Unfriggingbelievable ~ I usually save the word 'craven' for worst of the worst ~ I need a new word because R senators are beyond craven ~ emphasis/bolding below is mine ~ Sooz

SENATE REPUBLICANS BLOCK VOTE ON 9/11 HEALTH BILL.... In late September, the House approved a bill that should have been one of the year's most obvious no-brainers. It's called the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, and it would pay health care costs for 9/11 rescue workers, sickened after exposure to the toxic smoke and debris. The legislation was fully paid for, financed by closing a tax loophole for American companies that try to hide their headquarters at P.O. boxes in the Caymans.

House Republicans trashed the bill, calling the health care money a "slush fund." The chamber passed it anyway, overcoming the opposition of more than 90% of the House GOP.

Today, it was the Senate's turn. And you know what that means.

Here's the roll call. Technically, it was 57 to 42 in Dems' favor -- three votes shy of overcoming a Republican filibuster -- but it was really 58 to 41. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had to switch his vote to opposition for procedural reasons.

The politics of this really are astounding. For all of the Republicans' professed concern for Ground Zero and reverence for the attacks of 9/11, when it comes time to help thousands of 9/11 heroes who need medical care, Republicans not only oppose the bill, they're so offended by it that they won't even let the Senate give it an up-or-down vote.

We're talking about a Senate Republican caucus that, without exception, will fight tooth and nail for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, but which refuses to let the Senate vote on a bill covering health care costs for 9/11 rescue workers.

And this is the party Americans rewarded on Election Day.

At this point, the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act isn't completely dead. If it fails to pass in this Congress, Republicans have already indicated it stands no chance in the next Congress. There is, however, still some talk about trying to insert the provisions into the tax policy agreement before it's voted on in the Senate.

—[url=mailto:sbenen@washingtonmonthly.com]Steve Benen[/url] 2:50 PM December 9, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 027005.php

If Obama is as advertised, he's had his opportunity.
From now on it's the Repugnant way or no way.

What do you mean by "from now on"? For two years now the repugs used their minority in the senate to block anything they wanted to block.
Unless the senate rules are changed majorities mean diddly and nothing will change.
According to the Gopster that's supposed to be a great thing..

The Dems never really pushed back. The Repugnant strategy was obvious after 6 months yet the Dems kept dithering about. The Repugnants would have preferred that the country go into default rather than letting that uppity Black man in the White house do his job.

"According to the Gopster that's supposed to be a great thing.."

What's that sound....?






"plunk"

I'm not evenly remotely surprised by Kirk's reversal on his personal commitment ~ disgusted, oh yes ~ but not surprised ~ Kirk is a practiced BSer ~ he'll say/do whatever at any time to curry favor/support ... for himself ~ we saw ample proof of that during the recent campaign ~ Sooz

THE VOTE ON THE 9/11 HEALTH BILL THAT STANDS OUT.... As we talked about yesterday, a unanimous Republican caucus blocked a vote on the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. The bill would have paid health care costs for 9/11 rescue workers, sickened after exposure to the toxic smoke and debris, but literally every member of the Senate GOP caucus not only opposed it, but refused to even let the chamber vote on it.

All of the Senate Republicans are equally responsible for the bill's failure, but there was one vote in particular that stood out.

Kirk had already committed to supporting the legislation. In fact, last month, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), an enthusiastic backer of the 9/11 health bill, assured supporters that Kirk's support was in the bag. "Mark, I understand, is being sworn in December 1st, on or about," King said. "He has told me he will definitely vote for the bill, no if's, and's, or but's. He's voting for the bill."

He didn't vote for the bill.

Apparently, the problem wasn't with the legislation itself, but rather, with Kirk's priorities -- he helped block the 9/11 health bill because he's blocking everything until Republicans secure the tax cuts they want for the wealthy.

Just so we're clear here, Mark Kirk promised to support legislation to provide health care to 9/11 rescue workers, and then went back on his word, and wouldn't even give the bill an up-or-down vote, because he thinks tax breaks for millionaires are more important.

What's more, also note that Kirk could have kept his word and the bill would have failed anyway. It needed 60 votes to over Republican obstructionism, and his vote would have been #59. Instead, Kirk stuck with his party.

I wonder how many folks in Illinois will hear about this.

—Steve Benen 8:30 AM December 10, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 027015.php

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), an enthusiastic backer of the 9/11 health bill