Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman
“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.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
and THAT is what the GOP objected to. Not to helping vets.
How will Pete react? will he…
a) scold democrats for exploiting everyone’s desire to help sick vets, by sneakily inserting a partisan gimmick into an otherwise noble bill
—- or ——-
b) will he give me an anatomical lecture about how many parts there are to the urethra?
if you’re ticked that the bill didn’t pass, your issue is with the democrats who couldn’t resist sneaking some BS partisan pork into what should be a popular and noble bill.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device