Proposed Legislation Thread: Now Up - Support (or lack thereof) for our Troops regarding "Burn Pit" legislation (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

Remember when we were able to discuss actual legislation around here without having to focus on individual attacks?  I do.  Looks like proposals are beginning to flow.  I want to use this thread to talk about whatever legislative proposals you'd like now that they are being produced again..

For the People Act—or H.R. 1

Burn Pit Legislation

 

[The Commish]

Main focus of HR1:

1.  promote public financing of elections

2.  reduce the influence of corporate dark money

3.  strengthen ethics and financial disclosure rules

4.  bolster voting rights,

 

[Stealthycat]

is that the one that also removes the electoral college and makes a presidential candidate give 10 years of tax returns public ?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

1. No.

2. No.

3. Yes!

4. No.

 

[Dedfin]

 

[joffer]

2. No.

explain

 

[IvanKaramazov]

explain

I would need to see more details on this, but publishers, media companies, and interest groups have a first amendment right to comment on candidates 

 

[Dedfin]

explain

Corporations are people 

 

[cosjobs]

I would need to see more details on this, but publishers, media companies, and interest groups have a first amendment right to comment on candidates 

And evidently the right to use anonymous, out-sized donations to tilt the tables of justice in their favor. 

 

[The Commish]

is that the one that also removes the electoral college and makes a presidential candidate give 10 years of tax returns public ?

Read it.....it's why I gave you the link

 

[The Commish]

Guys...there's no need to guess....I gave you the link to the actual proposed bill.  I don't know what other information you want  

 

[kface]

1. sort of - i would like to see a limit of maybe $200 donations per individual

2. absolutely yes

3. yes

4. yes

 

[Fan of Charles McCoy]

Definitely YES on 4. There is no reason in the world that elections can’t be a week long or more. No more of this Tuesday only trash. Not with our large population and less than adequate facilities in many areas.

 

[dgreen]

Guys...there's no need to guess....I gave you the link to the actual proposed bill.  I don't know what other information you want  

It’s 571 pages. Are there a specific few pages to focus on?

 

[The Commish]

I would need to see more details on this, but publishers, media companies, and interest groups have a first amendment right to comment on candidates 

As I read the bill, it doesn't seem to infringe on ability to comment on candidates.  It addresses money coming from foreign governments/influence.  It addresses the transparency of where funds are coming from.  I think there's a difference in "getting money out of politics" and "getting dark money out of politics".

 

[joffer]

I would need to see more details on this, but publishers, media companies, and interest groups have a first amendment right to comment on candidates 

reasonable people can debate that, but that’s not what I took from the bill.

 

[The Commish]

I think Trump and his yahoos broke good dialogue around here  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think Trump and his yahoos broke good dialogue around here  

I'm having trouble finding a descent summary of the bill.  The Washington Post article almost immediately jumps off this legislation and on to House rules (which I think I like).  Even advocacy groups are skimpy on details.  The best I've found to date is this one but I needed to redact it a bit to make it less of an attack. 

What’s actually in H.R. 1?

H.R. 1 is a robust package that includes these essential reforms:

• Voter empowerment and access. Through measures such as automatic voter registration ,  same-day registration, restoring the Voting Rights Act, protecting against improper purging of voter rolls, requiring states to upgrade and secure their election systems, restoring voting rights to those with past criminal convictions, providing adequate early voting opportunities, and preventing partisan gerrymandering through independent redistricting commissions, H.R. 1 helps ensure that everyone is included and represented in our democracy, and has unimpeded opportunities to participate.
  
• Money in politics. A constitutional amendment is needed to overturn the chaos that Citizens United and related decisions unleashed into our campaign finance system. H.R. 1 starts that process immediately. Additionally, it further stems the tide of big money in our politics by amplifying small-dollar donations through public financing, encouraging small-dollar donations through tax incentives, eliminating “dark money” by requiring disclosure of all political spending (including online ads), cutting off cooperation between candidates and super PACs, and empowering the Federal Election Commission to truly enforce campaign finance law.
  
• Ethics and corruption. [redacted] H.R. 1 cracks down by making sure that ethics rules apply to all government officials [redacted]. This means demanding disclosure of and divestment from [redacted] financial interests that pose conflicts of interest, and then for the rest of the executive branch locking the “revolving door” of lobbyists and government officials, prohibiting bribery, and demanding full disclosure of information revealing potential and actual conflicts of interest.
  

