Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:40 PM ET, 12/20/2010

Conservatives growing uncomfortable with GOP blockade of 9/11 health bill

By Greg Sargent

With Senate Democrats upping the pressure for passage of the bill giving health benefits to sickened 9/11 responders, it's going to get increasingly hard for GOP Senators to maintain their opposition. That's because even right-leaning commentators and political operatives are growing mighty uncomfortable with the Senate GOP's stance.

Case in point: This morning Joe Scarborough ripped into GOP opponents of passing the bill, which is called the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. He said Republicans were taking a big risk, and the crucial point Scarborough made is that this should be a national issue, not a New York one:

"Why wouldn't we take care of their health care? It's just like taking care of veterans' health care," Scarborough wondered aloud. "It can't be a good move for Republicans to oppose a bill for the firefighters and the cops on 9/11."

"How did this become a New York issue?" Scarborough continued. "That is like Pearl Harbor becoming a Hawaii issue in 1951. It's ridiculous."

Senator Jon Kyl and other GOP Senators don't appear moved by such entreaties. Over the weekend he took a break from obstructing the New START treaty in order to express concerns about the costs of the 9/11 bill, calling for more time.

But Dems are pressing ahead. Chuck Schumer has come out and said that he's received assurances from Harry Reid that a vote on the 9/11 bill will come after New START. And it seems Dem efforts to go on offense on this issue is making conservative commentators and operatives very uncomfortable.

In addition to Scarborough's claims above, Fox News's Chris Wallace ripped the failure to act on the 9/11 bill as a "national shame." And well known GOP operative Kevin Madden said yesterday: "I think there is also a lot of worry on the Republican side that what used to be a New York issue could quickly become a national issue. I think it will be approved."

It does seem like the Senate GOP's position is growing increasingly untenable.

UPDATE, 2:36 p.m.: Also, former Bushie Nicole Wallace told Scarborough that this was bad politics for the GOP.

By Greg Sargent  | December 20, 2010; 1:40 PM ET
Categories:  Political media, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Harry Reid earns his place in history
Next: Does Haley Barbour have a "bubba" problem?

Comments

Is the 9/11 bill and START all that's left on the lame duck Senate agenda? Has the continuing resolution already been passed?

Posted by: jnc4p | December 20, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are scum for blocking this bill.... and for about 1,000,000 other reasons. Just plain old garden variety scum.

OT: speaking of scum, Sen. Kay Hagan's (D-NC) office in Greenville, N.C., was spray-painted with swastikas and anti-government messages:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/12/sen-kay-hagans-nc-office-vanda.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 20, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm conservative, and I oppose yet another federal government incursion into healthcare. NYC got the bulk of Wall Street bailout and now wants MORE instead of state / county / city medical coverage for state / county / city employees. Tell them to move to Massachusetts for full medical coverage!

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

It's becoming "increasingly untenable" for the GOP because Joe Scarborough is against it? Seriously?

Posted by: ath17 | December 20, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

John Kyl and John McCain!

What the hell is the matter with Arizonans; that they wants those two crazy Arsezonians representing their state!

In recent years; there have been several news reports about members of the US military posting Street Gang signs on buildings in Baghdad. There also have been numerous news reports about the US military lowering their acceptance standards, to sign up new recruits with some criminal histories.

Not a word from the likes of McCain, about how letting gang members, and known convicts join up, was going to destroy US Military cohesion.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 20, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

OT:

It is truly STUNNING how open the Right is with their bigotry.

~Barbour Praises Civil Rights-Era White Supremacist Citizens Councils~

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/barbour-i-saw-dr-king-speak----but-paid-more-attention-to-the-girls.php

Out-and-out racists. Just beyond hideous.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 20, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"I'm conservative, and I oppose yet another federal government incursion into healthcare."

Seriously, even for the 9/11 responders? If not for them, then who?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | December 20, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Joe Scarborough should have been more concerned about Lori Klausutis's healthcare I think.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

New York State sends far more revenues to Washington, than it gets back.

Almost all the southern states get back far more from Washington than they send there. So does Palin's Alaska.

When is the MSM going to expose all those Free Loading Red States, for the hypocrites that they are.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 20, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, I hate referencing this web site because they are what's wrong with journalism but see that story Politico drug up about Barbour?

The following is a Haley statement:


"This being Mississippi, race is a factor in the campaign, but mainly because neither candidate has offered much to black voters. The Republicans have tried to remind them that in 1964 Mr. Stennis sponsored legislation to export Mississippi blacks to states that wanted to practice integration.

But the racial sensitivity at Barbour headquarters was suggested by an exchange between the candidate and an aide who complained that there would be ''coons'' at a campaign stop at the state fair. Embarrassed that a reporter heard this, Mr. Barbour warned that if the aide persisted in racist remarks, he would be reincarnated as a watermelon and placed at the mercy of blacks."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1210/The_watermelon_thing.html

Posted by: mikefromArlington | December 20, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I'm conservative, and I oppose yet another federal government incursion into healthcare. NYC got the bulk of Wall Street bailout and now wants MORE instead of state / county / city medical coverage for state / county / city employees. Tell them to move to Massachusetts for full medical coverage!

when your house is being robbed or on fire i hope the first responders tell you to move to mass. what an ahole. do you even have a clue as to what the bill does. being a conservative doesn't necessarily mean stupid or does it? the first responders to 9/11 are dying from cancers and suffering lung problems from breathing in the dust at ground zero and you would let them? what a waste of air you are.

Posted by: blinwilly | December 20, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington, for the state / county / city employees, you betcha I'm serious. Federal workers, of course, are covered.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Not one congressman or senator has answered the question on how this money gets distributed and who is in charge of it. Last month, a billion dollar settlement was given to these same people. Many believe this money will be funneled to corrupt union pension funds. The US government has given billions to NYC in aid as a result of 9/11. Sept. 11 responders ALL HAVE HEALTH CARE ALREADY. They are covered by a very generous health care plan that has addressed every illness. Who is claiming they don't have health care.

If one person answers the question on WHO IN CHARGE OF THE MONEY??? I will support this. Senator Gillibrand will not answer this question.

Joe Scarborough is an ignorant jerk. Everyone should ask questions of their government.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | December 20, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

ath17: It's becoming "increasingly untenable" for the GOP because Joe Scarborough is against it? Seriously?


Uh, no....because it's starting to be covered on Fox.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 20, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

"...being a conservative doesn't necessarily mean stupid or does it?"

The smart ones are RINOs.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 20, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

blinwilly, I have a clue what the bill does, and being conservative does not mean being stupid. Do you know the difference between powers granted to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution and those reserved to the states?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"Physicians; heal thy crooked selves".

http://www.propublica.org/article/medical-schools-policies-on-faculty-and-drug-company-speaking-circuit

"As medical schools wrestle with how to keep drug companies from corrupting their faculties, Stanford University is often lauded for its tough stance.

