GOP kills 9/11 first responders bill

Remove all ads!

​

Perhaps some of you have seen it, Daily Show’s Jon Stewart spent an entire show whipping Republicans for the killing deficit neutral legislation to provide health care to the 9/11 first responders and emergency workers who suffered illnesses from working at Ground Zero.

The idea was to finance that bill by cancelling a tax loophole for foreign corporations operating in the US.

Republicans filibustered the bill aimed on to compensate 9/11 heroes for their 9/11 related illnesses. That was not just some harebrained idea. A lobbying disclosure filed with the Senate confirms the lobbying powerhouse U.S. Chamber of Commerce contacted lawmakers to help kill the bill.

The Chamber sees the 9/11 compensation bill as bad because it was funded by ending a special tax loophole exploited by foreign corporations doing business in the United States. The “U.S.” part of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a misnomer, the Chamber represents 'the business community' i.e dozens of foreign businesses in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, Bahrain, India, Brazil, and other countries.

So companies with US subsidiaries based in off shore tax havens felt they deserved that tax loophole, had the chamber lobby accordingly, and Republicans thought that those foreign business interests hold precedence over the interest of the GOP's (if you take the rhetoric as a guideline) greatest heroes, the 9/11 responders.

Unless there is pressure on them that hurts, Republicans can be expected to continue their support for not ending this foreign corporate tax loophole. Obviously, if international shareholders got used to the dividends thanks to a free ride, a loss of that effective tax subsidy sure feels like a tax increase. And Republicans agree. If 9/11 first responders have to walk the plank for it, alas, it can't be helped.

This is so utterly cynical, even more so since the GOP has basically made 9/11 a trademark. Rudy Giuliani is the worst of the lot; he has infamously held a fund raiser where he asked attendees to donate $9.11 cents. Riiiight. That's just one of the more blatant of the blatant examples.

It couldn't be spelled out much clearer: When group of nine 9/11 first responders went to Washington, DC, to pressure Congress into passing a health care bill were met with an unwelcome surprise: A police escort, courtesy of Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. Arguably, the Chamber lobbyists got a more preferential treatment. I am reminded of George Bush's gaffe from that 2000 fund raiser: "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores ... Some people call you the elites; I call you my base." Not just his base it seems.

In light of this I propose an explanation what GOP stands for:

Code:

[B]G.[/B]reed
[B]O.[/B]ver
[B]P.[/B]eople

God, this is disgusting. Watch the Daily Show segment (this earlier one as well) and, for good measure, the Al Jazeera report as well. What Riz Khan does there is a job US media are supposed to do. Watch it and weep.

​

 

I have a question. Isn't it American corporations shifting jobs out of the country that's bad (for us at least)? Wouldn't foreign corporations bringing jobs into the country be good, then?

Anyway, this isn't the first time this bill has been shot down. The first time was in the House in August, due to what looked like either political posturing or just a bit of a rush job by the Dems. They proposed the bill under special rules that wouldn't allow amendments, but would also require a 2/3 vote to pass. Apparently they got a simple majority, but not the 2/3 needed. Then again in September, they tried it under regular rules and passed it. Now the Senate Republicans are on the war path because it's a job killer, which it is. In this economy, that's more understandable than it would have been 5 years ago. Couldn't they have funded it by cutting tax holes for American corporations that shift jobs overseas?

Anyway, this isn't a good ending, but not so disgusting as Ragusa makes it seam.

 

While I do not know anything about this "evil loophole" that needs to be closed, and I cannot claim that there were any altruistic motives to the filibuster I am glad that this bill did not pass. This may seem like I'm a heartless bastard, but I do not believe that the Constitution allows or that our Congress and government should be allowed to pass laws that benefit specific individuals.

While it is very likely that it is apocryphal this calls to my mind the "Not yours to give" speech.

Spoiler

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Mr. Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker --- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.


"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.


"He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and of course, was lost.


"Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:


"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be one for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.


"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.


"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and--'


" 'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'


"This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.


" 'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest....But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'


"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any Constitutional question.


