Why is a bill about vets with exposure to chemical weapons talking about home loans? Wait...did you all just vote to provide benefits to vets by taxing other vets on their benefits?
I'm not going super in depth on this bill because it's not an area I am very knowledgeable about off the top of my head. In Congress, I'd phone a friend.
P2 - bill name, code section it's updating and setting parameters for who is eligible (vietnam vets).
If I were voting on this, I would have staff pull the legislative history on this, which must be ugly since this war is before I was born...and I'm in my 40s. It basically says "we screwed up and denied a whole lot of valid claims" but nicely.
Side note - my dad was in the navy during this time period, but did not deploy. This could have easily been my family in this situation...which sets up the next clause.
Buy one fewer bomb this year, hire a gaggle of admins to go through the records and reach out to people. We should have a duty to right our wrongs, not invite people who are at least in their 60s and compromised to do more work.
I'm not going through the geography. I'm sure if I were actually voting on this someone would volunteer to go hard-core map nerd and tell me if this is accurate.
Let me inject this appears to have passed unanimously.
My guess is it went something like this "ohhh, made it out of committee, for vets, nice bill name, sure" and that there wasn't a whole lot of critical reading despite the bill being 22 pages.
I am a constituent of Susan's. Ever since I have moved here I am astonished at how incredibly effective she is at harnessing people's hope and her words like a damn magician.
Though she is a consistent conservative vote, she is able to focus all eyes on her.
Then your family and community will look at you different.
Your behavior will be questioned, and even if you has zero responsibility, many will blame you for being a tease, wanting it, being irresponsible for choosing what should be a totally innocuous setting.
In this hypo traditional campaigning requires around $1+ million per year to get and/or keep a house seat (plus all the other energy you have to expend to keep the peanut gallery PACs happy).
Let's assume they're at it 5 days/week and take a couple weeks off per year.
Too many really lovely people hoping for their partner, child, parent, etc to be the person they could be if that partner, child, parent, etc if they only changed, which of course they have no desire and/or resources to do.
I've been asked this a lot - what is the benefit of ranked choice voting?
If you feel like politics keeps pushing far left or far right as candidates differentiate, RCV lets you pick the moderate with the back-up of "not the other one".
Maybe you think of yourself as an independent, moderate, etc, and really don't love either party (but probably like one party less) - you can select me as your first choice, and still have the back up of another candidate if not enough people agree with you. #mepolitics
In this race, folks who like Bruce probably don't like Jared, folks who prefer Jared probably aren't keen on Bruce.
A lot of folks would like (or find less annoying) someone who really isn't a party. With RCV, you can do that! It removes the risk of vote-splitting.