No excuse for Senator Colburn holding up bill for veterans

The "objection is cost" and he said that? The price was due and payable as soon as the first pair of boots was sent into Afghanistan and then into Iraq. Didn't they think of this when they sent them? After all, wars do not produce only coffins coming back but wounded as well. Keep in mind that there were less doctors and nurses working for the VA with two campaigns going on than there were after the Gulf War. Also keep in mind that there was nothing really being done for any of the wounded for far too long, so there is no excuse Senator Coburn can use now. This money should have been paid in full years ago. To complain now is forget what a huge role he played in all of this in the first place. He should be ashamed he does not understand that while he's complaining about money, they are suffering. They didn't make the congress wait when they were told to go so why the hell should they have to wait until Coburn finds his conscience and understands this is what we owe them now?

Sen. blocking bill: Objection is cost, not vets

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Nov 4, 2009 17:09:49 EST

The senator holding up consideration of an omnibus veterans’ health bill doesn’t hate veterans and their families, but he does hate the idea of creating new benefits without paying for them, his spokesman says.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is using Senate rules to block a vote on S 1963, a major veterans bill, unless he has the chance to offer amendments to pay for the new benefits it creates, especially stipends, health benefits, counseling and other programs aimed at family caregivers of seriously wounded combat veterans.

Coburn spokesman John Hart said the senator has questions about the new benefit, wondering why, if it is such a good thing for families, it is limited to helping only those of Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans. But the main objection is cost.

“We are at a point in our history when we have to start paying for things,” Hart said.
read more here
Objection is cost, not vets