" 'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some suffers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'


"Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'


" 'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any thing and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the suffers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditable; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitu- tion, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch it's power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you..'


"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, for the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him: Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I did not have sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.


"He laughingly replied: 'Yes Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around this district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied that it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert a little influence in that way.'


"If I don't [said I] I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.


" 'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute to a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting up on Saturday week.. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'


"Well, I will be here. but one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.


" 'My name is Bunce.'


"Not Horatio Bunce?


" 'Yes.'


"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.


"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.


"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before. I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him --- no, that is not the word --- I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times a year; and I will tell you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian, lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.


"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted --- at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:


"Fellow-citizens --- I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.


"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:


"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.


"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.


"He came upon the stand and said: " 'Fellow-citizens --- It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'


"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.


"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or shall ever make, as a member of Congress.


"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I wish to call to your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men --- men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased --- a debt which could not be paid by money --- and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificance a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it." David Crockett was born August 17, 1786 at Limestone (Greene County), Tennessee. He died March 06, 1836 as one of the brave Southerners defending the Alamo.


Crockett had settled in Franklin County, Tennessee in 1811. He served in the Creek War under Andrew Jackson. In 1821 and 1823 he was elected to the Tennessee legislature. In 1826 and 1828 he was elected to Congress. He was defeated in 1830 for his outspoken opposition to President Jackson's Indian Bill - but was elected again in 1832.


In Washington, although his eccentricities of dress and manner excited comment, he was always popular on account of his shrewd common sense and homely wit; although generally favoring Jackson's policy, he was entirely independent and refused to vote to please any party leader.


At the end of the congressional term, he joined the Texans in the war against Mexico, and in 1836 was one of the roughly 180 men who died defending the Alamo. Tradition has it that Crockett was one of only six survivors after the Mexicans took the fort, and that he and the others were taken out and executed by firing squad.

 

Beware! A disclaimer that something outrageous is about to be written! Brace yourselves!

Is that so? I have my doubts about that. And then, if anyone is empowered 'to give' based on government responsibilities, it's the elected representatives in Congress within the framework of constitutional mandate, which, considering that laws of the kind you condemn have been routine for about a century, is apparently far less narrow than you believe it to be.

So, what about health care for veterans disabled or sickened by war fought on behalf of you, the US citizens and tax payers? Their own f*cking problem? Oh, never mind.

Your premise that congress has 'no power to give', put to its logic conclusion would say that that loophole shouldn't have been allowed (i.e. given) in the first place (only because they based themselves off shore), after all, who are they to give a tax subsidy (through an exception from a tax that others, who are based in the US, have to pay) to these corporations? If Congress and government should not be allowed to pass laws that benefit specific individuals, health care for veterans needed to be abolished as unconstitutional. You need to if you want to be a consistent heartless bastard.

---------- Added 0 hours, 6 minutes and 36 seconds later... ----------

I think that that thing that you just swallowed, hook, line and sinker, that was a canard.

​

(a) Who says that the companies using such a loophole are bringing business into the country that they wouldn't if not for that tax break? This is so silly. In many, many cases, they would do business anyway since the US is such a god damn big market that they can't afford abandoning it anyway. Do you seriously think Mercedes, Audi and the like will stop selling cars in the US as a result of taxation that is still lighter than in their home country?

And (b) who says that they bring jobs into the country? They just continue their domestic US operations and move their postbox overseas. Think of this example: Halliburton Moves Its Headquarters From Houston to Dubai. Halliburton is now a foreign company entitled to make use of such a loophole since they are now nominally foreign based.

Get it? They make money with US government contracts (i.e paid for with, nominally at least, taxpayer money) and normal business in the US, while avoiding US taxes (while doing 38% of their business in the US). And since that company is such a splendid case study ... Halliburton's Tax Haven Explained. Unless you believe in wealth as a golden shower trickling down from the prosperous on the hoi polloi below, it's not about jobs, but shareholder profits. Money has no allegiance after all.

