Forget national security ~ forget fiduciary duty to all Americans ~ forget the deficit ~ forget 'equal rights' ~ forget the military ~ forget the millions of unemployed, who are and remain unemployed thru no fault of their own ~ and definitely forget doing the right thing just because it is the right thing ~ there is NO question that the Rs #1 priority, above all else, is to preserve/extend lower tax rates for the uber wealthy ~ as this item ably exposes, the MSM's complicity protects the R gamble at the expense of the public ~ again ~  ~ Sooz

A GAMBLE REPUBLICANS WERE WILLING TO TAKE.... Political parties are traditionally motivated by fear of public revulsion. To take steps that make the party's members look like monsters is rarely a good idea.

So it was interesting this week to see congressional Republicans overwhelmingly reject the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which would pay health care costs for 9/11 rescue workers, sickened after exposure to the toxic smoke and debris. In the House, more than 90% of GOP lawmakers opposed the bill. In the Senate, a unanimous Republican caucus found the bill so offensive, they wouldn't even give it an up-or-down vote.

Fear of appearing sociopathic probably should have led to a few more Republican votes. After all, it's not exactly a compelling message to take to the electorate: we'll fight tooth and nail for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, but we'll also reject health care costs for 9/11 rescue workers.

And why would Republicans take a risk like this, especially over legislation that was both affordable and paid for? Because they're probably confident most Americans won't hear a word about this.

I suppose one could argue that major media outlets might have given this more coverage if Democrats were more effective at raising a fuss. Perhaps. But news organizations should be able to recognize important developments on their own, whether partisans tell them what's newsworthy or not.

Regardless, there's a larger truth here -- Republicans know the Noise Machine lets votes like these slip under the radar, and without scrutiny, the GOP, already lacking in shame, feels comfortable taking steps that should be scandalous, but aren't.

—Steve Benen 10:35 AM December 11, 2010

http://www.washingtonmont...idual/2010_12/027038.php

And who controls the MSM?
Not the unemployed and not the 9/11 emergency workers.

it surprises me these days that such things are even reported here, given the state of things.  thank God for NPR and other non-profit outlets.

I have a question.  Wouldn't 9/11 rescue workers have their health care costs covered by Workers Compensation or their own health care plans.

Probably not if it was covered through private insurers. They probably found a loophole/escape clause or somesuch as "an act of war" or "an act of terrorism".

  

The mainstream media reported this story.

i never said it didn't.  i simply said i was glad that public media is there.

The mainstream media reported this story.

Googled all 3 networks mentioned. Nada.
Maybe I used the wrong words or something.

I also think a lot of the illnesses in this particular claim are 'late onset' ~ similar in nature to some of the asbestos cases ~

Sooz
  

So, basically, the Republicans are being ideologically consistent.  It's the victim's own fault.  They shouldn't have lived in New York.  They should have known 9/11 was going to happen and not been there.  They "voluntarily" helped out after the attacks and, because of their life choice, shouldn't become a drain on other Americans. 
  

They'll delay as long as they possibly can without losing votes.
After all, dead people don't need health care.
That's the Rpeugnant way of cutting expenses.

Deeply disturbing ~ and anyone who would 'kill' [excellent choice of words here] this bill for this reason is deeply disturbed ~  ~ Sooz

Really?
Well now, maybe first responders shouldn't respond to any emergency requirements of members of the US Chamber of Commerce.

Truly despicable ~ but it's what I've come to expect from the aptly nicknamed 'McWeasel' ~  ~ Sooz

'MCWEASEL' BLASTS 9/11 HEALTH BILL.... It's not enough for Senate Republicans to block a vote on the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. Now, members like John McCain (R-Ariz.) are condemning Democratic efforts to even try to pass the bill.

Let's unpack this a bit, because I think it's important.

Democrats, hoping to complete the lame-duck schedule in a reasonable amount of time, sought to limit the length of the already-long debate over New START ratification. McCain, showing the temperament of a spoiled four-year-old, threw a little tantrum and refused to limit the duration, insisting that there'd be more time for him to make ridiculous arguments about arms control if Democrats hadn't wasted time "fooling around" on frivolous legislation.

