It Costs Too Much to Help Veterans

That's the line being taken by Sen. Tom Coburn (Thug-Oklahoma):

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.

Does anyone know the last time the budget hawks of the GOP were in favor of canceling a weapons procurement (other than maybe Coburn, who did go against most in his party by favoring the cancellation of the F-22).

Beyond that, this is just pure evil masquerading as a budget hawk. We asked those men and women to go in harm's way for us and to then deny them help because "it would cost too much" is just niggardly. Funding care for veterans should be an extremely high priority for any legislator with an operating soul, something which Coburn evidently is lacking.

(H/T)