The school was one of the first to stop sales representatives from roaming its halls in 2006 [1]. It cut off the flow of free lunches and trinkets emblazoned with drug names. And last year, in a blow to its physicians’ wallets, Stanford banned them from giving paid promotional talks for pharmaceutical companies.

One thing it didn’t do was make sure its faculty followed that rule.

A ProPublica investigation found that more than a dozen of the school’s doctors were paid speakers in apparent violation of its policy—two of them earning six figures since last year.

Dr. Philip Pizzo, the dean of Stanford’s medical school, sent an e-mail [2] to all medical school staff last week calling the conduct “unacceptable.” Some doctors’ excuses, he wrote, were “difficult if not impossible to reconcile with our policy.”

He was not the only school official caught off-guard.

Faculty at a half-dozen other institutions—including division chiefs—also lectured for drug firms in the last two years, ProPublica found, despite restrictions on such behavior. The University of Pennsylvania, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Colorado Denver, among others, have launched reviews.

Yet when it comes to enforcing the policies, universities have allowed permissive interpretations and relied on the honor system. ProPublica’s review shows that approach isn’t working: Many physicians are in apparent violation, and ignorance or confusion about the rules is widespread.

As a result, some faculty physicians stay on the industry lecture circuit, where they can net tens of thousands in additional income.

Critics of the practice say delivering talks for drug companies is incompatible with teaching future generations of physicians. That’s because drug firms typically pick the topic of the lecture, train the speakers and require them to use company-provided presentation slides.

“You’re giving someone else’s messages, someone else’s talk, someone else’s judgments,” said Dr. Bernard Lo, a medical professor at University of California, San Francisco who chaired a national panel [3] examining conflicts of interest in medicine. “We don’t allow our students to use someone else’s work.”

Posted by: Liam-still | December 20, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

when the people who are sick start to cost the fd and pd too much money they are retired at 3/4 pay and put on workman's comp. then they have to fight the insurance companies to prove that it is a work related illness. is that the generous health care plan some of you are talking about?

Posted by: blinwilly | December 20, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

As a Democrat, I strongly believe that the vast majority of Americans, including 99% of all Republicans, sincerely care about 9/11 responders.

Partisan politics has created a little speed bump to passage of this pro-America legislation.

But I believe that, at the end of the day, most Republican Senators will support passage and do so happily.

Posted by: paul65 | December 20, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"Sept. 11 responders ALL HAVE HEALTH CARE ALREADY. They are covered by a very generous health care plan that has addressed every illness. Who is claiming they don't have health care."
----


Look doofus, here's the facts. Their employer healthcare policies will not cover them because the insurer's claim the injuries and illness are job-related, and therefore should be covered by Workmens Comp. Workmens Comp won't cover them because they say there is not adequate proof their illness are related to anything they did on the job.

Get it now? They are caught in the middle, and are getting help from NO ONE.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 20, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"Seriously, even for the 9/11 responders? If not for them, then who?"

Totally. More to the point, why is it that someone/anyone gets to decide whose illnesses are a "higher priority"?

Truth is, Clawrence doesn't want the federal government to pay for ANYONE's health care. He wants his own grandmother to pay top dollar for health care in the for-profit market. He wants starving children to just shut up and starve already. He wants veterans of our wars to pay for their own health care dammit. 9/11 first responders? They worked long exhausting hours and have suffered numerous afflictions in devotion to their country, but they have to pay top dollar too.

He takes these positions just so health care and health insurance executives can squeeze America for more money so they can buy their 2nd or 3rd yacht or 2nd or 3rd home. No other reason.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 20, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

blinwilly, I have a clue what the bill does, and being conservative does not mean being stupid. Do you know the difference between powers granted to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution and those reserved to the states? yes i do. but please enlighten us on how this actually applies.

Posted by: blinwilly | December 20, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Another disgrace, and betrayal of our Troops.

"Pentagon Health Plan Won’t Cover Brain-Damage Therapy for Troops"

http://www.propublica.org/article/pentagon-health-plan-wont-cover-brain-damage-therapy-for-troops

"During the past few decades, scientists have become increasingly persuaded that people who suffer brain injuries benefit from what is called cognitive rehabilitation therapy -- a lengthy, painstaking process in which patients relearn basic life tasks such as counting, cooking or remembering directions to get home.

Many neurologists, several major insurance companies and even some medical facilities run by the Pentagon agree that the therapy can help people whose functioning has been diminished by blows to the head.

But despite pressure from Congress and the recommendations of military and civilian experts, the Pentagon's health plan for troops and many veterans refuses to cover the treatment -- a decision that could affect the tens of thousands of service members who have suffered brain damage while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tricare, an insurance-style program covering nearly 4 million active-duty military and retirees, says the scientific evidence does not justify providing comprehensive cognitive rehabilitation. Tricare officials say an assessment of the available research [4] that they commissioned last year shows that the therapy is not well proven.

But an investigation by NPR and ProPublica found that internal and external reviewers of the Tricare-funded assessment criticized it as fundamentally misguided. Confidential documents obtained by NPR and ProPublica show that reviewers called the Tricare study "deeply flawed," "unacceptable" and "dismaying." One top scientist called the assessment a "misuse" of science designed to deny treatment for service members.

Tricare's stance is also at odds with some medical groups, years of research and even other branches of the Pentagon. Last year, a panel of 50 civilian and military brain specialists convened by the Pentagon unanimously concluded that cognitive therapy was an effective treatment that would help many brain-damaged troops. More than a decade ago, a similar panel convened by the National Institutes of Health reached a similar consensus. Several peer-reviewed studies in the past few years have also endorsed cognitive therapy as a treatment for brain injury. "

Posted by: Liam-still | December 20, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

After the attacks, these folks were the darlings of America. The nation, particularly hawkish GOPers, thought these greatest folks on the planet. And, the nation thought they should be helped in every way. Well, I guess time does heal all wounds. What you guys should not have done was given money to the victims. That is not the governments' role. That set a terrible precedent.

Posted by: jckdoors | December 20, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry folks right wingers have their priorities. If only those sick 9/11 first responders would become brain dead, like Terri Schiavo, then The Republican Party would move heaven and earth to keep them on feeding tubes, and pass special bills to prevent them ever being unplugged.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 20, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

@Cornell84: "If one person answers the question on WHO IN CHARGE OF THE MONEY??? I will support this."

Step 1, settle down and stop screaming.

Step 2, READ THE DAMN BILL.

H.R.847 - James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010

"It would establish a federal program to provide medical monitoring and treatment for first responders, provide initial health screenings for people who were in the area at the time of the attack and may be at risk, and reopen the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund to provide compensation for losses and harm as an alternative to the current litigation system."

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h847/show

Who will control the money?

9/11 Victim Compensation Fund

There. Happy? Idiot.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 20, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Yet again, hatred of Obama getting in the way of doing the right thing for the country.


Posted by: Alex3 | December 20, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

It's just another issue on which cynical Dems generate a dispute for political purposes by leaving common sense and responsibility at the door. Then, when Reps insist on including common sense, the reckless Dems scream, "See! They're obstructing us! They're obstructing us!"