In the context of the Washington Post article and the line "The hoped-for effect will be to promote legislation through compromise and limit the kind of showboating that blocked achievement during the recent Republican rule"  I'm not sure that the constitutional amendment (pretty much any constitutional amendment) isn't just "showboating" at this point in our history, but other than that I think no one should have too much issue with this in general terms.  Specifics might concern those with free speech concerns.  And there are those that honestly want to make it hard to vote simply so their vote counts more, but this perspective is hampered by the reality that while in theory voter suppression could be addressing some justifiable concerns, in practice that is not why they usually exist.   

Since this bill is more to put pressure on the GOP Senate to address the topic at all as opposed to legislation likely signed into law I'm not sure there is much to debate when it comes to specifics here.  That is why I think the Post immediately jumped to the House rules which I think are more interesting simply because they will be enacted.   I like the one where any legislation with 2/3rds of Congress cosponsoring has to be brought to debate.  I also like having the DCs non voting member allowed a few crumbs of participation.  (Speaking of constitutional amendments.)

 

[E Street Brat]

Guys...there's no need to guess....I gave you the link to the actual proposed bill.  I don't know what other information you want  

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’”  “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

I thought we had to pass it to find out whats in it, 

 

[The Commish]

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’”  “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

I thought we had to pass it to find out whats in it, 

It's not thousands of pages.  It took about 30 minutes out of my day to read the parts of interest to me.  I didn't realize that was so hard  

 

[Da Guru]

As I read the bill, it doesn't seem to infringe on ability to comment on candidates.  It addresses money coming from foreign governments/influence.  It addresses the transparency of where funds are coming from.  I think there's a difference in "getting money out of politics" and "getting dark money out of politics".

Dark money should be gone..but there is still too much clean money in politics as well.

 

[The Commish]

Dark money should be gone..but there is still too much clean money in politics as well.

Perhaps...and I am open to that argument.  I think I tend to agree with you.  I don't see any reason why we can't cap what PACs and Super PACs contribute like we do individuals.  Seems only right since they are people too!

 

[Da Guru]

Perhaps...and I am open to that argument.  I think I tend to agree with you.  I don't see any reason why we can't cap what PACs and Super PACs contribute like we do individuals.  Seems only right since they are people too!

I just don`t like when someone gets elected because they spent 10 times more than their opponent.

This is small potatoes but in one of our local school board elections a person spent over 100K in ads to get on the board that pays 75 dollars for once a month  meetings. Of course that person was backed by people who wanted her to push their agenda.

 

[joffer]

I just don`t like when someone gets elected because they spent 10 times more than their opponent.

This is small potatoes but in one of our local school board elections a person spent over 100K in ads to get on the board that pays 75 dollars for once a month  meetings. Of course that person was backed by people who wanted her to push their agenda.

I’m more depressed that anyone determines their vote based on an ad.

 

[The Commish]

So McConnell is labeling this a power grab  

 

[the moops]

Didn't know where to put this.

The House on Thursday approved a bill that would provide millions of veterans with expedited health care and disability payments related to illnesses caused by toxic exposure from burn pits.

The final vote was 256-174.

Thirty-four Republicans voted with all Democrats to support the bill.

https://veterans.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairman-takanos-comprehensive-honoring-our-pact-act-passes-the-house#:~:text=The Honoring our PACT Act,veterans who missed their window.

The Honoring our PACT Act will: 

Provide Priority Group 6 health care for over 3.5 million toxic-exposed veterans

Provide extension of combat eligibility for health care from 5 to 10 years with a one-year open enrollment period for those veterans who missed their window.

Streamline VA’s review process for establishing toxic exposure presumptions 

Concede exposure to airborne hazards/burn pits based on locations & dates of service

Require medical exams/opinions for certain veterans with toxic exposure disability claims

Add hypertension and Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance to the list of presumptions for Agent Orange exposure

Establish a presumption of service connection for 23 respiratory illnesses and cancers related to burn pits/airborne hazards exposure

Create a presumption of exposure to radiation for veterans who participated in cleanup activities in Palomares, Spain, and Enewetak Atoll

Allow for a new tort claim for veterans and families exposed to toxic water at Camp Lejeune

Expand agent orange exposure to veterans who served in Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia

Improve data collection between VA and the Department of Defense

Commission studies related to incidents of cancer among veterans, health trends of Post 9/11 veterans and feasibility of providing healthcare to dependents of veterans 

Require VA to provide standardized training to improve toxic exposure disability claims adjudications

Require VA to conduct outreach and provide resources to toxic exposed veterans

 

[joffer]

Didn't know where to put this.

The House on Thursday approved a bill that would provide millions of veterans with expedited health care and disability payments related to illnesses caused by toxic exposure from burn pits.

The final vote was 256-174.

Thirty-four Republicans voted with all Democrats to support the bill.

https://veterans.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairman-takanos-comprehensive-honoring-our-pact-act-passes-the-house#:~:text=The Honoring our PACT Act,veterans who missed their window.

