@floridays
Everything I’ve heard is that the republicans have no sound reasoning on this and that it’s a bill most supported until the last moment.
Is this incorrect?
Some members had objected because the federal government would pay for the bill’s $278.5 billion cost through mandatory rather than discretionary spending.
Mandatory spending includes entitlement programs like Social Security, and is set in law and in effect indefinitely. Under discretionary spending, members of Congress would control the funding each year through the appropriations process.
Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said there had been an agreement between Tester and Moran for two amendment votes, but Democratic leaders have not scheduled those votes. Cornyn said the hope is for further negotiations to “eliminate some of the mandatory spending in the bill and the bill can pass.”
Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey said in a brief interview after the vote that he wanted to address a “budget gimmick” in the bill that he believes would lead to an increase in spending unrelated to providing health care and benefits for veterans exposed to burn pits.
Toomey said he had “no quarrel with” the legislation creating $278.5 billion in new spending during the next decade that would be classified as “mandatory.”
Toomey’s opposition to the bill comes from a separate section of the package that “would authorize $400 billion over the next 10 years of existing spending … to be switched from discretionary to mandatory.”
“And the reason for that, is to create a $40 billion annual hole in discretionary spending under the cap,” Toomey said. “And allow all kinds of spending on who knows what.”
In typical fashion Democrats disguise a bill to help people when in reality it is to help them do what they want with money.
www.coffeeordie.com
www.trendsmap.com