Just another disgusting exercise in Dem cynicism and partisanship.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Who was in charge of the billions of dollars that disappeared in Iraq, after it was shipped in on skids, and then disappeared.

Republicans sure are very selective, when it comes to how our money is spent, or stolen.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 20, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Ethan is correct. Rightwingers are born deficient of the human ability to feel compassion or empathy. They have only the reptilian desire to survive, and so they simply do not care whether children, the elderly, firemen, policemen, suffer or die -- it just doesn't matter, all that counts is for them to hang onto every cent and grab everything they can for themselves.

I think they see it as a positive when poor children die, especially.

Posted by: fiona5 | December 20, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, those are not my positions. Have you even read this bill?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

t's just another issue on which cynical Dems generate a dispute for political purposes by leaving common sense and responsibility at the door. Then, when Reps insist on including common sense, the reckless Dems scream, "See! They're obstructing us! They're obstructing us!"

Just another disgusting exercise in Dem cynicism and partisanship.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 2:34 PM |

.........................

I call you, and raise you one Terri Schiavo, on that, you right wing hypocrite.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 20, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"It would establish a federal program to provide medical monitoring and treatment for first responders, provide initial health screenings for people who were in the area at the time of the attack and may be at risk"

Let me give you a clue about this, because it's something I know a lot about. When you see "medical monitoring" and "health screenings" in a context like this, you can be 99% certain it is a complete scam and waste of money. "Medical monitoring" is an invention of the plaintiffs' trial bar, not the medical profession. There are certain limited instances in which "screening" for specific conditions and other preventive care are scientifically justified. But they are few and far between, and almost none based on environmental exposures have any sound medical basis. See the guidelines published by the USPSTS for a primer. And read a couple of books on clinical epidemiology if you want to understand why.

It is an absolute, lead-pipe cinch, take-to-the-bank guarantee that a "medical monitoring" and "screening" fund like this is a complete rip off of taxpayers.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"Ethan2010, those are not my positions."

Who, then, do you "approve" of having federal health care benefits? Go ahead and make a list.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 20, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Cornell84:

Did you watch Jon Stewart last week? Did you see Thursday's? He had on 4 guys who were first responders and are all now sick. in each case, that person is no longer covered by their employee healthcare because they and others have been forced to retire and take disability. The money they get from that, and the healthcare associated with it, is crap compared to what their Union health care was.

I don't doubt Cornell could have graduated some ignorant buffoons, but I didn't know they were graduating the stupid by choice crowd.

Posted by: kindness1 | December 20, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Maybe George W. Bush could don another flight suit, and pick up another Megaphone, to cheer up those sick 9/11 first responders, in lieu of they actually having their health care needs provided for.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 20, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

ethan2010 i'm still waiting for him to tell me how this is unconstitional.

Posted by: blinwilly | December 20, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

blindwilly, the healthcare of federal workers are already taken care of (except for "death panels" already in place like the terrible decision to not cover brain injury treatments for vets). State, county, and city workers (even civilians living near WTC) should not be covered by the FEDERAL government. That's the distinction I'm making.

Once all of the tax treaty implications are worked out, there are much better and CONSTITUTIONAL uses for $4.6 billion in new 2% excise fees on foreign manufacturers and companies based in countries that are not part of an international procurement agreement. Costs for those goods going up will be paid, in part, by all of us.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"@Cornell84: "If one person answers the question on WHO IN CHARGE OF THE MONEY??? I will support this."

Step 1, settle down and stop screaming.

Step 2, READ THE DAMN BILL."

I just realized how hilariously ironic this is. Without even having to refer to Ethan's other posts SCREAMING that Republicans are BIGOTS, etc.

Almost as good as when hapless Ethan called for banning anyone who called someone a Nazi, forgetting he had recently called me, Scott C, and all Republicans Nazis.

LOL, thanks for the entertainment, Ethan. You seldom disappoint.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

when you look at kyle, mccain and graham you know the clown car has arrived in the senate, losers all.

Posted by: calif-joe | December 20, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

"There's lots of chatter about comments by Haley Barbour, "whitewashing" the Conservative Citizens' Council and saying that racism in the South before the civil rights movement "wasn't that bad." Reporters are all scratching their heads wondering why he would "go there."

For the first time in about 40 years, we have someone running an openly racist campaign for president.

Posted by: fiona5 | December 20, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

blindwilly, the healthcare of federal workers are already taken care of (except for "death panels" already in place like the terrible decision to not cover brain injury treatments for vets). State, county, and city workers (even civilians living near WTC) should not be covered by the FEDERAL government. That's the distinction I'm making.

Once all of the tax treaty implications are worked out, there are much better and CONSTITUTIONAL uses for $4.6 billion in new 2% excise fees on foreign manufacturers and companies based in countries that are not part of an international procurement agreement. Costs for those goods going up will be paid, in part, by all of us.

better uses? you mean like propping up drug lords in afganistan, or sending cubes of money to iraq or wanting to give wall street 900 billion no questions asked. you conservatives have some messed up priorities.

Posted by: blinwilly | December 20, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"Almost as good as when hapless Ethan called for banning anyone who called someone a Nazi, forgetting he had recently called me, Scott C, and all Republicans Nazis.

LOL, thanks for the entertainment, Ethan. You seldom disappoint."

did Cao get banned for his comments on the morning headlines?

Posted by: NoVAHockey | December 20, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

One question. Is the bill a straight up bill or have they loaded it with all types of under the table pork and issues that have no bearing on 9/11 responders???

Posted by: 2012anewstart | December 20, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

OT:

Benen's take on Barbour's overtly racist comments

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_12/027172.php

Absolutely unbelievable what is going on in the right in America today. They are indeed going BACKWARDS in time. Disgusting pigs.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 20, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Here's an interesting argument for yet another raid on the treasury:
==========
Workmens Comp won't cover them because they say there is not adequate proof their illness are related to anything they did on the job.
==================

so, what we have here is an amazing attempt at pretzel logic. The worker's compensation bureaucracy in NY has determined, according to this commenter, that there is insufficient proof that the illnesses are work related. And liberals here think this is proof that the Federal government should therefore pay all their bills?

How, exactly does that make sense? If it isn't work related, why the concern?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 20, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, so, you have read the proposed bill (more than just the title)? Because it doesn't "re-open" anything. I'll make a list just as soon as you explain why CIVILIANS IN ANY STATE can be covered under Sec. 3313.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"For the first time in about 40 years, we have someone running an openly racist campaign for president."

Gee, I don't know about that. There was Al Gore's campaign manager Donna Brazile saying she would not let the "white boys" win. There was the Great Clinton-Obama Race War of 2008, in which either Obama was "playing the race card" against the First Black President and wife, or the Clintons ran a racist campaign.

