Thursday, September 20, 2012

Republicans Choose Obstructionism Over Jobs for Veterans

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate voted to effectively kill the Veterans Job Corps Bill, a bill designed to give grants to federal, state and local agencies to help them hire and train unemployed military veterans for jobs as police officers, firefighters and national parks workers. The vote was 58 yeas to 40 nays.

what eye thynk:   This looks like a no brainer. We have men and women who have served honorably in our military who can’t find a job now that they are home. Considering that the bill was fully funded with existing revenues, what could possibly stop this bill from passing?

Well, first, there is the current Senate’s ridiculous and sad filibuster addiction, requiring that every and any bill must first attract 60 votes before it can be brought to the floor for consideration. (I know this is the way the filibuster rule works; but, it sort of begs the question: If you already have 60 votes--which is more than enough to pass a bill--does that mean you have to have enough votes to guarantee a successful outcome before you even begin to debate it?) No wonder Congress can’t get anything done!

Next, the Veterans Job Corps Bill was introduced by a Democrat, (a Republican red-flag right there). Washington Senator Patty Murray(D) wrote the main body of the bill, but she wrote it with bi-partisan support. Four Republican senators had some basic input in the writing and Sen. Richard Burr(R) from No. Carolina acknowledged that Sen. Murray had directly incorporated his ideas into her bill; but when the vote was taken, the bill failed, with all 40 of the negative votes coming from Republican senators--including Mr. Burr and the other co-authors!

What possible logic can there be for voting against a bill you helped to write?! The only explanation can be that the Republican party will do anything to obstruct forward movement while a Democrat is in the White House. They are more interested in making points than in making progress, even if it is at the expense of the people who risk their lives to defend Congress’ right to exist.

1 comment:

  1. "What possible logic.." and that is a (partial) quote, How about: 'Hate', or 'lock-step', or ''lock-step hate? Or how about 'Political hatred', or 'racial hatred', or 'gender hatred', or 'socio/economic hatred'.
    I hated to go there, but ...

    ReplyDelete