All I get out of all it so far is one side thinks their was budgetary gimmicks involved. But doesn’t make any attempt to explain what that means exactly.
Quote:
|
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) said on the Senate floor that he didn’t support the bill because it would create $400 billion in unrelated spending, which he called a “budgetary gimmick.”
|
The other side doesn’t attempt to address or defend against the claim of budgetary gimmicks he just says they just don’t care about veterans.
Quote:
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) accused Toomey of “having a problem” with supporting the country’s veterans.
“If you have the guts to send somebody to war, then you better have the guts to take care of them when they get home,” Tester said. ‘If we don’t take care of our veterans when they come home, they’re going to say, ‘Why should I ever sign the dotted line. Because the promises I made and the promises the country made, only half that deal is being respected.'”
|
I think it will eventually pass. But not before we get our full dose of political grandstanding, name calling, and virtue signaling.
This is one of the copies, I’m confused as to which is the latest. I took a look see and the best I can make out of it is that it’s a good idea.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-.../3967/text/pcs
__________________
Guardian of the honey and nuts
Let's assume I'm right, it'll save time.