Myradella3

Okay, I'm not Republican but I'll give a shot trying to explain (but not necessarily support) the opposition to the sticky points. It's hard in part because this article is an op-ed, not an objective report. As I see it, the problem is here:

The main sticking points seemed to be language in the bill to ensure that victims are not denied services because they are gay or transgender and a provision that would modestly expand the availability of special visas for undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic violence — a necessary step to encourage those victims to come forward.

Senator Charles Grassley, the committee’s ranking Republican, offered a substitute bill that not only cut out those improvements but called for a huge reduction in authorized financing, and elimination of the Justice Department office devoted to administering the law and coordinating the nation’s response to domestic violence and sexual assaults. His measure was defeated along party lines.

Points - Why should an illegal immigrant get a special visa because she was a victim of violence? The writer noted that this was an improvement, but couldn't the law have been reauthorized without that specific provision?

The U.S. government is broke. We have to increase taxes AND cut spending; neither alone will solve the problem. When spending cut, administration is often cut. I don't know that their entire department should be cut, but I've been working in government long enough to know that the office administering the law can survive some cutbacks - not total elimination - but cutbacks.

ninja dog

Thank you, Myradella.

I've heard this kind of economic scenario described as "fighting the alligators while you drain the swamp."