Guess you Dems can fight that one out for posterity on your own time.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Having "access" to healthcare does not mean that people find providers able to guide them back to health or function, especially in the situation of post 9/11 which was unprecedented in terms of respiratory and immune systems disease caused by toxins, micro/nano particles and the horror of PTSD that affects the brain, the immune system and the incidence of chronic unremitting pain. Integrative medicine, including cognitive behavioral therapy, chiropractics, acupuncture, herbs, naturopathy, homeopathy...and allopathic therapies must be available to help those who served our nation in such crisis (and our present military wounded in action). The legislation should have been passed and anyone who opposed it should have visited 200 affected individuals and their families to understand the issue that is so spiritually profound here in America. Repubs so desperately need remedial skills in empathy, compassion and effectiveness: a sine qua non for true leaders in these difficult times.

Posted by: timeforhonesty | December 20, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"did Cao get banned for his comments on the morning headlines? "

On the contrary, he was personally welcomed. Cao has repeatedly advocated mass murder -- particularly liquidation of the "banker castes." I wish it were a joke or exaggeration, but the wretch actually means it.

But we've known for a long time that Greg has "flexible" standards.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

This is turning into bad politics for the GOP.

Posted by: paul65 | December 20, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Consumer Alert.

The 20 Worst Charities in America, According to Oregon's Attorney General

http://www.walletpop.com/2010/12/17/the-20-worst-charities-in-america-according-to-oregons-attorne/


Oregon Attorney General John Kroger released a list of what he calls the 20 Worst Charities, hoping that consumers would make sure to avoid scams and give money to those groups who actually put it to good use.

"In the middle of a recession, it is more important than ever that generous Oregonians make charitable contributions to organizations that help veterans and others who are in need," said Kroger.

"It is critical, however, that people donate wisely. Although many charities do great work, some are little more than scams with good-sounding names but that do little to actually help the people they claim to support."

Charity guidelines usually dictate that they spent at least 65% of the money they collect on their programs. But every charity on the list devotes less than 25% of what they get to the people or activity they're supposed to be collecting the money for.

Kroger pointed out that California-based organization Shiloh International Ministries -- which is supposed to use its money providing help to children, veterans and the homeless -- actually spends 96% of its donations on management and fundraising.

The California-based nonprofit spent an average of $1,023,215 per year.

Other charities Kroger highlighted include:

* Association for Firefighters and Paramedics, based in California
* Korean War Veterans National Museum & Library, based in Illinois
* Foundation for American Veterans, based in Michigan
* Big Hope, in South Carolina
* Law Enforcement Education Program, in Michigan
* National Vietnam Veterans Foundation, in Virginia
* Dogs Against Drugs/Dogs Against Crime, in Indiana
* Firefighters Charitable Foundation, in New York
* Committee for Missing Children, in Georgia
* The Wishing Well Foundation, in Louisiana

Posted by: Liam-still | December 20, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

OT:

More context on Barbour racism madness.

@TPM:

For more information about that boycott by the Yazoo City council, here's a key excerpt from a contemporary article by David Halberstam in Commentary magazine, entitled "The White Citizens Councils: Respectable Means for Unrespectable Ends":

-----

"Look," said Nick Roberts of the Yazoo City Citizens Council, explaining why 51 of 53 Negroes who had signed an integration petition withdrew their names, "if a man works for you, and you believe in something, and that man is working against it and undermining it, why you don't want him working for you-of course you don't."

In Yazoo City, in August 1955, the Council members fired signers of the integration petition, or prevailed upon other white employers to get them fired. But the WCC continues to deny that it uses economic force: all the Council did in Yazoo City was to provide information (a full-page ad in the local weekly listing the "offenders"); spontaneous public feeling did the rest.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/barbour-spokesman-mississippi-gov-is-not-racist.php

Just unreal that open racism is considered presidential in the Republican Party.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 20, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence12: "I'll make a list just as soon as you explain why CIVILIANS IN ANY STATE can be covered under Sec. 3313."

Gee, well, first responders live in many states, so therefore they should be able to receive benefits in their state.

Is that it? That's your big hang-up? Hilarious. You obviously either didn't read that portion or you don't understand it.

Okay, I'm ready for your list now. Cough it up.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 20, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

What is the only difference between today's Republicans, and The Money Lenders In The Temple?

Answer: The Money Lenders were not sporting WWJD Bracelets.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 20, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

2012anewstart, Section 3313 covers non-responders too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

jackdoors notes above that the 9/11 responders were feted as heroes by conservatives previously. And that's true, of course. Likewise, the continuing celebration of the heroism of forces stationed in the middle east.

But given the two examples of the rejected bill that's the subject of Greg's post above AND the propublica piece linked by Liam, it's not difficult to come to the conclusion that conservatives and the Pentagon itself are fair-weather friends.

If there's a perceived PR advantage (for electoral gain or stabilized/increased funding for war) then there are heroes. Where no such advantage, those "friends" are gone.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 20, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Could one of you legal beagles out there explain this portion of the bill? I am not sure what Attorney fees blah, blah means but I do see the figure $8.4 tillion in it....Who's Claims? Attorneys Fees for Who?

3 SEC. 205. FUNDING; ATTORNEY FEES.
4 Section 406 of the Air Transportation Safety and
5 System Stabilization Act (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) is
6 amended—
7 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘Not later
8 than’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to the limitations
9 under subsection (d), not later than’’;
10 (2) in subsection (b)—
11 (A) by inserting ‘‘in the amounts provided
12 under subsection (d)(1)’’ after ‘‘appropriations
13 Acts’’; and
14 (B) by inserting ‘‘subject to the limitations
15 under subsection (d)’’ before the period; and
16 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub17
sections:
18 ‘‘(d) LIMITATION.—
19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The total amount of Federal funds paid for compensation under this title,
21 with respect to claims filed on or after the date on
22 which the regulations are updated under section
23 407(b), shall not exceed $8,400,000,000. Of such
24 amounts, $4,200,000,000 shall be available to pay
25 such claims during the 10-year period beginning on such
date and $4,200,000,000 shall be available to
2 pay such claims after such period.


Posted by: 2012anewstart | December 20, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, you are the one who doesn't know how to read. I already said that federal workers and vets should be covered. Any active duty military or service academy cadet should be covered too. I will look at the Constitution and let you know if there are any more.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I see that the mouth breathing knuckledragging Darwinists are out in full force. It must make them feel good to know that they support a political party that is primarily a sociopathic cult.
They are a distinct minority that owe any influence they have to the acquiesence
and inattention of the American voting public.

Posted by: filmnoia | December 20, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Could one of you legal beagles out there explain this portion of the bill? I am not sure what Attorney fees blah, blah means but I do see the figure $8.4 trillion in it....Who's Claims? Attorneys Fees for Who?

