Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

Senate rejects bill on veterans benefits


Recommended Posts

Meanwhile the republican roll by doing nothing for veterans....

 

Senate rejects bill on veterans benefits

Zoroya_Gregg.png Gregg Zoroya , USA TODAY 8:50 a.m. EST November 15, 2016
   

The biggest spending bill for veterans in decades goes down to defeat in a divided Senate

(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite AP)

Story Highlights

  • Largest piece of veterans legislation in decades goes down to defeat in Senate
  • Only two Republicans vote for bill that is defeated by 56-41
  • Concerns over how to pay for the benefits led to bill's defeat

The largest piece of veterans legislation in decades -- aimed at expanding health care, education and other benefits -- was rejected Thursday by the Senate on a procedural issue after proponents failed to obtain 60 votes to keep the bill alive.

Wrangling over an issue -- veterans -- that often receives bipartisan support, the legislation died on a vote of 56-41, with only two Republicans voting for it.

Most Republicans said it was too large, too costly and would burden a Department of Veterans Affairs already struggling to keep up with promised benefits.

Sen Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent and chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee who authored the bill, argued that many provisions in the bill have won bipartisan support in other pieces of pending legislation before Congress.

Republicans complained about how to pay for it. Sanders' legislation had more than 140 provisions costing $21 billion over 10 years.

Most of that money was to come from billions of dollars the government projected it would be allowed to spend on wars overseas in the fight against al-Qaeda.But Republicans argued that this is "phony" budgeting becasue U.S. participation in the Iraq War is over and operations in Afghanistan are winding down.

The legislation would have restored cost-of-living increases for the pensions of future military retirees; expanded VA health care by allowing acquisition of 27 new medical facilities and paid for reproductive services for 2,300 troops wounded in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

It also would have expanded compensation for family caregivers of disabled veterans — something now provided for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan — to families of veterans of all wars.

The bill was supported by nearly all veterans groups.

"Can we put politics aside for the good of our nation's veterans?" Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., former chairwoman of the VA committee, argued in urging its passage. "Can we show these heroes that - despite our differences - we will work as diligently toward getting them the benefits and care they've earned as they have worked for our nation?"

"Before we expand that system," argued Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., "what is needed is rigorous oversight and debate about how we're doing what we're doing now...When access is delayed, that's care denied."

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/27/veterans-legislation-bernie-sanders-senate/5859217/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Meanwhile the republican roll by doing nothing for veterans....

 

Senate rejects bill on veterans benefits

Zoroya_Gregg.png Gregg Zoroya , USA TODAY 8:50 a.m. EST November 15, 2016

   

The biggest spending bill for veterans in decades goes down to defeat in a divided Senate

(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite AP)

Story Highlights

  • Largest piece of veterans legislation in decades goes down to defeat in Senate
  • Only two Republicans vote for bill that is defeated by 56-41
  • Concerns over how to pay for the benefits led to bill's defeat

The largest piece of veterans legislation in decades -- aimed at expanding health care, education and other benefits -- was rejected Thursday by the Senate on a procedural issue after proponents failed to obtain 60 votes to keep the bill alive.

Wrangling over an issue -- veterans -- that often receives bipartisan support, the legislation died on a vote of 56-41, with only two Republicans voting for it.

Most Republicans said it was too large, too costly and would burden a Department of Veterans Affairs already struggling to keep up with promised benefits.

Sen Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent and chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee who authored the bill, argued that many provisions in the bill have won bipartisan support in other pieces of pending legislation before Congress.

Republicans complained about how to pay for it. Sanders' legislation had more than 140 provisions costing $21 billion over 10 years.

Most of that money was to come from billions of dollars the government projected it would be allowed to spend on wars overseas in the fight against al-Qaeda.But Republicans argued that this is "phony" budgeting becasue U.S. participation in the Iraq War is over and operations in Afghanistan are winding down.

The legislation would have restored cost-of-living increases for the pensions of future military retirees; expanded VA health care by allowing acquisition of 27 new medical facilities and paid for reproductive services for 2,300 troops wounded in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

It also would have expanded compensation for family caregivers of disabled veterans — something now provided for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan — to families of veterans of all wars.

The bill was supported by nearly all veterans groups.

"Can we put politics aside for the good of our nation's veterans?" Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., former chairwoman of the VA committee, argued in urging its passage. "Can we show these heroes that - despite our differences - we will work as diligently toward getting them the benefits and care they've earned as they have worked for our nation?"

"Before we expand that system," argued Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., "what is needed is rigorous oversight and debate about how we're doing what we're doing now...When access is delayed, that's care denied."

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/27/veterans-legislation-bernie-sanders-senate/5859217/

Must be Trumps fault even though he isn't in the job yet :lol2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

MC..we get it man....fake outrage.  It's a "thing" for non-vets.

 

8 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Typical Republican do nothing for vets.

The bill wasn't good enough.  More fake outrage from mc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member

Jezus...  looks like slinger was the only liberal that is smart enough to not come back for repeated beatings.  You would think drmocrats like snowrider and mc would wise up after getting daily beatings...  

trump and the majority republicsns will pass a meaningful bill instead of this garbage bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Then you negotiate changes. Its over now. The Republican party has historically not supported veterans.

 

2 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

Jezus...  looks like slinger was the only liberal that is smart enough to not come back for repeated beatings.  You would think drmocrats like snowrider and mc would wise up after getting daily beatings...  

trump and the majority republicsns will pass a meaningful bill instead of this garbage bill

This is how you do it mc.  Dems can go sit and cry for 2 years and let the adults govern

Edited by racer254
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my god... Do you realize that you just posted an article revision from a bill vote that happened in FEB 2014?! HAHAHAHAHAHA you stupid fuck. You are so invested in acting like a hack that you just posted a two and a half year old article to bottom feed for any type of self conceived slant you could think of. 

You care soooooo much about Vets that you don't even know what bills are on the floor let alone happened 2 FUCKING YEARS AGO!!! This class is point and case how acting like a partisan hack and not being informed one bit can go wrong. 

This might just be the self ownage of year to date. MC, you just took over first place as the sites number one mouth breather. Congrats. 

 

Corrections & clarifications: This Feb. 27, 2014, article was inadvertently republished with a November 2016 video that no longer accompanies the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Oh my god... Do you realize that you just posted an article revision from a bill vote that happened in FEB 2014?! HAHAHAHAHAHA you stupid fuck. You are so invested in acting like a hack that you just posted a two and a half year old article to bottom feed for any type of self conceived slant you could think of. 

You care soooooo much about Vets that you don't even know what bills are on the floor let alone happened 2 FUCKING YEARS AGO!!! This class is point and case how acting like a partisan hack and not being informed one bit can go wrong. 

This might just be the self ownage of year to date. MC, you just took over first place as the sites number one mouth breather. Congrats. 

 

Corrections & clarifications: This Feb. 27, 2014, article was inadvertently republished with a November 2016 video that no longer accompanies the story.

Oh, bless his heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol



×
×
  • Create New...