Recent Posts

We don’t have an ‘open border’ based on the definition of the term.  What we have is an uncontrolled border. Border patrol does not have adequate manpower to handle the influx of people coming across and because of that our existing border laws aren’t being properly in-forced.  

I’m not opposed to legal immigration but when you have more people cross our border in the 18 mos Binden’s been president then the population of the state I live in that’s a problem. 

Thanks for the response pixiechick  I am just recapping so I can be fact checked to make sure I understand.  😉😄

So basically Toomey said the bill is fine to help vets.  But because we are giving them these monies in this pact, when WE (all of congress not just Dems or Reps) go and create and vote for our “normal” budgets he is worried that the Democrats are going to do some hocus pocus, even though that hocus is just “normal” budgeting procedure.

So the amendment vote that Schumer promised had to do with regular spending and was nothing to do with this bill.  There are normal procedures that they could have/use to have oversight on the “normal” budgeting process…it did NOT need to be included with this bill because it did nothing to this bill.    

So Toomey is saying yes let’s STALL this important legislation, that we all agree on, to add something that is part of our normal budgeting process. And let’s stall it before our summer break and after it passed once.

 Am I close?  Because that is some fearful budgetary gymnastics that he thinks are going to be going on that can be stopped in their normal budget votes.


Exactly just complaining about normal procedure that happens and is resolved with every budget passed.

Meaning…because they (Dems) made it mandatory to spend this money in the bill on Veterans they (Reps) are worried they are going to want to use money in the normal budget process for other things?  What if they the Reps want to use it for other things like a useless wall or such? 


So this is something like Gun laws that the Reps are saying we don’t need because it is already part of the normal process.  This is a budgeting amendment that we don’t really need because it will have to go through the normal budgetary process?

      ......          Am I close?

Some one explained that the second 400B is there so it can be used without having to vote every year to provide the dollars for the veterans' health care. The veterans face long term health care from the burn pits. It can only be used for veterans' health care. It is not just general monies for random use.

Despite Toomey's claims, the Republican rejection of the bill is most likely out of spite for the Democrats announcing Manchin and Schumer had a deal on the Inflation Reduction act. The timing is just too coincidental. The House tried to whip against the semi conductor bill, another popular bill.  Republicans, including Toomey, are most likely looking for cover for voting against a popular bill they previously voted for.  Veterans are mad and they have every right to be.

www.npr.org/2022/07/29/1114417097/veterans-burn-pit-bill-republican-senators

www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-on-failed-pact-act-vote-did-republicans-decide-to-take-their-anger-out-on-vulnerable-veterans

www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/01/veterans-capitol-burn-pits-protest/

www.axios.com/2022/07/29/chips-house-republicans-votes

Again - they were fine with how the spending was done accounting-wise the first time they voted on it.

And when Cornyn refers to "Schumer's mendacity,' it's in relation to him getting a deal with Manchin on a reconciliation package that included money for climate stuff. Mitch McConnell said that if Schumer & Manchin did that, they would vote against the CHIPs bill. But Schumer & Manchin didn't announce that they had a deal until after the vote on CHIPs.

So then Republicans were angry - mostly because they didn't actually believe Schumer & Manchin COULD come up with something they both agreed on - so they voted against PACT.

Again - they were fine with how the spending was done accounting-wise the first time they voted on it.

So then Republicans were angry - mostly because they didn't actually believe Schumer & Manchin COULD come up with something they both agreed on - so they voted against PACT.

If the border was open as you and Fox says it is, wouldn't there be no need to call people "illegal"?

Ugh, I can't stand either of them.

I don’t do spin, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. I addressed exactly what Cornyn wrote and what Toomey said.

Last night..

How do I feel? Despite the clarity of my writing, you haven’t grasped what I’ve been saying?

--There is no “Schumer mendacity” in the PACT Act as Cornyn states. All funding was already designated as mandatory spending in June when Rs voted yes.

--The Toomey “hole” in discretionary spending is not a free-for-all for Dems. There is no slush fund for Dems. If either Ds or Rs want money for whatever purpose from the discretionary spending budget, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are bipartisan, meaning both D & R committee members would have to agree on the appropriation.

--From June when the Rs voted yes on PACT to this past week when they flipped, the only significant occurrence was the Manchin-Schumer deal on the Inflation Reduction bill. Therefore, it’s my belief that they flipped because they’re pissed about that, not because they have a valid concern over accounting.

I don’t know how else to phrase all this for you to understand my position.

Of course it matters. And it matters a lot as I have already explained to you above. Unless you’re fine with the VA having to seek appropriations every single year for the infected vets and if it’s facing caps at any given year, oh, well, life is tough. The Rs voted yes on this in June when the spending was already designated as mandatory. Even Toomey himself said he has no problem with $400B + $280B being spent on vets. Everything was proceeding as expected until the Inflation Reduction bill came along. The issue is are Rs doing this out of pique over the Inflation Reduction bill or doing this because they have a legitimate quarrel with the accounting? So far, you have not provided anything that would persuade me to believe it's the latter. Which is fine. You believe one thing, I believe another. It is what it is.

The original  $400B? Because that’s probably what made sense at that time for general VA funding. Congress can and does move money around. It makes more sense now to guarantee that funding so the VA’s abilities to treat vet patients suffering from toxicity are not dependent on caps. The last thing a bill like this would want to do is for the VA to end up rationing care or at worst, turning away injured vets because of caps.

What he failed to mention is that Dems can’t look at that hole as an opportunity for a bonanza, even if they wanted to, because the appropriations process is bipartisan.

The mandatory spending was in the bill they voted on in June. Where is this newly-discovered slush fund? If he and the GOP wanted appropriations under discretionary spending, then why did they vote yes in June? Why not vote on amendments at that time? Yesterday, I read the text on the Senate version as well as the amendment from the House. I can’t see what Toomey is referring to. If you can see it, please point it out to me.  I could very well be wrong, and if I am, I will gladly concede the point.  But I need to see the proof with my own eyes.

It would appear, based on Cornyn’s comment, the “no” votes on the Burn Pit bill was in retaliation to a perceived grievance against Chuck Schumer and not a $4 billion slush fund as Toomey is still claiming this morning.

At this point I’m so disgusted by the actions of the Republicans in Congress I have no pithy comments about this latest action by the Grand Old Party.
"Cornyn just admitted that Senate Republicans delayed the burn pits bill out of spite."