The bill was to provide medical care for 9/11 rescue workers and NYC residents who suffered illnesses as a result of proximity to Ground Zero. The result:
(Not surprisingly, the 4 Democrats are all conservatives.)
Democrats brought the bill for possible passage with a 2/3rds majority (rather than >1/2, as is usually the case) because they believed that it was fairly uncontroversial, time was of the essence, and they wanted to get it out of the way before November.
One would have thought that they’d hit rock bottom with lying about ACORN and about a meager healthcare bill in order for sheer politics. But, seeing as how they’re willing to fillibuster unemployment benefits and healthcare for 9/11 rescue workers, they’re clearly happy to start digging.
Well, you see, the Republicans weren’t against the bill, they were against the procedure! Why, they’d tickled pink to give Obama a Rose Garden signing ceremony honoring our 9/11 heroes, nothing could please them more! Its just that this jack-booted procedure doesn’t allow for relevant and important amendments. Crucial amendments, absolutely critical amendments that are directly relevant to the matter at hand.
So, by adopting this procedure, the Democrats effectively made it impossible, as a matter of principle, for Republicans to vote for this bill, however much they might wish to! Heaven knows, in the interests of bipartisan cordiality, they would just love to watch Obama stick this feather in his cap, but their principles must remain unsullied and free of compromise.
Last I checked no one held a gun to the heads of the Dems and forced them to use a special procedure that required a 2/3rds majority for passage. If the Democrats really cared (and weren’t just looking to deny Republicans the ability to propose amendments to the bill) solely about getting money for the workers they would have just passed it with the normal rules. You guys do realize they have a majority in both houses and the White House, right?
If the Democrats hadn’t been worried about political issues and were really solely concerned with the workers, they could have just passed the bill like normal (after letting Republicans grand stand with amendments that, as the majority party they could easily have shot down) and been done with it.
I’m not convinced it’s unreasonable for the Democrats to deny the Republicans the right to insert important riders like resolutions condemning Crayola for discontinuing the flesh colored crayon.
Here’s the thing. Let’s suppose that the Democrats did this *solely *for political reasons, for the reasons you mentioned. The question remains: why did the Republicans (and conservative Dems) oppose it?
Just to play devil’s advocate, after reading several articles about the legislation - it sounds a lot like a $7 billion blowjob. It’s not absolutely clear the legislation is needed and it’s extremely probable that a lot of the money earmarked will be given to people who haven’t gotten sick from WTC-related effects at all.
In fact, it’s named after a WTC cleanup worker who died, and whose death is alleged to be connected to working there, and** yet the New York medical examiner says the man died of drug abuse.** There may be legitimate reasons to oppose a bill that at first glance has a very Rudy Giuliani “verb noun 9/11” feel to it.
Why would it be needful to specify that persons who are not citizens and not legally here should be denied such benefits? Do we need a further amendment to deny such benefits to purveryors of child pornography? Perhaps something to ensure that the families of the 9/11 perpetrators cannot claim such benefits?
Coincidentally, there’s an MPSIMS thread about this.
Honest question (repeated from other thread): since this was a procedural move, it must be in the rules, and thus legitimate. How often does this happen? Any comparative numbers?
Again, from the other thread, my understanding is that passage is time sensitive – it needs to be done by September 8th, and there’s the summer recess consuming a large chunk o’ time.
Thank you. Not that you’d necessarily have any info on this particular bill, but an obvious follow-up question: I understand that now this bill is (or has become) controversial, but was it (prior to this procedural move)?
The 2/3 vote permits the bill to be passed without amendments. Factually speaking, the Republicans have been rather obstructionist this term. If you want to avoid getting the bill tied up with 500 resolutions on abortion and internet porn, you need this sort of procedure.
National Security Deemed Unimportant, Recession Irrelevant
The 2007-2009 financial crisis gave us the worst recession since WWII. So there’s little fiscal argument against the bill.* And it seems to me that monitoring and treating injuries related to toxic dust would be prudent: it would make America stronger by helping in future terrorist attacks. And yet the great majority of Washington Republicans oppose this measure. They should be ashamed of themselves and their supporters should be embarrassed.
ETA: It’s an 8 year bill though, so some of the epidemiological spending will occur after the recovery, knock on wood.
Depends on you mean by controversial. By definition, any time time there is considerable opposition, controversy exists. And this goes straight to the heart of the matter: Should providing medical care to 9/11 rescue workers and people with 9/11-related illnesses be controversial? Is there something wrong with that? Conservatives are giving a firm “yes”.
Again - and here I’m just trying to see if a real discussion can be created out of this - the yes/no vote here is not a question of whether “9/11 rescue workers and people with 9/11 related illnesses” should either be given medical benefits or not given medical benefits. It appears to be a question of whether a fairly large sum of money should be earmarked to pay people who might have 9/11-related medical problems, but then again might not have, or who might have medical conditions that have nothing to do with cleaning up the 9/11 site at all, ON TOP OF any medical insurance they might already have, which, given that most such workers are firefighters, cops, et al., likely means most of them.
This sound a lot like a “you’re not honoring their sacrifice/letting the terrorists win by not giving them a pile of money/agreeing with my legislation” thing. What’s the case to be made for this bill? Just acting all pissed off isn’t a case. Why is it needed?