The Honoring our PACT Act will: 

Provide Priority Group 6 health care for over 3.5 million toxic-exposed veterans

Provide extension of combat eligibility for health care from 5 to 10 years with a one-year open enrollment period for those veterans who missed their window.

Streamline VA’s review process for establishing toxic exposure presumptions 

Concede exposure to airborne hazards/burn pits based on locations & dates of service

Require medical exams/opinions for certain veterans with toxic exposure disability claims

Add hypertension and Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance to the list of presumptions for Agent Orange exposure

Establish a presumption of service connection for 23 respiratory illnesses and cancers related to burn pits/airborne hazards exposure

Create a presumption of exposure to radiation for veterans who participated in cleanup activities in Palomares, Spain, and Enewetak Atoll

Allow for a new tort claim for veterans and families exposed to toxic water at Camp Lejeune

Expand agent orange exposure to veterans who served in Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia

Improve data collection between VA and the Department of Defense

Commission studies related to incidents of cancer among veterans, health trends of Post 9/11 veterans and feasibility of providing healthcare to dependents of veterans 

Require VA to provide standardized training to improve toxic exposure disability claims adjudications

Require VA to conduct outreach and provide resources to toxic exposed veterans

sounds pretty radical elitist leftist coastal communist to me

 

[The Commish]

Boy...this thread died quickly.  I thought it would be a good thread to have, but there's one thing that's become crystal clear to me over the last two years, people really don't want to talk about the actual legislation and what it says.  They LOVE LOVE LOVE to talk about the spun version spoonfed them by our media complex, but there is not a faster way of shutting down exchanges than by providing the text of the bills.  It kills things immediately most of the time. 

 

[Rich Conway]

Boy...this thread died quickly.  I thought it would be a good thread to have, but there's one thing that's become crystal clear to me over the last two years, people really don't want to talk about the actual legislation and what it says.  They LOVE LOVE LOVE to talk about the spun version spoonfed them by our media complex, but there is not a faster way of shutting down exchanges than by providing the text of the bills.  It kills things immediately most of the time. 

I did read your post, I just don't typically post an "I'm in, let's do it" type response.  This seems like a no-brainer.

 

[Snotbubbles]

"End partisan gerry­man­der­ing by ensur­ing that district lines are drawn through a fair process — so that people pick their repres­ent­at­ives, not the other way around;"

So who determines what is "fair"?  

 

[BladeRunner]

"End partisan gerry­man­der­ing by ensur­ing that district lines are drawn through a fair process — so that people pick their repres­ent­at­ives, not the other way around;"

So who determines what is "fair"?  

That's the convenient point that the Democrats don't want you to know.

 

[The Commish]

"End partisan gerry­man­der­ing by ensur­ing that district lines are drawn through a fair process — so that people pick their repres­ent­at­ives, not the other way around;"

So who determines what is "fair"?  

Third parties are a pretty obvious place to start.  They have tools at their disposal, algorithms and the like that have shown to do very well over time keeping representation pretty in line with how the populus votes.  This is one of the least concerning aspects.  But politicians won't give that power up, so the next best approach is "you draw, I pick" which takes your question completely out of the picture.

 

[roadkill1292]

If we are committed to single member districting and first past the post voting, "you cut, I choose" is definitely the best way to make districts. It's known in some quarters as "fair gerrymandering."

But multi-member districts and proportional representation give us the best overall representation and I haven't seen any good arguments in opposition yet. I'm a little surprised at that.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Didn't know where to put this.

The House on Thursday approved a bill that would provide millions of veterans with expedited health care and disability payments related to illnesses caused by toxic exposure from burn pits.

The final vote was 256-174.

Thirty-four Republicans voted with all Democrats to support the bill.

https://veterans.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairman-takanos-comprehensive-honoring-our-pact-act-passes-the-house#:~:text=The Honoring our PACT Act,veterans who missed their window.

The Honoring our PACT Act will: 

Provide Priority Group 6 health care for over 3.5 million toxic-exposed veterans

Provide extension of combat eligibility for health care from 5 to 10 years with a one-year open enrollment period for those veterans who missed their window.

