From what I understand, they switched it from discretionary spending to mandatory spending, which opens the door to a whole bunch of other spending.  At least, that's what the Republicans are saying.

---

(07-31-2022, 04:28 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: I read the summary and was fine with it until I got to Title IX which has nothing to do with healthcare for vets exposed to toxic substances. It's about employment for the VHA. I have nothing against that per se but it has nothing to do with providing healthcare for veterans exposed to the toxic junk.

Jon Stewart said it was the same bill passed the first go round except something was removed. I have yet to find out what it is he was talking about. He was complaining about discretionary funding but I didn't see anything specific to that in the summary which means it's likely buried in the bill. Maybe the bit about discretionary funding was removed and that's why Republicans voted against it.

These idiots need to stop posturing and make it happen.

I would kind of lean toward the idea that if you have a bill that saves veterans from problems that occurred as a result of their service, and everyone agrees that those problems came about because of their service, and you can't get that bill passed, then there's something wrong with that bill.  That's my default position.

---