Boebert Defends Vote Against Veteran Benefits

Boebert Defends Vote Against Veterans’ Health Benefits, Saying She Didn’t Want to Spend ‘600 Billion Forever’

Debate Highlights Concerns Over Funding for Veterans’ Care

Representative Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) defended her vote against bipartisan legislation that expanded health benefits for veterans, stating that she didn’t want to spend "600 billion forever." Boebert faced off against her Democratic opponent, Trisha Calvarese, in a general election debate, where she was pressed to explain her decision to vote against the landmark "Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act."

The PACT Act: A Major Victory for Veterans

The PACT Act, signed into law by President Biden in July 2022, expanded benefits for millions of veterans who were exposed to toxins during service and are suffering from illnesses as a result. The legislation expanded eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs health care to veterans who served in the post-9/11 era and created a framework for establishing presumptions of service connections related to toxic exposures. The bill also expanded presumptions for 23 burn pit-related illnesses.

Boebert’s Explanation for Voting Against the PACT Act

Boebert explained that she voted against the PACT Act because she didn’t want to spend "600 billion forever." She stated that she was concerned about the long-term financial implications of the legislation and that she didn’t want to commit to spending such a large amount of money without careful consideration.

Calvarese’s Response: "You Can’t Put Veterans Last"

Calvarese responded to Boebert’s explanation, stating that she couldn’t understand why Boebert would prioritize budget concerns over the needs of veterans. "If you’re going to take care of folks, what about our veterans, Lauren? You know, because you’re talking about lots of cuts and how to pay for things. I think if you’re going to be America first, you can’t put veterans last," Calvarese said.

Boebert’s Response: "I’ve Put Veterans First"

Boebert responded to Calvarese’s criticism, stating that she has always put veterans first. She explained that she voted against some massive omnibus bills that might have supported veterans because "I’m not voting for something that we have 22 hours to read that’s over 2,000 pages long." Boebert also mentioned that she has worked to help veterans in other ways, including introducing legislation to improve veterans’ access to healthcare.

Conclusion

The debate highlights the importance of funding for veterans’ health benefits and the need for careful consideration of the long-term financial implications of legislation. While Boebert’s concerns about budget concerns are understandable, Calvarese’s criticism that Boebert prioritized budget concerns over the needs of veterans is also valid. Ultimately, the decision to vote against the PACT Act was a difficult one, and it remains to be seen how the legislation will impact veterans in the long run.

FAQs

Q: Why did Representative Boebert vote against the PACT Act?
A: Boebert voted against the PACT Act because she didn’t want to spend "600 billion forever." She was concerned about the long-term financial implications of the legislation.

Q: What does the PACT Act do?
A: The PACT Act expands benefits for millions of veterans who were exposed to toxins during service and are suffering from illnesses as a result. It also expands presumptions for 23 burn pit-related illnesses.

Q: Why is the PACT Act important for veterans?
A: The PACT Act is important for veterans because it provides them with access to healthcare and benefits that they need to treat their service-connected illnesses.

Q: What is the significance of the debate between Boebert and Calvarese?
A: The debate highlights the importance of funding for veterans’ health benefits and the need for careful consideration of the long-term financial implications of legislation. It also highlights the differences between the two candidates on this issue.