Once again, if you read my post's purpose as "defending a politician", you didn't read it.
And no, I most certainly can criticize - and in fact, that's just what I did.
My post was clear. If they have issues running the VA, they don't need a law to fix it. Issues get fixed in the real word all the time without laws being passed to make a business fox problems. Coburn is and always has been focused on spending, and that's why I mentioned the GAO.
If you think the bill is necessary, please call your Congressperson.
I might just do that, but first...
I've read your post at least three times now, even quoted it herein and replied accordingly. But for the record (and since you insist that I haven't read it), let's look at it again, shall we:
Do we believe that the people in Washington don't have any idea what the VA and Pentagon don't currently do?
I'm sure folks in Washington, DC are very much aware what the VA and the Pentagon (DOD) does. Problem here is these departments/agencies aren't very good at talking to one another. To put it mildly, DOD gets them (combat soldiers) chewed up and spits them out. The VA is left to put "Humpty Dumpty" back together again. They was fine when each branch of the military provided medical care for the servicemen who enlisted or was conscripted under them, but that's not the case anymore and hasn't been for a very long time. Now, all retirees and/or medically discharged veterans go to the VA for their medical care. And in case you hadn't noticed, there are a LOT of sick and wounded veterans out there!
This bill would force DOD and the VA to "TALK" more about their programs on suicide prevention and may very well lead to streamlining the process of managed care in this area. But you're correct in that you really don't need a law to make them do that. Internal policy, i.e., Memorandum of Understanding, could take care of this problem.
And what he did was because he wanted to reduce the size of government.
Unless the bill forms a new government agency, I don't see anything in it that would increase the size or scope of government. In fact, neither of the pilot programs suggested in this bill would form new agencies outside of the VA or any of its sub-divisions that currently exist. Also, Section 8 of the bill prohibits any new appropriations for these pilot programs. Therefore, the VA would have to carry out these initiatives from funds that are already allocated.
He's been identifying and fighting against redundancies in government for years. It's because of him the GAO now has to report annually and everyone sees where the redundancies are.
So, where are the redundancies between the VA and DOD that this bill would duplicate? Name them.
He also objected to the cost of the bill not being offset elsewhere.
Again, if the overlaying reason Sen. Colburn objects to the bill is the price tag (which Section 8 of the bill prohibits), he's being more of an obstructionist than an advocate for limited government. Of course, the offset could easily be "cut spending within either the VA or DOD," since both agencies always have cost overruns, but which politician would be willing to do so especially from within the GOP when they've fought hard to establish an ideological identity as being big on supporting our troops?
If the Pentagon and the VA aren't working efficiently today, perhaps there is a better way to fix them without tossing millions of dollars at them?
Other than an intra-department MOU as suggest above, what other solutions would you suggest? Again, I'm a far cry from picking on you. However, I am advocating for solutions, not just criticism.