B: Please post a link to your public condemnation of Governor Granholm, Rep. Mike Sak and the House Democrats for their attempt, recorded by official vote, to ELIMINATE, CLOSE, END, SHUTTER, BOARD UP (etc.) the Grand Rapids Veterans' Home, the D.J. Jacobetti Veterans' Home and to cut hundreds of thousands more from the Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs back in February.

You can find an actual copy of the EO they voted to approve HERE.

Should you fail to produce such a link, illustrating your focus on ISSUES and not on partisan bickering I think we'll probably be forced to conclude that you're more anti-Republican than pro-Veteran.

Now, in between now and then, if you'd like to discuss how horrible Republicans are I'd humbly suggest you do so on your own blog.  If you'd prefer to participate here I'd just ask that you stick with the topics at hand.

The Democrats approved those cuts.  The Republicans said "no thanks, lets find something else."

The Governor proposed the VA Home kills herself, though, so I wouldn't be shocked if she (or the House Dems) tried again.

Look, I appreciate that you're willing to fight for these homes now.  There are plenty of Libs who come on this site and refuse to disagree with anything in any way associated with the letter D.  So credit where credit is due.

BUT...

Where was the fight for those homes back in February?  

I'm about as pro-spending cuts / reforms as they come but even I pointed out months ago in the post referenced above that what with money being fungible and all, every cut to something like that represents a value judgement.

By cutting funding for our vets and maintaining funding for MESSA we're saying we value MESSA more than our vets (as a for instance).

There are plenty of things we should be doing before we reduce funding for the men and women who stuck their necks out on the line for us.

I said that then and I'll say that now.  I'm on record and I'm not ashamed.  I come from a military family.  And all hyperbole aside, my flag was flying outside the house on September 10, 2001.

There are options out there that haven't yet been addressed.  A portion of the lottery, for instance, could be sold or leased.  

We'll see what the Senate cut list looks like when they start taking formal votes.  We'll see what's there and what isn't.  I'm sure I won't like every cut on the list.  100% sure.  

I'm sure, 100%, that there will be cuts I think they should make that WON'T be on the list.  Will there be cut X I think they should substitute for cut Y.  Absolutely.

But I applaud the Senate for having the guts to take an all-cuts / reforms approach and to start that discussion.

I said it in February and I'm saying it in September.  

I just don't think consistency is really that much to ask for.  

And you've already read about my open condemnation of Democrats for not doing enough.

Where's the links to what you're saying?  I want to make sure I'm not being sold a bill of goods by someone from the other side.  All your link shows is a pic.  I'm looking for the actual budget proposal right now.  If I find it, you'll see a post.

You've been an observer of Lansing politics for far more than a half hour.  An observer of the budget process for far more than half an hour.

Are you saying you just turn a blind eye when Democrats try to gut vet funding?  Of only that you refuse to look deeper than MDP talking points when you're researching an issue.  

Just not quite sure how you could only now find out about something that happened in February.

Though I should make one clarification.  I know you served overseas.  If you were deployed back in February then I freely and readily admit that my criticism is not fair and I'll retract it.  

Our active-duty troops certainly have more to worry about than Lansing's budget mess.

Oh, and I thought I stated pretty clearly that I do not think we should be cutting vet funding.  I'd prefer we deal with other areas like the lottery, as an example.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/FY07ExecutiveBudget_151966_7.pdf

But I'll post on the VA hospitals anyway.

And no, I didn't know about this back in February.

But now you're telling me you wouldn't take a tax increase if it meant supporting the troops.  That's class, Nick.

No weaseling out of it.  But please, go ahead and condemn the Democrat move to close Vets homes seven months and a week after the fact while we're on to an entirely different fiscal year's budget.

By the by, putting words in people's mouths, bad form.  Bad bad form.

Using your logic, you've known the whole time that Bush has cut funding for veterans, opposes a 3.5% pay increase, and doesn't want to expand the GI Bill.  It also means that you pledged your full support to Bishop's cuts to military and veterans affairs.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/08/administration-.html

Bush's cuts to the VA have been well documented, but here's one story:

Good to see the conservatives on here are more interested in partisan politics than they are supporting the troops.