9/11 responders given shaft by politicians in the House
Posted on Friday, July 30, 2010 at 03:21 PM
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Exorcism of my inner Peter King
- Gas question: why give Ireland's enormous wealth away? the Norweigan alternative
- Bashing the Irish -- a break neck run down on Ireland's history of betrayal
- Stephen Fry to appear on Gaelic soap opera Ros na Rún
- Stolkholm Syndrome infects Dublin
Archives

Mayor Michael Bloomberg called the fighting on the Hill a "disgraceful proceeding."
He was referring to the shouting match on a Bill that was supposed to grant 9/11 responders sickened by poisonous air at Ground Zero a promised $7.4 billion in aid, finally after all these years. Insults were slung between Congressman Weiner and Congressman King who represent constituencies with lots of fireman, cops and other rescue workers. The Bill failed to win the 255-159 needed for a two-thirds majority.
That "2/3rds" requirement is the crux of the question: why did the Bill fail? Are Democrats or Republicans to blame?
The disgrace belongs, as usual, to both Republicans and Democrats, but not to Peter King specifically. Weiner's theatrics so wrongly, however, would have the casual observer believe King is to blame.
Congressman Weiner is, on behalf of the Democratic leadership, playing games with public perception about what happened on the Bill's vote. It failed, but how could it fail when the Democrats rule the House? Weiner had to explain (or defend) that reality in sound-bite summation. His blustering is all smoke and mirrors.

To make excuses, Congressman Weiner's speech dismisses the very real use of procedure to kill the bill. The viral video clip of him be-smirkedly roaring and screaming his disgust that the other side had killed the Bill is bad enough, but most outrageously, he is shouting at Peter King.
Republican Peter King has worked very hard with Democrat Caroline Maloney to get this bill to the House. The Democratic leadership killed the bill by failing to put it to the floor and requiring a 2/3rds vote instead. Blaming King somehow as though he was responsible for the Bill's death when he worked so hard to pass it despite his party's backlash, is insulting, and Weiner should not be heroized for doing so.
The Republicans tried to kill it with a majority from their party voting no. King led twelve fellow Republicans, however, to break ranks and join what should have been a non-partisan issue easily passed in a normal vote.
The Democratic leadership, and Congressman Weiner, did away with the normal vote and called for a special proceeding which required a lot more yes votes than the more usual majority-wins procedure.
For a number of insider reasons, the Democratic leadership did not want a floor vote, and so they used their power to call for what is called a "2/3rds vote."
They used their power to call a riskier vote, instead of using their power to just put the Bill to normal vote and have it safely pass through into Law.
Why the riskier vote? The Democratic leadership that chose this "procedural gimmick," as King called it, chose it to avoid negotiations on the floor with amendments and other undesirables.
To cover-up this base self-serving politic maneuver that killed the Bill, Weiner made a blustering speech that became a viral video screaming his outrage, so that we might join him in outrage, when in fact he himself created the outrage.
Disgraceful is right.
Observers will remember that 9/11 responders were the heroes that gave America its courage and dignity in the wake of the attack on New York. Unfortunately for them, the Environmental Protection Agency, under Christine Whitman's leadership, failed to accurately portray the dangers to people in downtown Manhattan. This Bill---The 9/11 Health and Compensation Act (H.R. 847)--was supposed to make that wrong right.
Without the knowledge they needed, firemen and other rescuers took the government at its word, and put themselves in a toxic environment. Many have died from respiratory diseases, suffer sickness today or are grossly uncomfortable.
The Bill was their hope at recognition and compensation. It was defeated by the lowest kind of politics in Washington.
21 Comments
See all comments
BrendanPKeane | Aug 06, 2010, 08:28 PM EDT
The Democrats should have brought the Bill to the floor for debate. Instead they killed it procedurally. And then Weiner tried to put the blame on the chief architect of the bill, Peter King, because he's a Republican. It was a disgraceful performance, and it makes my stomach hurt to think Weiner thought he could pull that stunt and get away with it.
Report abuse
Monsoonman | Aug 05, 2010, 09:49 PM EDT
I think the republicans objected to the bill because A.they wanted to know where the money was going to come from, or were they just going to print it and B. The first responders have already received cash payouts and have excellent retirement and benefit packages due to their public employee union contracts already,,,where doeos it stop? We're not going to be able to afford "heroes" anymore at this rate.
Report abuse
hollabackgurl | Aug 05, 2010, 11:12 AM EDT
The Republicans objected to this bill to prevent offshore multinationals from paying tax on their profits. That's such a consoling thought, isn't it? I'm sure those 9/11 responders would never have raced into burning buildings to help the injured if they thought that offshore Swiss corporations might one day have to pay tax on their earnings to help defray their medical costs. That's what true patriotism means.
