Sen. Harry Reid has added repeal of the controversial DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) policy and the enacting of the DREAM Act (whereby children of illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. before age 16 to earn U.S. citizenship by either attending college or joining the military). Additionally, there is rumor that Sen. Reid wants to add a policy allowing abortions to occur in military hospitals so long as federal funds are not used to pay for them (currently women are referred to off-base facilities for this procedure).
The Defense Appropriations Bill is supposed to decide how much money the Department of Defense gets each fiscal year to build on-base housing, finance these wars, pay the servicemembers, and handle our health care.
By adding all the extra controversy, where does that leave us military folks? Will our elected officials fail to vote on this because of the debate? Is it a sneaky plan to shake up mid-term elections rather than focus on taking care of our servicemembers?
Your thoughts, please.
2010-09-16T15:37:18Z
My concern is not so much with the details of what has been attached to the bill. I'm more bothered by the fact that, because these things are controversial, the DoD might not get the funding required because people will be arguing about DADT, DREAM Act, and abortion in DoD hospitals.
Isabella2010-09-18T20:42:38Z
Favorite Answer
That's why I hate when they "mix and match" stuff in bills. I learned a long time ago that you have to read the whole thing top to bottom because they often sneak one little provision, possibly one liner, that is totally unrelated and unacceptable.
I am also concerned that our troops will suffer. There is a process to go with both of these measures, and apart from the Hispanic population, Dream Act is not that popular. It will open floodgate of illegals here and our tax coffers will be empty in no time. Also for DADT there are implications for the military and they should decide, not some ignorant career politician that is totally detached from reality.
This very discussion is on Fox News right now. Rich Lowery from National Review and Alexander Lyons from Democratic Gain are bantering back and forth. Rich is completely against the legislation and Alexander is all for it.
Anyway, Harry Reid is toast and he knows it. His so-called Dream Act cannot stand on its own so he needs to attach it to the defense bill. Who is against defending the country? No one and it wouldn't matter anyway because the Constitution mandates it.
He nevertheless has the "Dream Act" to fall back on... he basically won't have the capacity to assume the gay hispanic vote! bill Clinton did no longer pass a regulation, bill, or act to enforce DADT; in the event that they have been fairly extreme approximately recalling the DADT, all it demands is the Grand Poobah of Lies to do it with the help of government Order! yet what are you able to assume from a celebration that calls preserving the present tax ranges a "tax minimize" or how "slicing taxes" potential we could desire to "minimize verteran advantages, social protection, and medicare to the elderly" (Obama at His "city corridor" the day basically before this... would not all and sundry watch and hear?) while fairly there are different "aspects" they could. How approximately basically stop "making new agencies" like Obamacare, economic, etc? See something below that desires DOWNSIZED or perhaps MOVED TO STATE-point JURISDICTION? yet then, that could be to accept as true with SHARRON perspective and each TEA celebration candidate that government HAS GOTTEN TOO great and that we could desire to continuously shrink ITS length!
the reason it was attached to DADT is based on the dream act, illegals will need to go to college or serve the army to become legal..its not poof, everyone is legal now. and if u think about it for a second, which route are they more likely to take? of course the military one.