Streamline VA’s review process for establishing toxic exposure presumptions 

Concede exposure to airborne hazards/burn pits based on locations & dates of service

Require medical exams/opinions for certain veterans with toxic exposure disability claims

Add hypertension and Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance to the list of presumptions for Agent Orange exposure

Establish a presumption of service connection for 23 respiratory illnesses and cancers related to burn pits/airborne hazards exposure

Create a presumption of exposure to radiation for veterans who participated in cleanup activities in Palomares, Spain, and Enewetak Atoll

Allow for a new tort claim for veterans and families exposed to toxic water at Camp Lejeune

Expand agent orange exposure to veterans who served in Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia

Improve data collection between VA and the Department of Defense

Commission studies related to incidents of cancer among veterans, health trends of Post 9/11 veterans and feasibility of providing healthcare to dependents of veterans 

Require VA to provide standardized training to improve toxic exposure disability claims adjudications

Require VA to conduct outreach and provide resources to toxic exposed veterans

FINALLY

Senate passes historic burn pits legislation

 

[parasaurolophus]

FINALLY

Senate passes historic burn pits legislation

Can you give me a clif bar notes here? Are veterans not eligible for health care before a certain age?

 

[the moops]

The 14 that voted against this legilsation were Burr & Tillis (NC), Crapo & Risch (ID), Lankford (OK), Lee & Romney (UT), Lummis (WY), Paul (KY), Rounds & Thune (SD), Shelby & Tubeville (AL), and Toomey (PA).

@parasaurolophus I think it is about the presumption that these illnesses were caused by their service. In general, claims were denied unless there was incontrovertible proof that it was related to their service.

The legislation would also add 23 conditions related to burn pit and toxic exposures to the VA’s list of service presumptions — meaning that veterans who have these conditions will not need to prove that they are connected to their service in order to make claims for disability payments. 

 

[BobbyLayne]

Can you give me a clif bar notes here? Are veterans not eligible for health care before a certain age?

It’s important because the VA has messing around for more than ten years, denying claims from Veterans who were exposed serving in Afghanistan & Iraq. Kept saying

“we need to do more research”

while not doing jack (and there was plenty of evidence it was a serious issue that was not being addressed.)

Exposure causes a myriad of health issues, and it directly affects the health and quality of life for several of my friends from the VA.

Jon Stewart has been a tremendous advocate for Veterans for this specific issue. His latest project, The Problem with Jon Stewart, devoted it’s entire first episode to Burn Pits. You can find short clips all over YouTube to self-educate.

Mote than 3,500,000 Veterans have been exposed to burn pits. Today was a huge win.

 

[BobbyLayne]

 

[The Commish]

It was a run....

1.  Not a bunch of legislation to discuss.
2.  People don't really want to discuss the legislation.  They'd rather discuss each other and make personal attacks.

In hindsight, the initiative was destined to fail   

 

[the moops]

So gross. Can someone find a reasonable take as to why after getting 84 votes two months ago, it only got 55 this time around?

 

[joffer]

Despicable

 

[the moops]

John Stewart has some words for these ####### cowards that voted against this

https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1552687991369486336?s=20&t=vlbn-Mk8HqbX9AgsxIhQrw

 

[the moops]

John Stewart has some words for these ####### cowards that voted against this

https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1552687991369486336?s=20&t=vlbn-Mk8HqbX9AgsxIhQrw

Please - everyone listen to this.

 

[BobbyLayne]

So gross. Can someone find a reasonable take as to why after getting 84 votes two months ago, it only got 55 this time around?

Despicable

Millions of toxic-exposed veterans await access to health care benefits.

Blocked them on the one yard line because they’re “upset” about a DIFFERENT bill.

Just ridiculous.

 

[urbanhack]

Millions of toxic-exposed veterans await access to health care benefits.

Blocked them on the one yard line because they’re “upset” about a DIFFERENT bill.

Just ridiculous.

And that other bill is to reduce the cost of prescription drugs if I'm not mistaken.

 

[The Commish]

John Stewart has some words for these ####### cowards that voted against this

https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1552687991369486336?s=20&t=vlbn-Mk8HqbX9AgsxIhQrw

Please - everyone listen to this.

So they didn't vote on this before?  I'm confused and sadly, I haven't paid much attention to this issue...that's my bad  

 

[Desert_Power]

Shameful

 

[the moops]

So they didn't vote on this before?  I'm confused and sadly, I haven't paid much attention to this issue...that's my bad  

There was a vote already that passed overwhelmingly 84-14. It was sent to the House, but there was some procedural issue or something, the House corrected it and it was sent back to the Senate. 

The essence of the bill is identical to the first one that passed. And it passed the House 342-88.

This is disgraceful and every single republican that changed their vote should be ashamed. ####### gross

 

[The Commish]

There was a vote already that passed overwhelmingly 84-14. It was sent to the House, but there was some procedural issue or something, the House corrected it and it was sent back to the Senate. 

The essence of the bill is identical to the first one that passed. And it passed the House 342-88.

This is disgraceful and every single republican that changed their vote should be ashamed. ####### gross

FFS....of course   

 

[sho nuff]

Both of our TN senators.... :X