Report abuse
Monsoonman | Aug 04, 2010, 11:34 PM EDT
OK GanAinm: I see where there is a settlement for a lawsuit against our government ( You and I)by first responders who are claiming health problems caused by the ash, some of the first responders will get as much as 1.8 million each....So let me get this straight, terrorists slammed their planes into buildings causing death and destruction and the first responders sue us? so this is over and above other payments made to them as well as full medical coverage/pensions/disability for life, life insurance policies, etc. which is what they get in the normal course of their risk reward work?
Report abuse
GanAinm | Aug 04, 2010, 10:21 AM EDT
A clarification, Monsoonman, when I wrote the other day on the issue of Responders collecting both under a lawsuit settlement and the Zagroder Bill, I had not realized that the sponsors of the bill had already incorporated by suggestion by adding a provision allowing those who collect under the lawsuit to also benefit from the act. Please note that this is NOT "double-dipping"; they are not collecting the same money twice. It allows those who collect under the supplement but are not able to get from it the total compensation and treatment they need to get the balance under the Bill. Simple fairness, especially to those who gave so much.
Report abuse
GanAinm | Aug 04, 2010, 10:17 AM EDT
Monsoonman, there are all sorts of people amoung the Responders who are sick and even dying after their service at Ground Zero. They are not all cops and firemen, and even those with the most generouse health care plans need more compensation and serivces if their illnesses are serious enough.
Report abuse
GanAinm | Aug 04, 2010, 10:15 AM EDT
Brendan, the Republicans will do anything to stop any bill which might innure to the Democrats by showing that government is accomplishing something while they are in control. The "toxic" amendments they threatened to add had to do with barring undocumented immigrant ground zero heros from getting benefits under the bill, and also, believe it or not, abortion. Maybe the Dems should have taken the chance and tried to remove such nonsense later, but, as with health care reform, the GOP would have opposed the bill even if they got those changes they supposedly wanted. I watched the committee hearings on this one: did you know that the same Republican representative infamous for asking us to apologize to BP actually stated as one of his arguments against the 9/11 bill the fear that terrorists would make claims for compensation under the proposed bill? You can't make these things up. Yes,there is enough blame to go around for both sides in the bill's failure so far, but it's fantasy to say the blame is equal on both sides.
Report abuse
hancock | Aug 02, 2010, 12:08 PM EDT
Both parties are equally dispicable. Anybody who doesn't know that by now is stupid.
Report abuse
BrendanPKeane | Aug 01, 2010, 10:21 PM EDT
Also, how noble is a vote yes, when you know the 2/3rds requirement will have the effect of a vote no. The "beauty" of this scam, is that the public perceives the Dems voted yes, but does not realize the rig it no. The Republicans that failed to join Republican King and Democrat Maloney are no less contemptible than the Democratic leaderhsip that arranged for a 2/3rd requirement.
Report abuse
BrendanPKeane | Aug 01, 2010, 09:21 PM EDT
GanAinm, the bill died on the procedure not the vote, so quoting the vote is just distraction. I am not to know that it was an immigrant amendment they didn't want to debate--the Dems pretended it was the Republicans, and that was just pure distortion.
Report abuse
Monsoonman | Aug 01, 2010, 01:11 AM EDT
Thanks GanAinm, but don't the government first responders already have coverage for this sort of thing? That is my question.
Report abuse
GanAinm | Jul 31, 2010, 11:06 PM EDT
Monsoon, the issue here is not the payments that have already been paid to almost all the families of those killed on 9/11 itself. We are talking of the "responders", yes, cops and firefighters, but also other workers who went to Ground Zero to hunt for survivors or bodies, and to clear the site, having been assured by the EPA and others that it was safe to do so. The question is how to care for those who were apparently sickened or died due to their exposure to conditions there. Over ten thousand sued and are now contemplating a recommended settlement. What should happen is that the plaintiffs in that suit should be allowed to get additional care they need via the proposed bill as should those who did not join it the suit or who have not yet developed illnesses.
Report abuse
Monsoonman | Jul 31, 2010, 09:28 PM EDT
How much did the government give to the peoples familys killed at Pearl Harbor? They were sleeping in their beds, working at their desks or walking along in the early sunshine and were suddenly, unexpectedly attacked and killed and we were not at war. So did Roosevelt sign an executive order giving every victims family a nice tidy check from the government? They burned to death, drowned, were vaporized and blown to bits too. I didn't do that to them or to the victims of 911, why should I pay them? Shouldn't the ones responsible for the death and destruction pay them? Jes sayin'...Oh and furthermore don't the cops firemen and others all have tax payer paid for healthy pensions, healthy, retirements and disability plans in place just in case they do get hurt or injured? Why the enhancement?
Report abuse
McNamara31 | Jul 31, 2010, 05:51 PM EDT
Monsoonman said "While we're at it, can anyone give me the logic behind giving every person killed in the world trade tower a minimum of a million dollars?...Just curious because some of my family members have died too and I was wondering where I could get my gummint check"************
Monsoonman Did your family member see mommy or daddy vaporized before their eye's on TV. Did they have to wait eight month's for a bone fragment before they could bury daddy? You guys really make me gag.
Report abuse
21 Comments
Report abuse