 

I'm not going to let you smear the Constitution, and through it, the Founders themselves with your "comments" regarding the true heroes of 9/11, the first responders. If you consider yourself a "heartless bastard" go right ahead and do so. But don't use the Constitution, nor the Founders (who were good, worthy men), as a crutch, or a prop, for whatever meager excuse you have to offer in claiming to be one.

 

Allow me to explain.

There is a vast difference between offering health care to sick veterans and offering health care to the sick "first responders". The difference is that the veterans were employees of the federal government. When the veterans signed up for service (or were drafted in the case of older vets) there was and is a social contract with them that we will take care of them. There is a branch of the government that is called the U.S. Department of veterans affairs that handles these issues.

The first responders were employees of the state and/or city of New York and the federal government shouldn't have anything to do with their care. It is the responsibility of the citizens of the city and state of NY.

I do not know if you read my spoiler, but it is the same issue. I'm sure there are fire fighters who were injured in a fire in the middle of nowhere Arkansas. Why is there no federal bill to help them out?

The same issue holds true with this particular loophole and all tax law and all law. While they may be written with a specific purpose in mind, the law and its benefits are for everyone not just a specific person/entity. I guess in this particular case they created the tax break for foreign companies as it was an incentive for foreign companies to create jobs in the U.S. While I can't debate as to the merits of doing such a thing, I can tell you I would strongly object if the law was written to only allow such a tax break to BMW, while excluding other foreign companies.

---------- Added 0 hours, 5 minutes and 4 seconds later... ----------

I'm going to assume that this was tongue in cheek as you surely know I hold veterans, first responders, the Constitution, and the founders in the highest regard.

 

You can take it however you wish. The Constitutin does not forbid, nor prevent Congress from passing laws that aid a specific group of government employees.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/18/shepard-smith-911-first-responders-bill_n_798625.html

Then walk the talk.

 

And I did, by making donations to various chartible organizations. It is a huge difference when you use your own money as opposed to the "peoples" money.

This has nothing to do with not supporting them, it involves the government doing things it shouldn't. The Huff Po and Fox can vent all they want, and if they feel strongly enough about it they should open up their own checkbooks as opposed to demanding that everyone else open theirs.

 

Yes, it does.

It's probably the first thing worthwhile the government has done in 10 years. The government belongs to the American people [or should]. Because you don't agree with helping those hurt or injured in serving the public, it does mean that the rest of the American people are opposed to helping them. The government belongs to ALL of us, not just you, and it belongs to those heroes who were injured on 9/11.

We elect government leaders to serve the people and protect the welfare of the general public. I can't think of any better function for government.

Sorry, that you had to open "your checkbook" to help 9/11 responders. But remember, the next life they save may be your own. I guess Ragusa nailed it when he said that this was about "greed over people."

 

It is worth keeping in mind that with the ailments these folks have, their clock is ticking, fast. There is this old say that "justice delayed is justice denied", and it is equally valid here.

And Tal, at FOX there is one ray of light, and that's Shep Smith.

​

Snook,
Your take on it as a state rights issue is remarkable; it is original, but ultimately unpersuasive. Point is that New York is funding it, but their funding isn't enough. They just don't have enough money to cover it all. That's what the federal bill is supposed to fix.

 

Ragusa - Also, take a look at the text of my post, since the Constitution does nothing to prevent Congress from compensating government employees. The whole "states issue" is bogus.

 

Snook's arguement is very fascinating, and quite compelling, but I'm not nearly enough of a constitutional scholar to say if it's accurate or not. A quick look at Sections 8 and 9 of Article 1 of the Constitution doesn't show anything specific either way.

I did note, however, that ex post facto laws are expressly prohibited, and yet they're not unheard of (though apparently ex post facto in the Constitution is limited to matters of criminal law and evidence, so a retroactive tax change is allowable?).

Also, a note to Ragusa. As I understand it (and I may be wrong, but this is usually the case with loopholes), this isn't something they gave to foreign corporations. It's something the foreign corporations found. A loophole is typically a gap in the rules that doesn't cover X. For example, corporations based in the US may pay X taxes, and foreign corporations that import things into the US may pay Y, but what about a foreign corporation that takes action completely inside the US, without import or export, just hiring US citizens to sell goods and services to other US citizens?

There's also the question of what exactly amounts to a 'foreign corporation'. In the last election, there was a lot of hype about corporations who have foreign shareholders or board members. Is that a foreign corporation? What if the same corporation also has American shareholders and board members (as many of them do these days)? Is Ford a foreign corporation if people in Japan have bought stock? Is BP an American corporation if it's CEO is an American? Or do you mean where their base of operations is? Then what about a corporation that has localized divisions that are, technically, seperate companies? If Nissan buys out an American company and continues running it as an independent company, is that still an American company, or is it now a foreign company?

Anyway, I think there are better ways to fund this initiative. Much better ways. And if it is indeed a congressional power to do so, then I'll support any reasonable measure to do so.

 

Note: Huckabee remarked in his interview with Jon Stewart that his friend was from Texas and not NY. That means that volunteers came from all over the country to help [which makes sense since we are ALL Americans]. How can this be just a matter for NY when most of the nation attempted to aid on 9/11?

 

Nowadays corporations hold the view that it is unprofessional to wait for loopholes to be discovered by the odd explorer or to wait for them to fall from heaven like manna. That would be like gambling, and shareholders don't like gambling. They much prefer fixed bets, because that's a more reliable way to make money.

So what about 'inserted'? For instance by having their lobbyists write a(n entire) bill, or have them tell lawmakers to write a provision in a certain way, or omit covering a particular thing. Ever heard of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council? They exist just for that sort of exercise. In corporate newspeak, that is probably what they mean when they say 'rainmaking'. It reminds me of Otto von Bismarck's famous quip 'Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made'.

And on a more general note, every Republican will happily describe just how much he hates taxes and subsidies (which are bad because they distort the magic of the market, well, unless they benefit them and their voters, in which case they, since it is legal, have no qualms about taking these alms). And every Republican nowadays just loves tax breaks, the good-for-everything cure-all silver-bullet to all economic maladies. They are either disingenuously oblivious or cynically indifferent to the simple fact that a break from taxes everybody else has to pay is nothing but an indirect subsidy. I know, details, details ...

In a nutshell the Republican point of view is not that the 9/11 workers should not be compensated, and if it is, they don't say that - it's that compensating them is not worth pissing off campaign donors by killing that tax break. They certainly are not heard making Snooks argument. I dare say, the US Chamber of Commerce beats the 9/11 first responder lobby as far as access and financial 'pull' is concerned. For instance 9/11 first responders can't afford running anti-Democrat attack ads.

 

It is so funny though, if this had been a Republican bill opposed by Democrats we would have seen Snook howling about heartless Democrats not honoring the first responders and probably secretly being in liege with the terrorists.

I like your argument Snook, I do not think individuals should be selected for special treatment. As a socialist I think everyone should be entitled to the same help with no gravy lines or preferential treatment. For people like the first responders having to rely charity to get proper care is in my opinion nothing but disgusting but in all honesty not more disgusting than anyone else not getting proper care due to a lack of funds.

 

The Constitution of the United States forbids Congress and the states to pass any ex post facto law. In 1798 it was determined that this prohibition applies only to criminal laws and is not a general restriction on retroactive legislation.

An ex post facto law is a law intended to apply to crimes or events that took place before its passage. The United States Constitution forbids the passage of ex post facto criminal laws, on the principle that it is wrong to punish an act which was not illegal when committed. It is a basic reflection of fairness.

All that is obviously not the case with the Zagruda bill.

As far as I understand Snook, he is making an entirely different argument, which is that this is a state matter and that thus the Feds have no business legislating it, which is probably false on several levels.

 

I don't care who pays for it as long as it gets done. If the government values what those first responders did, they should find a way to make the health care happen. They put enough effort into finding legal loopholes for huge corporations and scum sucking criminals, why not channel some of that energy into finding a way to help the heroes of 9-11 and their families. If they are playing partisan politics -- and that's a big if-- then they should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

 

Not true at all.