3 SEC. 205. FUNDING; ATTORNEY FEES.
4 Section 406 of the Air Transportation Safety and
5 System Stabilization Act (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) is
6 amended—
7 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘Not later
8 than’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to the limitations
9 under subsection (d), not later than’’;
10 (2) in subsection (b)—
11 (A) by inserting ‘‘in the amounts provided
12 under subsection (d)(1)’’ after ‘‘appropriations
13 Acts’’; and
14 (B) by inserting ‘‘subject to the limitations
15 under subsection (d)’’ before the period; and
16 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub17
sections:
18 ‘‘(d) LIMITATION.—
19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The total amount of Federal funds paid for compensation under this title,
21 with respect to claims filed on or after the date on
22 which the regulations are updated under section
23 407(b), shall not exceed $8,400,000,000. Of such
24 amounts, $4,200,000,000 shall be available to pay
25 such claims during the 10-year period beginning on such
date and $4,200,000,000 shall be available to
2 pay such claims after such period.


Posted by: 2012anewstart | December 20, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

paul65: "This is turning into bad politics for the GOP"

Yup, and the geniuses here like skippy and qb can't see it. Oh well...

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 20, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

2012anewstart, I believe that was the original 9/11 Compensation Fund, which this proposed bill would be amending and (last figure I saw reported in The Hill this morning) an additional $6.2 billion.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence12:

"Section 3313 covers non-responders too."

No it doesn't, liar. Hahaha!

"Any active duty military or service academy cadet should be covered too"

So no federal money for seniors, none for poor individuals, and none for 9/11 responders. I was right on 75% of my assertions.

@2012anewstart:

"I do see the figure $8.4 trillion"

No you don't.

You see $8.4B

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 20, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

oops just noticed that I said Trillion when I meant Billion. Sorry it's just that talking government expenses I just automatically assume the T word.

Posted by: 2012anewstart | December 20, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"On the contrary, he was personally welcomed. Cao has repeatedly advocated mass murder -- particularly liquidation of the "banker castes." I wish it were a joke or exaggeration, but the wretch actually means it."

Ah, the resident internet tough guy. He's in Vietnam, right? Maybe he should cross the border into Cambodia sometime and visit Tuol Sleng.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | December 20, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still said:

"Almost all the southern states get back far more from Washington than they send there. So does Palin's Alaska.

When is the MSM going to expose all those Free Loading Red States, for the hypocrites that they are."

==========================================

Liam, you make a good point until you go all Red and Blue at this point. For the most part *ALL* States Give the Federal Government more than they get back. There are a FEW exceptions. One may be my Birth State -- Vermont. Last I checked, that State is looking Awfully Blue to me.

We should not extend Gulf Oil Spill and Katrina Hurricane Relief to those States because they are TOO RED?!? C'mon, get real! And Pearl Harbour had one big difference. Those being taken care of were FEDRAL EMPLOYEES, so it obviously WAS their ball to carry. Look back without the rose colored glasses and you might notice that not so small detail lost in the Political Crud talking points you are spouting!

Can we pay for it? Sure. Should WE pay for it? Not Really. Stop blaming the Feds because a BLUE STATE does not want to pony up and pay their own part here. Those are NOT Federal Employees any more than the Firemen or Police in Mississippi are.

;'[P~~~

Posted by: Clearbrook | December 20, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

The Haley Barbour thing is funny.

FYI - TPM has a post up on what the Council of Conservative Citizens is up to today: trying to organize a boycott of the upcoming movie "Thor" because one of the actors is, gasp, black!

No, I'm really not kidding.

~~~~~

The Council of Conservative Citizens has launched a website calling for a boycott of the new Marvel comic-inspired film Thor, because a character is being played by a black actor.

The CCC is the modern incarnation of the Citizens Council movement -- a segregationist movement that possible Republican presidential Haley Barbour praised in a recent interview.

"It seems that Marvel Studios believes that white people should have nothing that is unique to themselves,"

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/council_of_conservative_citizens_calls_for_boycott_of_thor_over_black_actor.php#more

Posted by: HansSolo | December 20, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

On the START treaty and Palin's NRO op ed (from The American Conservative)...

"Sarah Palin has written a polemic against New START. Greg Scoblete has observed that her stated concern for allied security ignores the overwhelming support for ratification from the governments most directly threatened by Russian tactical nuclear weapons. That’s true enough, but what needs to be emphasized here is that Palin’s objections are even more misguided than that. Someone might ask: why bother addressing Palin’s objections? They should be addressed because they are deliberately misleading, and because they are very representative of the typical anti-ratification argument. What is striking about Palin’s criticism of New START is that it is virtually identical to Romney’s criticism or indeed the criticism of any of the treaty’s opponents in the Senate, because all of them are reading from the same ill-informed script. In other words, the average Republican treaty opponent is making arguments that are no more informed or substantial than the arguments made by Sarah Palin...."

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/12/18/the-confusion-of-anti-start-hawks/

The NRO's continuing investment in Palin is a curiosity.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 20, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

"Who's Claims? Attorneys Fees for Who?"

Attorneys can collect up to 10% of any claims awarded -- so $840,000,000 right there. In attorney fees.

And that cap doesn't apply to anyone who had sued by 2009.

Such a great deal.

I note no lefties seem to want to touch the scam of medical monitoring.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Saw that HansSolo.

It's not even the main guy, it's just that ONE of the actors is African-American.

GOP = Racist Neanderthals

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 20, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Why would the republicans be uncomfortable?

They had no problem holding the millions of unemployed and the continuation of unemployment benefits hostage to the randsom of a very expensive and very ineffective double dip tax cut to the top 2%. (Yeah, and they're concerned about the deficit they're leaving their children and grandchildren, right?) Never before in history has such a deal been necessary when regarding unemployment insurance.

And of course they'll have no shame when they again grossly pander and thump their chests using 9/11 and national security as their mainstay. Freaking phonys, frauds and liars.

The republicans would have to know shame to feel uncomfortable. Todays republicans have so shame whatsoever, none.

Posted by: notfooledbydistractions1 | December 20, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

As long as everyone on the Right has to respond to either FOX or Palin as their lodestar, I'm good with it.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | December 20, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

That CCC call to boycott THOR is pretty lame, I have to admit. If they can successfully pull off one more element of "suspension of disbelief" needed in this kind of film, they did good work. If they fail to make it look O.K. for a NORSE GOD to be Black, it will flop. If they make it fly it will give me more people to call idiots at Star Wars Festivals. A win no matter what from my standpoint, although I have to admit, every time I go to one of those Conventions, there are *way* too many people who take all of it *way* too seriously. When the only way to get through to people is to talk like Yoda, it has gone far beyond flake city with them, and being called a "racist" by such an obvious idiot in that venue is maybe not such a great thing...

|| SIGH ||

Oh, well. Those conventions could get worse, after all, I guess...

;'{P~~~

Posted by: Clearbrook | December 20, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

"double dip tax cut to the top 2%"

Gosh, is that a technical term?

What a load of nonsense from an other bitter failure of a lefty.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"Sorry it's just that talking government expenses I just automatically assume the T word."

Don't worry, by the time you get used to trillions, we'll be on to quadrillions -- probably by 2012 if O has his way.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Joe S. rants on and on about the tough choices that have to be made to tackle the deficit and yet when the Repubs do decide to take a stand, he questions them and starts sucking up to his Liberal buddies.

I wish Joe would just "spend more time with his family" like he said he would after he killed that intern!

Posted by: bizintrobylauralex | December 20, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

I heartened to see that conservatives on this board are maintaining their objections to 9/11 responders healthcare. If Plum Line conservatives are representative of a larger group out there in the real world, I'll assume that the GOP will continue to maintain their constitutional objections.

Good for Democrats.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 20, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Reality Check:

Red States Ripoff. View the map which shows how many Red States take more from DC than they send there and how most Blue States are subsidizing those Red States Fiscal Restrain Hypocrites.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_red_state_ripoff.html

"Fourth Branch comments:

There is a very strong correlation, then, between a state voting for Republicans and receiving more in federal spending than its residents pay to the federal government in taxes (the rust belt and Texas being notable exceptions). In essence, those in blue states are subsidizing those in red states. Both red and blue states appear to be acting politically in opposition to their economic interests. Blue states are voting for candidates who are likely to continue the policies of red state subsidization while red states are voting for candidates who profess a desire to reduce federal spending (and presumably red state subsidization)."

Posted by: Liam-still | December 20, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

wow, hatred and vitriol spewing out yet again. I'm dismayed and shocked. Shocked I say.

Once again, Suzie, if the worker's comp bureaucracy in NY cannot determine that the issues are work related, why should the Federal government pay anything? Since you can't answer and rely on nastiness instead, it is safe to conclude that you just want the gummint to spend taxpayers money based on some sort of emotional whim. We should do whatever you feel is right and the costs be darned?

After thirty years in healthcare finance I believe I have an understanding of how these things work. Certainly an employee may contest the finding that a given illness is NOT work related. Have the responders done so? If so, what is the status of their appeal? Are the taxpayers to simply fork over funds, in spite of the current status of the claims? How does that make fiscal sense?

Let's get factual here sister.

Next, there is the question of how the money will be controlled and accounted for. That seems like nothing more than prudence to me. To that fair point liam still provides an amazingly foolish answer: well since in his (her?) (its?) opinion money was wasted in Iraq, no one can ask ever again about a nickel that the goes out of the treasury. What an amazing position. And oh so adult too. Again, the taxpayers should just shut up and let the money flow from them to whoever liam-still and Suzie find worthy. It is small wonder we are in the fiscal shape we're in. I understand that fools and their money are soon parted. Liberals seek to stand that on its head. Now its fools and MY money. No thanks.

so Liam-still, can you answer the question or not? Or are you just another suzie, confusing snottiness with argument?


Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 20, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, Thanks. The way HansSolo presented it, it looked like the TITLE Role was a Black Actor. That would be ok, but I think just a little hard to swallow coming from the Gods of Adolf Hitler. I think it will still make good talking points about the Norse Gods being more "Progressive" than they used to be. Suspension of Disbelief will not be Nearly as hard to do...

There will be chatter at the CONS, I am sure. Somewhat along the lines of arguments of a Star Detroyer verus the Enterprise. A riot to listen to if you have a beer and a safe seat, but of no real consequence...

;'{P~~~

Posted by: Clearbrook | December 20, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I understand that fools and their money are soon parted.
-----------------------------------------------
Bwahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not if you read the conservatives on this blog. No parting here!

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 20, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2910, what part of "residents and other building occupants and area workers who were directly impacted and adversely accepted by such attacks" don't you understand?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

here is another absolute beauty:
================
Integrative medicine, including cognitive behavioral therapy, chiropractics, acupuncture, herbs, naturopathy, homeopathy...and allopathic therapies must be available to help those who served our nation in such crisis (and our present military wounded in action). The legislation should have been passed and anyone who opposed it should have visited 200 affected individuals and their families to understand the issue that is so spiritually profound here in America. Repubs so desperately need remedial skills in empathy, compassion and effectiveness: a sine qua non for true leaders in these difficult times.
========================

there is just so much entertainment here it is hard to fit it all in a single comment.

first, we are told that these folks should have available to them, at taxpayer expense, anything their heart desires. Naturopathic medicines? Chiropracters? Horse leeches? Faith healers? Native American shamans? Hey, the heck with efficacy, these folks deserve everything! I know, let invest in some way cool crystals for them to wear. Maybe an all expense paid trip to the pyramids, certainly there is healing power raditing out them, right?

Yes sir, once the taxpayer's are on the hook for payment, these folks will need all sorts of esoteric whatever. I've seen this movie before. Providers, especially the second tier ancillary folks, know all about getting thier lips wrapped around the public nipple.

