the prior spending moved back to the discretionary category. But Democrats would not agree to an amendment, so Republicans voted en masse against advancing the bill Wednesday to force the issue.
After the failed vote Wednesday, Toomey said an amendment could allow the bill to be quickly passed: “My concern about this bill has nothing to do with the purpose of the bill,” he said. “It is a budgetary gimmick that has the intent of making it possible to have a huge explosion in unrelated spending — $400 billion.”
-
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.
