Here’s the reason, folks:

A measure that would give veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan full four-year scholarships, dubbed a new G.I. Bill, also passed by a vote of 266-166, short of the two-thirds needed to override the promised veto by President Bush.

The added benefits would cost $52 billion over 10 years and would be paid for by a 0.5 percent surtax on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.

Calling the new tax a “patriot premium,” Democrats argued that it was time for wealthy Americans to share in the sacrifice that troops are making in Iraq.

That, and then there’s this, from a comment at Redstate:

Nancy has to resubmit it. The original bill was split up for the purposes of letting the progressives “vote their conscience” on withdrawal, then edit it out in the reconciliation with the Senate version. Not going to happen, now; the bill failed.

Republicans don’t have a single problem — and SHOULDN’T have — with funding a new GI bill for the troops when they come home. Whatever they need, we should gladly give them, in my opinion. But we shouldn’t allow Democrats to hold these kinds of things hostage to their anti-war agenda.

They know that the legislation they want passed (i.e., the total cut-and-run package they’d like to have) can’t pass on its own, so they tack on stuff that Republicans would like to pass. And when Republicans stand up against the added stuff (the anti-war b.s., the earmarks, the tax increases, etc.), the Dems get all in a tizzy and start with their political posturing, asking why Republicans hate America or the troops and other silly nonsense (they learned that from reading the kook blogs on the left, btw).

I think we’ve well established who hates the troops and the military (it’s not the people on the right, in case you were wondering). Democrats have played politics with the war since the moment it started, and they have no intention of letting up.

Remember, they were for this war before they were against it:

Here’s another example of how they’re hijacking good legislation to further their agenda:

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday added to an Iraq spending bill a controversial provision to help pave the way for undocumented agriculture workers to win legal status, a move that may reopen the divisive immigration debate on the Senate floor.

The so-called Ag-Jobs amendment, sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho), would create a process that allows undocumented workers to continue to work on farms. Without the amendment, Feinstein warned that the U.S. would lose $5-9 billion to foreign competition, tens of thousands of farms would shut down and 80,000 workers would be transferred to Mexico. The bill would sunset in five years.

“Agriculture needs a consistent workforce,” Feinstein said. “Without it, they can’t plant, they can’t prune, they can’t pick and they can’t pack.

“This is an emergency situation,” she added.

The amendment was approved by a 17-12 vote with defections from both parties. Critics say the amendment amounts to amnesty for people who entered the country illegally. A broader comprehensive immigration overhaul, with a path for citizenship for the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, failed in a divisive Senate vote last year.

“No matter how one characterizes it, this enormous amendment still amounts to amnesty,” said Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.). “I oppose amnesty. All these immigration issues should be addressed through the regular order.”

Pretty hard to believe that Roberty Byrd is the voice of reason in the Senate, isn’t it?

Popularity: 10% [?]

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites