« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Democrats playing politics with ailing 9/11 responders

By: James Richardson (Diary)  |  August 1st, 2010 at 02:31 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

In today’s Politico, I have an editorial on the Democrats’ procedural gimmicks and faulty pay-for system that cost the passage of the James Zagroda 9/11 Health and Compensation Act:

In spite of fierce public opposition, the Democrats’ sizable House majority secured passage of President Barack Obama’s controversial overhaul of the nation’s health care system. But this same majority failed Friday in its efforts to create a popular multi-billion dollar health care fund for emergency responders affected by toxic dust and debris in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

The House leadership had suspended typical procedures—requiring a simple majority—on the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009 in order to prevent GOP-offered amendments that they feared might compromise the votes of endangered Democrats.Senior Democrats were concerned that Republicans might offer a motion to recommit — sending the bill back to committee with instructions to pay for it with funds from the president’s health care reforms.

The Democrats’ procedural tack meant the bill needed two-thirds majority to pass — a large coalition that senior Democrats surely knew was untenable.[…]

Mired in political quicksand, with many of the caucus’s most senior members facing tough re-election battles, congressional Democrats have become increasingly aware that their many legislative victories are not enough to sour voters’ new taste for Republicans.

Another legislative win would have a negligible effect on what most political handicappers predict will be a Democratic-hostile election. What Democrats needed, and found in the bill’s failure, was the ideal opportunity for a thunderous rebuke of Republicans: An ideological win that would capture the interest and anger of the nation still lingering from Sept. 11.

Read the article in its entirety at POLITICO.

Follow James on Twitter.

Tags: , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • banzaibob

    After watching Rep. Weiner’s rant I would like to ask him a few questions.

    First, why doesn’t the state and city of New York cover these expenses, Why doe the rest of the country need to pay for it? Will the fund pay for the cop in Dallas or the Fireman in California?

    I thought Obamacare was going to cover everyone. We are going to spend trillions of dollars and New York wants several billion more.

    Rep Weiner called the Republicans cowards. When the Kleptocrats find their man sack they could maybe pass a budget and show the country how much debt they are putting us in.

    • snowshooze

      Weiner is in the pocket of the insurance companies.
      Often times a policy will not pay out until all other sources of payment have been exhausted, and unlimited taxpayer money would be spent well ahead of the insurance company money.
      The billions would not help the First Responders, but their insurance companies would love it.
      New York City isn’t on the hook either. Neither is the State of New York. The insurance companies, well, yep. They are definitely on the hook.
      They are in the risk business, they took the premiums, accepted the risk, made a buck, but this time they have to cover their bets.
      Unless Weiner and the Democrats take the bribe and stick the taxpayers for it.

      • Scope

        that is basically what I said below. The Insurance companies would love nothing more than to put the costs onto the federal government, in other words the taxpayers. I respect every first responder that responded to 9/11. The frauds are trying to take advantage, just as the Maine restaurants want federal bucks because their Gulf shrimp supply was delayed.

  • bk
  • http://www.FranBaker.com frankieb

    What an appropriate name for that whiny little hot dog.

  • mikerazar

    This is a propaganda victory for the Dems and Weiner. When the ads go up accusing various GOP congressmen of not being willing to help the brave heroes of 9/11, what will they do? Will they stammer about some obscure procedural rule while their opponent says truthfully that 94% of Democrats voted for it.

    Peter King is one of our best. Yet he failed miserably to explain the situation. Weiner mopped the floor with him. We ignore that at our own peril.

    As to New York State being asked to cover the expenses, do you really want an argument over federal aid for disasters?

    I am really scared that we are going to throw away these midterm elections with ideological crap. Yes I said it. OUR ideological crap.

    • IJB
      • mikerazar

        I hope you aren’t crying in November.

    • JSobieski

      combine items we support with items that we don’t support, we need to cave on the items we don’t support? Is there a limit to your analysis? What if the 9/11 monies were linked to Obamacare? Single payer?

      We are in a battle of ideas, a war of messaging. We can’t avoid some level of explanation. We can’t avoid some arguments.

      How can the avoidance of arguments be a strategy for success?

      • mikerazar
        • JSobieski

          We cannot avoid disagreeing with Democrats, we just need to do a better job of explaining why.

    • http://www.veronicaestrada.com Veronica

      which is why he went into explaining the whole thing in the first place.

      yeah, there’s danger of being duped, but it’s the conscious voter who will seek out the truth, anyway.

      The other type of voter will know there’s something crooked about this story, anyway and will suspect a shellgame.

      The other — well, they were probably lost to us anyway and there’s still time to recoup.

      Just like the freak dems think they can recoup after the March fiasco.

      On a sidenote, anyone see that thrusty move Weiner did? His intent is to screw the voter. Who the hell yells like that?

      Great post, James. You cleared up a lot. I was waiting for something like this.

      • mikerazar

        I sure couldn’t tell from Pete King’s response

        • http://www.veronicaestrada.com Veronica

          anyone who’s seen this stuff is more than likely an internet freak, like you and me.

          Thereby, they’re either a.) already knowledgable and smart enough to know there’s more to the story or b.) lost lefty wanna-bes.

          Don’t fret. This was an excellent article.

          Kudos again to James.

          Your fight is with Repub leadership. They need cajones. Tell them so, but don’t blast them publicly, lest we lose *1* vote.

    • fpete13527

      King is good and Weiner is beyond scum…….but King couldn’t articulate WHY Weiner and the tactic the Dems were using is scum.

      When the Dems begin their pure scum rants, like Weiner does on a daily basis, the GOP response can’t be in the form of?.”my fine colleague on the other side of the isle whom I disagree with but I love with all of my heart.”

      Scummy Weiner was basically calling King expletives without saying the expletives. Weiner also totally distorted the truth. Republicans can’t let that stuff stand and be ?nice.?

      The GOP must learn to DYNAMICALLY, ARTICULATE, POWERFULLY, and OFTEN and they must GROW the CAPABILITY to SLAM DUNK progressive ideologues like scum Weiner LOUD and OFTEN. As it stands now, most of the current GOP Congress are terrible at doing this, minus a few.

      • mikerazar
      • http://www.veronicaestrada.com Veronica

        most of the time they have a “stunned” look about them.

        But I agree on King.

        First of all, at the very least, he should not have stood behind Weiner in that FOX clip that’s circulating.

        Any PR person could have told him that. Don’t even have to be a policy person to understand that one.

        Submissive.

        • joayn

          and King, who is normally extremely articulate in my opinion, had every opportunity to expose the shenanigans of the evil ones but didn’t. Hannity, along with Fox, kept asking why didn’t the Dems just pass the bill since they had the majority. Now it all makes sense.

          According to Rush, there was also a provision that would give illegal aliens access to these funds, which the Republicans were against. So this is a second “aha” moment, which could possibly explain why King didn’t go into it. Republicans would have been portrayed as being uncaring miserable bastards for not giving the poor, sick illegals money to pay for their health problems.

          Makes sense, no?

  • mikerazar

    Some tax on foreign companies as far as I can see.

    • Scope

      on the 9/11 bill. First of all, the responders are looking to the federal government to cover their medical costs, because their medical insurance companies are dropping them, or denying coverage for what they see as 9/11 health problems. The health insurance companies are, and have been in bed with the federal government. They see Obamacare as more gurranteed customers because of the mush buy insurance mandate.

      In addition, I heard someone on TV talking about Life Insurance companies not making good on the policies some 9/11 victims had when they were killed. They are not paying the victims families, or are paying very low amounts, and banking the rest, despite people premium payments for years.

      The worst part of the legislation is that claimants don’t have to have any medical proof that their illnesses are a result of their work at Ground Zero. Are you familiar with the Pigford case. Some 86,000 black farmers are making claims against the Holder settlement, and there was only just over 36,000 black farmers then, and now, in the country. You may want to open your wallet and support the frauds, but, I have no desire to do such an insane thing.

      The policeman that the bill was named for, who passed on in about 2005 or so, did not die from any illness that had to do with 9/11. The medical examiners office determined that his death was caused because of prescription drug use/abuse. These people could look a little harder to find credible examples, rather than having a convicted felon standing on stage with Obama because she was sadly unemployed. She lost her job after being convicted of prescription drug fraud, and, a few years earlier she was convicted of stealing from her employer.

      It must be hard living in your skin mike. Seems that you are constantly looking over your shoulder for that hint that the Republicans may not be doing exactly what you think they should be.

      The Republicans lost Congress because of their spending. Many many still aren’t sure that they are serious in cutting spending, but, may give them one more chance. Now that they are finally looking at spending, and, not being hoodwinked into falling for the Democrat false stories, you want then to back idiocy because someone may say something not nice about the Republicans.

      Mike, the Democrats, and their complicit media will say whatever they damn well please about the Republicans, even things that are not true. For you to knock King’s response/non-response is ludicrous. Weiner was a raging lunatic. If you think his rampage is a propaganda win for the Dems, then you have obviously not caught up with the news. The video has been everywhere all week, and, no one is claiming he is sane. The Republican voters are quite happy that the Republicans find found their private parts, and, they are apparently now reading the bills.

      I believe it was Rush that said he was worried about Reid’s wife, because he will be unemployed come November. Whoever the bird is that just agreed to marry Weiner was willing to sign her own injury warrant. He is unhinged.

      http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/weiner_non_illness_x8vTYuTNm92fE4fET1svvm

      • cwilson

        He got a PhD from Harvard, which means he was there a LONG time. It might take years for the indoctrination brainwashing to wear off.

        • Scope

          I see his problem as being ultra paranoid. He seems to ponce on any Republican candidate, Congressional member that says anything that he thinks will hurt the Republicans. I may be wrong, he may actually have another agenda, but, that’s the way I see it. As I said above, it must be really awful and spooky to have to keep looking over your shoulder, or to keep your eyes constantly on the move.