Then we are told that unless we, personally, have visted all of the folks we have no right to object to this raid on the treasury. So I guess if someone has only visited, say, 195 of the folks, they still have no right to be concerned about how their money is spent.

Just amazing. And Liam-still, who I doubt could lift my son's rucksack, insists that tricare is just wrong about the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation therapy. After all, if NPR says it works, who are the experts at tricare to disagree?

Disagreement about the effectiveness of various clinical approaches is a common fact of life in the healthcare field. Unfortunately for the liberals insurance companies have mountains of data about outcomes and they rely on this, as they should, to determine what makes sense. Often some approach is advanced because, on paper, it "should" do better. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating and outcome is the key. Does NPR have proof that the approach they insist on has better outcomes than the current vogue?

What nonsense is spewing out today. the liberals are being thwarted in their desire to throw tax payer money around and they are hating it.

It going to be a tough few years for liberals. Wait till all those state legislatures start taking on the union pension and pay deals. The howling will be music to the ears of conservatives in America.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 20, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Benen notes that Kyle, asked today if the Republicans plan on repealing DADT, replied that they were not. Steve writes...

"So why wouldn't they try to undo what Dems have done? They want to repeal the Affordable Care Act and Wall Street reform, but what they see as a radical, anti-military gambit is a done deal going forward?

It's almost as if Republicans don't really expect the shift in policy to be dangerous at all."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_12/027174.php

Yeah, almost as if. But the key point is that they'll toss up any obstruction (with deceitful rationale) to try and cast the administration as failing AND to further inflame the worst aspects of the bigotry in their base - and all this for electoral gain.

But when their real base is endangered (the big money corporate interests) then they get serious about stopping legislation.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 20, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

And yet, Republicans had no problem passing a bill, and rushing George W. Bush back to Washington, to sign it, based on the magical remote diagnostic skills of Bill Frist, when it came to using a brain dead woman's body, as a political football. No expense was to be spared on keeping her corpse plugged in for ever, because it played well with their Hillbilly Ayatollah allies.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 20, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still,

Reality Check:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_red_state_ripoff.html

Ezra links to this page or the Map:

http://www.thefourthbranch.com/2010/04/government-spending/

Funny thing, it is GONE! Now I intended to find what they are basing their numbers upon, because I am sorry, but the idea of us getting back even CLOSE to one dollar for every dollar the Feds take from us is not exactly making sense. I could see if they are including all the money SPENT by location, and in so saying reporting Military and Federal Employee Salaries as *GIFTS* back to those states, that they may get somewhere close to that number, but the fact is this:

We spend a lot of money OVERSEAS in Foreign Aid, etc. I'd like to see the underlying numbers. Why? Well the reputation of thefourthbranch.com is not exactly stellar. I'd check *them* out before using them for a talking point, dude! Your post (and Ezra's) may have had some legitimacy, IF they could be verified. Just putting up a pretty map does not impress me much *until* I can verify what it *really* means. And with the reputation for spin, thefourthbranch.com has to show me where the numbers came from or I am not likely to consider them legit. A government site would be the best, I think...

;'{P~~~

Posted by: Clearbrook | December 20, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Clawrence12: "residents and other building occupants and area workers who were directly impacted and adversely accepted by such attacks"

That isn't in Section 3313. But you're right, Sec 3313 DOES cover non-responders. It cover eligible SURVIVORS of the 9/11 attacks.

Surely you're not suggesting that we shouldn't be helping people who were IN the 9/11 attacks!

Are you?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 20, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Clearbrook,

You just want to convince yourself of that. You are in denial.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

In fact; When Palin was still Gov. her state got back just about twice as much from Washington, as her State paid to Washington. She is a con artist.

Do your research. Alaska was running an annual state surplus, with no state income taxes, when she pushed through a bill to take an additional five billion more from the oil companies, just so she could mail out an oil money check to every resident of Alaska, which would purchase her their support.

She Governed more like Hugo Chavez, while talking like a fiscal restraint hawk.

She shook down the oil companies, for more money, and then had they nerve to slam Obama for putting pressure on BP to set aside a recovery fund, to pay for all the damage they had done to the people of the gulf.

Do some research instead of continuing to tell me about what you have a hard time believing.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

Posted by: Liam-still | December 20, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Ethan, I am (assuming you are meaning "we" as in the federal government).

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"Yes, Ethan, I am"

So survivors of the worst national tragedy in modernity don't deserve federal support?

They should be left on their own to purchase health care at top dollar?

And if they can't afford it and they get evicted from their homes and die homeless on the street, screw em?

Honestly?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 20, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad to see the republicans turning around. Sign the petition to get this bill passed at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/pass-the-pass-the-james-zadroga-911-health-bill/ and visit our facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pass-the-James-Zadroga-911-Health-Bill/184131864937009

Posted by: mordy123 | December 20, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Ethan

It is much too expensive to promote the general welfare in such a manner as you propose.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 20, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

So survivors of the worst national tragedy in modernity don't deserve federal support?

They should be left on their own to purchase health care at top dollar?

And if they can't afford it and they get evicted from their homes and die homeless on the street, screw em?

Honestly?
------------------------------------------------------
You ask an honest question. You deserve an honest answer.

From the sound of silence, I think you have your answer.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 20, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I think Jon Stewart has really been tohe one to focus the national shame on this and well done to him.

clawrence12, your a sickpuke a-hole and you dont understand the facts at all, you think they'd need this bill if they were covered?

You idiot, u sum up American conservatism, "I got mine so f%#k you", Jesus would be proud you selfish f#$k

Posted by: Chops2 | December 20, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

"It is much too expensive to promote the general welfare in such a manner as you propose."

One of the things I always wonder about that phrase is what liberals think the word "general" means there. Details details.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Chops2, I believe you are misattributing Cornell84's post to me. I am not making any argument that they are already covered.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Liam, agricultural states generally receive more than they send in because of the effect of the AG subsidies. TX is an exception - it is a net donor despite its Ag base - because it is an industrial state, on balance.

AK is the biggest net donee b/c 60% of its land and resources are federal land and resources. NM and OK have huge native American populations on federally administered reservations. Not surprisingly, they are Big Net Donees.

Industrial states have sought more equitable sharing of revenue. All states would be net donors, but within a plus or minus 5% range, under one proposal.

NJ is a huge net donor. Long on industry, short on military bases, and with dwindling Ag, it is at a big disadvantage.

TX was as big a net donor as CA in 1990, but has narrowed the gap to where it receives about .$90 on every dollar. Considering that there is hardly any federal land in TX and that the state owns the near offshore oil, TX is doing OK and would be about where it is with a truly fair distribution.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 20, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, that's not what I am saying at all. Please review my posts above. The federal government has already provided BILLIONS OF DOLLARS for 9/11. Not only the $7.2 billion directly to families of those killed, but also FEMA disaster, insurance and tax relief for exactly those people you are complaining about today. In addition, private charities were partially subsidized by tax deductible donations. The September 11th Fund was created by the New York Community Trust and the United Way of New York City, raising $534 million from more than two million donors, for those injured, displaced from their homes or jobs, affected small businesses, and community organizations.

Enough is enough.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

For those interested in more federal funding already provided for "first responders" specifically

http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/2/hr847

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

While I do not agree with clawrence about the 9-11 issue, I want to defend him from the more vitriolic rage. He believes we cannot afford everything we want and he is trying to draw a line at what he thinks is mandated by the Constitution. We all believe that we cannot afford everything we want and I hope we all believe that the Constitution is a good first reference point.

I do not agree with clawrence expressly because I consider the tragedy of 9-11 and the continuing health care issues to be matters of national defense. So I can justify the spending. That clawrence cannot does not make him "sick". Because that argument [won't help widders and orphans therefore sick"] could be used to justify spending anything on anybody at any time, and that is not what any of us want.

