The Slog mob has spoken: Dino Rossi's campaign fucked up by letting one if its surrogates on veterans affairs say something that came across as meaning: "Murray, and other Democrats, are spending recklessly on the VA."

But Slog commenter Joe has not yet spoken, and he's got another thing to add to this debate over who's more excited about spending money on veterans, Murray or Rossi.

Hear ye, Hear ye!

Rossi: "The main threat to our Veterans programs right now is the enormous amount of spending and debt that Patty Murray has voted for..."

Um, no.

The main threat to our Veterans programs is that we have so many Veterans needing help, and that we can't afford to pay for that help, or much else, with our current revenue streams, without incurring massive deficits.

This is because of: (1) the bloody, ridiculously expensive, badly managed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have injured tens of thousands of young men and women, and (2) those tax cuts and that economic collapse.

Rossi would have voted for both wars. That's on the record. He would have voted against the stimulus, which has saved 3 million jobs, and financial reforms designed to keep such a collapse from happening again, going so far as to support the repeal of the financial reform package. He supports extending the Bush tax cuts permanently. He also, of course, supports repeal of one of the greatest fiscal accomplishments in recent memory, the introduction of a health care system that will save taxpayers money and drive medical costs down for all American families. He's said all this.

So that's: increase the number of wounded Veterans, slow economic recovery, allow future economic collapses, keep revenues low, don't force health care costs down. How does that add up to quality of care for Veterans?

The best way to give our Veterans the care they need is to not have so many Veterans who need care.