          • mikerazar

            It seems to me that you have dissed more Republicans than I have, but who’s counting.

            It ain’t paranoia if they really are out to get ya! Aha! The ole hidden agenda charge. Kinda hard to refute.

            It is true cwilson…worse than that, it was the sixties. Luckily I had a strong immune system. But I did pick up a bit of math.

            My very public agenda is to defeat the progressives by challenging their lying math as well as their lying mouths. I have dozens of posts along those lines. Guess what? Nobody cares. It is ever so much easier to trash a putz like Anthony Weiner. As for me, I’m after bigger game like the Congressional Budget Office. I’m a big fan of Pete King but he did a lousy job of ‘splainin’ himself.

            So darlin’, try to keep it civil. I’m more on your side than you yourself are :)

        • mikerazar
          • Scope

            that you have displayed over and over again here at RS. You know what Mike, I can post a biography on my page here, I can say that I was anyone I wanted to be, and that I support whatever. You post your own history, which doesn’t make it factual. Yup, most of us here look back at how long anyone has been a member, and, we read the bios, particularly when some seem to go off the reservation. In this diary, you obviously have gone off the reservation.

            I did the research for you, that you apparently a) refused to do or b) refused to consider. You never addressed the issues involving why the R’s did not support the 9/11 bill. You never gave them the first ounce of credit. You bashed them, and, decided to put your credibility on the line for “Anthony Weiner”? Really, did you even watch the videos or listen to the audios? I guess you are exactly what I described you as, Paranoid. There is no room on our side for Paranoid. Lord knows there is enough of that coming from the Left, like in Anthony Weiner. Did you call King and tell him how disgusted you were with his terrible response? Maybe you can get your frustrations out there, rather than here.

            Do you have any understanding that we need to win the War, not all the little battles that you go nuts over?

          • mikerazar

            I put my credibility on the line for Anthony Weiner? How? By calling him a weasel or a putz?

            Exactly what have I said that sounds paranoid? I criticized the Repubs and Peter King for not explaining the situation clearly. Do you think they did a good job? I did not read the bill because I couldn’t find it quickly. Don’t you think that the GOP leadership should have read it and rebutted Weiner on the floor? I never bashed them, but I did and do criticize them.

            Believe me, if Peter King or any of the confident GOP leaderhip would take my calls, they wouldn’t be doing such a terrible job fighting the progressive agenda. There…..is that arrogant enough? Yet day after day, I must endure a failure to challenge the left wing math properly.

            You don’t win a war by sleepwalking through battles that should have been won.

            P.S. I confess, I never got past sixth grade. I was expelled for calling Stalin a dictator. But I taught myself trig, calculus, galois theory and stochastic processes while you were in cheerleading camp….LMAO….try having a sense of humor.

          • joayn

            resorts to sexist comments. Resorting to liberal tactics during a discussion, argument, whatever is a loser’s position.

            And claiming that remark was an attempt at humor is down right offensive to all of the women here, and should be to the men as well.

          • mikerazar

            You call my poor attempt at humor sexist? Gee, I thought conservative women were tougher than that. I’m used to the sexist card from my liberal women friends. Dudette… I hope you aren’t a RINO.

            I am more than happy to stick to issues. It is ridiculous to ignore careless tactics by our own Republicans when they are debating jerks like Weiner. Obviously, not all redstaters agree with my assessment. That doesn’t offend me. Why does Scope use that difference of opinion to trash me as an individual? I don’t expect an answer.

  • renny

    has great impact, and I hear nothing about the GOP taking any hit.

    As far as the feds, or even state or city, providing extra restitution in such a horrific incident as the fall of the WTC, all this sympathetic payout pressure is not a good policy idea, as we are in a war. We could be hit with atomic bombs in our cities or the poisoning of water resources or have a major anthrax bio-chemical assault, or worse, the electrical pulse disruption that could fry all batteries and power generators, let alone our home electricity.

    The fed. gov’t pledging itself to make payments for each and every individual loss or impairment due to what will be on-going attacks (we just missed two within the year–the Detroit plan bomber and NYC car bomber) in a war of ideology and competition over world domination will beggar even Geithner’s worn out printer at Treasury and leave us nothing as a nation economically or militarily.

  • taxpayer1234

    it’ll be really hard for the claimants to get a dime because the govt. will simply say their illnesses can’t be proven to be related to 9/11.

    Think I’m nuts? The govt. already does that–to the thousands of Americans who worked in nuclear defense. There’s a compensation fund, but few claimants get paid because of that same excuse. Many have died of their illesses (overwhelmingly, cancer) before getting anything. And the payments are not heritable, so lots of workers left their families with huge medical debts.

    Here’s a story about it that will make your hair stand on end. This is what our 9/11 first responders have to look forward to:

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/special-reports/deadly-denial/