QB1's suggestion that there is built-in designed waste in the bill is one that bears more investigation rather than offhand dismissal [many of you who are not conservatives are so sure that conservatives only listen to each other that you may only listen to each other]. For a conservative, the value of a liberal is that he may present an idea that is a new way to skin a cat. For a liberal, the value of a conservative is that he may be able to find a cheaper less wasteful way to implement the new idea [once he is sold on it]. At least, that is how it used to work when the words meant something I understood. That is how it worked for LBJ and Dirksen, often.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 20, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Mark.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

At least "No, it doesn't, liar. Hahaha!" (3:30 PM) quickly turned into ". . . you're right, Sec. 3313 DOES cover non-responders" (4:25 PM). That's probably the most we can expect.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Nothing is beneath the dignity of these right-wing lunatics. The 911 responders and their health crises don't impress the right. What does?

Posted by: jimsteinberg1 | December 20, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Yes, we can't afford everything we want, but I believe every American will agree that there are some things we shouldn't be saving on. Considering a hard situation the country is on a reduced version of the bill might be accepted for now, although I hate to think about it.

Posted by: lovelystill | December 20, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

"Don't worry folks right wingers have their priorities. If only those sick 9/11 first responders would become brain dead, like Terri Schiavo, then The Republican Party would move heaven and earth to keep them on feeding tubes, and pass special bills to prevent them ever being unplugged. Posted by: Liam-still"

But they would still insist that those brain dead firemen's families pay the full cost of keeping them on heroic life support.

The republicans are quite good about declaring their utmost support for the Troops, or heroes like the 9/11 workers, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T COST THEM ANYTHING.

When the bills come due, though, don't look for republicans to pay them.

Republicans have been stiffing the VA since it was founded, by Republicans, after the Civil War.

Posted by: ceflynline | December 20, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

oh my god... EVERYBODY STOP. Pretty much every single comment is worthy of the report abuse buttons. I will now list the facts i have heard to be true in a reasonable tone (Its this new thing for all of you that have not heard it.) instead of being a partisan hack.
To those who say the Democrats are turning this into a partisan issue. The democrats cannot control how the Republicans vote, if they vote on the obviously wrong side of public opinion, that is not the fault of the Democrats for wanting to get it passed.
To those who think this is a scam of some sort. This country cannot run properly if people do not trust in their leaders. I know this may be hard to comprehend, but the government is not trying to kill us, regardless of party.
To those who complained about the bailouts being unfair. They worked, you don't have to look far to find numbers to show that the economy has stabilised from what it was before just look at Gallup. Tons of economists have said that they benefited the u.s. fair or not.
To those who say the workers have coverage because they are federal workers. That has already been disproven by the fact that insurance companies and the workmans comp dispensers are fighting over whether it was work related. By the time that fight is over, the person in question will probably be dead.
To all the liberals who insist on calling their counterparts vile names. It only blows back on yourselves my friends. Just saying

Posted by: psucoe | December 20, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

This bill should be passed unanimously, and it shouldn't be a partisan issue. The Republicans blocking this bill for Political Gain are morally Reprehensible. The cap for the 9/11 fund was capped in 2003 or 2004. The WTC was loaded with Asbestos, and the Bush Administration told the 1st responders from all 50 states that the air samples were OK when they were not. Not bashing Bush, those were tough days. Asbestos takes 10-15 years to pop up. We have to take care of these 9/11 workers, first responders who sifted through human dust and horrible toxins. I've heard a few arguments supporting blocking this bill, but I have to say I don't understand the opposition at all. We've borrowed Trillions to pay for 2 failed wars that have obviously not made us any safer, along with tax cuts for the rich to stimulate the economy that don't. 7 Billion dollars is chump change, 2 weeks in Iraq and Afghanistan. regards

Posted by: BornAgainAmerican | December 20, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin, you're a smart guy and you bring a lot of detailed knowledge to these blogs.

But your preoccupation with fiscal responsibility is often picayune and petty. pinching nickels at the exclusion of morality and fairness.

I would much rather see the government waste a few percent than have hungry children and alleviable suffering.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

The health care, including prescription drugs, is to be provided without any deductibles, co-payments, or other cost-sharing.

•Some of this money will go to pay for treatment that otherwise would have been mostly covered anyway by worker's compensation or by other private-sector or government health plans.

• The money doesn't just go to police and firefighters — "responders" — but also to "survivors" — anyone who "worked, resided, or attended school, childcare, or adult daycare in the New York City disaster area for — at least 4 days during the 4-month period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 10, 2002." The "New York City disaster area" is defined as Manhattan South of Houston Street and any block of Brooklyn that is wholly or partially contained within a 1.5 mile radius of the former World Trade Center site. You can also qualify if you spent 30 days in this area between September 11, 2001 and July 31, 2002. This includes me, though I never have really thought of myself as a "certified-eligible WTC survivor."

• The list of health conditions includes asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis, gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD), generalized anxiety disorder, substance abuse, and depression.

• The bill is 120 pages long.

• The number of responders and survivors covered by the bill are each capped at 25,000, for a total of 50,000 potential beneficiaries. There's some non-health-care stuff in the bill, too, but if you just take the total $7.4 billion spend and divide it among the beneficiaries, it works out to $148,000 each, or (not dealing with inflation or present discounted value), $14,800 a year for ten years for each beneficiary in health benefits over and above whatever they are already entitled to from worker's compensation or from any other health benefits or insurance that they have.

Need any more reasons to oppose it. Oh yes it should be opposed just because Chuck Schumer's wants it - he never does anything for anyone but himself!!

Posted by: Phoenicia22 | December 21, 2010 12:50 AM | Report abuse


I think that health care reform is a great idea. I have type 1 diabetes and for me to get insurance, it was a nightmare until I found "Wise Health Insurance" search for them online and you can get affordable health insurance instantly.

Posted by: williamstaerk | December 21, 2010 1:39 AM | Report abuse

Quarterback & Clawrence:

First, Quarterback, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about regarding "medical monitoring" and the bar. Please seek psychological counseling for your delusional thinking.

Clawrence, federalist principles do not apply in this matter, as the US responded to 9/11 as a NATIONAL matter, not a state (ie. NY) matter. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide the same. Further, over tens of thousands of emergency workers (police, firefighters, etc), worked at Ground Zeero in the months following 9/11 who were not originally from the NYC departments. They came from States all over the country. Therefore, even if the US did not consider 9/11 a National matter, the emergency responders came from several different jurisdictions, and the feds are the appropriate ones to handle the financial assistance.

Third, even if you do not feel that those workers who no longer have coverage (it is estimated that OVER 70% no longer have coverage-although I could be wrong it may be 90%),do not deserve it just because they risked their lives, allow me to pose the following: it is simply good public policy that this situation be taken care of immediately. If we find ourselves in a terrorist situation on our soil of this magnitude again, without taking care of these folks, I guarantee you we will have people thinking twice about stepping in to save others' lives.

Posted by: missy9 | December 21, 2010 4:30 AM | Report abuse

"To those who complained about the bailouts being unfair. They worked, you don't have to look far to find numbers to show that the economy has stabilised from what it was before just look at Gallup. Tons of economists have said that they benefited the u.s. fair or not."

That's exactly the problem. GM should have crashed and burned. It's assets liquidated and sold. If nothing else, it would have been a warning to others. Now, it is a an example. Screw up and be rewarded if you have the right political clout. GM may have survived, but the notion of the rule of law took a serious hit.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | December 21, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

-"That's exactly the problem. GM should have crashed and burned. It's assets liquidated and sold. If nothing else, it would have been a warning to others. Now, it is a an example. Screw up and be rewarded if you have the right political clout. GM may have survived, but the notion of the rule of law took a serious hit."-


There may have been some political clout involved, but i still don't think the government should have let one of the biggest American companies fail, increasing unemployment by tons and potentially causing another Great Depression because we are pissed off at the rich. That just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Posted by: psucoe | December 21, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

During the Vietnam war, when a USAF plane was shot down, the war stopped until the crew was recovered or contact was lost. We flew into hostile territory knowing we would be protected as much as possible.

We must treat first responders with the same respect. I do not care how much their care costs. Let's pay the bill as a token of our respect for what they did. Republicans demanding a dollar reduction will wonder why someone, or some group, doesn't respond to a future crisis.

It was criminal for the government to say the dust clouds were safe without actually knowing. Now, as citizens of this country we need to be willing to pick up the tab for the mistake.

Posted by: butch_j | December 22, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company