But this is more than just petty and spiteful, it's also truly idiotic. For one thing, Republicans are responsible for the lengthy delays, thanks to pointless obstructionist tactics. For another, providing health care to 9/11 first responders is not some pointless exercise.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) of New York was not amused.

As long as we're on the subject, Fox News, perhaps shamed by Jon Stewart, finally mentioned the 9/11 health bill yesterday. Shep Smith didn't emphasize which party was responsible, but he nevertheless was right to describe efforts to defeat the legislation as "disgusting" and "a national disgrace." (thanks to reader V.S.)

We also learned yesterday why Republicans have been so opposed to the measure -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been quietly lobbying against it because it's financed by closing tax loopholes for foreign businesses that do business in the United States. The Chamber cares more about protecting the loopholes than caring for 9/11 heroes, so it's been successfully pressuring Republicans to kill the bill.

—Steve Benen 9:00 AM December 18, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 027152.php

This would be a wonderful, and grossly overdue, holiday gift to the rescue workers ~ it is beyond enraging that even foreign corporations are more important to Rs than the Americans who [unselfishly and heroically] risked their own lives in rescue efforts ~ Sooz

9/11 HEALTH BILL NOT QUITE DEAD.... Two weeks ago, a unanimous Senate GOP caucus blocked a debate on the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which would pay health care costs for 9/11 rescue workers, sickened after exposure to the toxic smoke and debris. Given the limited time remaining in the lame-duck session, it appeared Republicans had killed the bill.

But as of late yesterday, the 9/11 health bill had a pulse.

As of two weeks ago, the bill had 58 votes, made up entirely of every member of the Democratic caucus. There's apparently been some movement, though, on the two GOP votes needed to end the Republican filibuster.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) had promised to vote for the bill, then reversed course, and now appears ready to reverse course again. He'd be vote #59. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), meanwhile, said yesterday that she, too, is prepared to vote for the Zadroga bill, so long as it has the "appropriate offsets."

That's really the key -- what we're left with is a debate about a funding mechanism. The way the bill is currently shaped, Democrats pay for the health costs for 9/11 heroes by closing tax loopholes for foreign businesses that do business in the United States. This has drawn the ire of Republicans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has demanded the loopholes remain in place.

Collins, in effect, has told Gillibrand and other Dems that the bill can pass if they pay for it some other way, and yesterday, talks for an alternative funding mechanism appeared to be progressing. Details are a little sketchy, but the new plan would apparently include new visa fees and a 2% fee on some procurement contracts.

The next challenge would be finding floor time before the Senate wraps up for the year. As Gillibrand sees it, this can and should follow New START ratification this week. Stay tuned.

—Steve Benen 9:05 AM December 19, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 027160.php

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), meanwhile, said yesterday that she, too, is prepared to vote for the Zadroga bill, so long as it has the "appropriate offsets."

What does "appropriate offsets" mean?

What does "appropriate offsets" mean?

In this case, as is the norm, it appears the agreement is that it means "revenue enhancement."

I think a more appropriate offset would be an equal reduction in spending in another area.  Candidates would be defense spending, farm subsidies, expenses for the operations of the Congress, Medicare spending, or administrative spending in a combination of existing federal programs.

There are a lot of candidates for spending cuts to offset new spending and avoid an overall increase in government spending.

I don't think anyone is really surprised the GOP would take care of their "own" and not the responders of 9/11.

judging from the Tax Bill, they must be in an EXTREME minority.  raising taxes would have been the PERFECT offset to extending unmeployment benefits.

What's so reprehensible for the Gopers with closing loop holes for foreign corporations?

Ok. Thanks.
IMO, the most "appropriate offsets" would be eliminating all the earmarks of those Repugs who signed their absolute commitment ot eliminate earmarks.

Those folks must be kept on their "path of fiscal righteousness".