Bill to assist 9/11 survivors with healthcare and compensation defeated

[Jenna]

Republican senators blocked Democratic legislation on Thursday that sought to provide medical care to rescue workers and others who became ill as a result of breathing in toxic fumes, dust and smoke at the site of the World Trade Center attack in 2001.

Republicans have been raising concerns about how to pay for the $7.4 billion measure, while Democrats, led by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York, have argued that there was a moral obligation to assist those who put their lives at risk during rescue and cleanup operations at ground zero.

The bill is formally known as the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, named after a New York police detective who participated in the rescue efforts at ground zero. He later developed breathing complications that were common to first responders at the site, and he died in January 2006. The cause of his death became a source of debate after the city’s medical examiner concluded that it was not directly related to the attacks.

In a statement, the mayor chastised Senate Republicans for their “wrongheaded political strategy” and called on them to allow a floor vote on the bill. “The attacks of 9/11 were attacks on America,” he said, “and we have a collective responsibility to care for the heroes, from all 50 states, who answered the call of duty, saved lives and helped our nation recover.”

The bill calls for providing $3.2 billion over the next eight years to monitor and treat injuries stemming from exposure to toxic dust and debris at ground zero. New York City would pay 10 percent of those health costs.

The bill would also set aside $4.2 billion to reopen the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund to provide payments for job and economic losses.

In addition, the bill includes a provision that would allow money from the Victim Compensation Fund to be paid to any eligible claimant who receives a payment under the settlement of lawsuits that 10,000 rescue and cleanup workers recently reached with the city.

Now, those who receive a settlement from the city are limited in how much compensation they can get from the fund, according to the bill’s sponsors.

More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/ny...er=rss&emc=rss

Apparently the government can't afford $7.4 billion to help 9-11 survivors, but it can afford $75 billion of extra tax cuts for millionnaires...

[Five-0]

Wow Jen, you are doing the same thing the politicians are with this.......playing politics.

Your last sentence really sticks in my crawl, so happy reading:
Economics 101: High taxes equal less productivity | Tennessee Center for Policy Research

[Bob Loblaw]

Economics 101: High taxes equal less productivity | Tennessee Center for Policy Research

seems like a non-partisan publication

[countybear]

C'mon Bobby... partisan or non-partisan, facts remain facts.

So... there wasn't the creation of a 10% tax bracket down from 15% for lower middle income earners?

Child tax credit did not go from $500 to $1000 and become refundable?

There was no suspension of 5% of the marriage penalty?

There was no net increase in the amount that lower income earners were refunded?

My personal tax debt won't go from a net 11% to nearly 17% if the cuts were to expire?

What happened to the "if you don't make over $200,000.00, your taxes will not increase..." (or was it $90,000.00?, wait... no... $50,000.00...)?" I'm tired of reading lips, perhaps I just need to quit two of my three jobs...

I'd like to thank the "progressives" for considering me to be a rich person, but it does seem that the only things that are "progressing" under their domination of our government is its size, its deficit, and my tax burden.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with healthcare subsidies for 9-11 responders, but to turn this into a tax-and-spend debate (as was done), is even more unfair to the men and women who need this assistance. If the tax cuts expire, they will need even more subsidies to pay their tax debt too... Maybe we'll just appoint a 9-11 healthcare subsidy czar fom our list of generous campaign donors (and their families), pay him (or her) $110,000,00 a year, give him $385,000.00 a year in staff, a $1.75M a year operating budget, and full healthcare benefits? By the way, this czar better be GLBT, a minority, have at least three bankruptcies in the past, and be behind on their personal income taxes or they won't qualify for the position.

Dear "Progressives", we aren't really making progress down here in our hovels, we need more cake to eat since we are running out of bread. Wake up, please.

[Five-0]

Just the result of a quick google search last night Bob. Punish behavior you don't want and reward behavior you want to see more of. Please see welfare and extensions of unemployment benefits. Then again we don't want success because if you are doing things that make you more successful we take more of success from you. Overly simple, sure. I'll post more when I'm not at work earning taxes errr I mean income.

[Bob Loblaw]

I wasn't saying anything about taxes (most of that economic stuff is WAY far over my head)...just that the particular publication has a pretty clear agenda. I'm sure I could find the opposite article linked on Daily KOS, but I haven't gone there yet this morning.

[Jenna]

I wasn't saying anything about taxes (most of that economic stuff is WAY far over my head)...just that the particular publication has a pretty clear agenda. I'm sure I could find the opposite article linked on Daily KOS, but I haven't gone there yet this morning.

Or even the Business Insider (hardly a bastion of progressivism):

The Real Reason Tax Cuts Won't Stimulate The Economy In The Short Term

And Republicans should be pleased to know that we now have a right-wing conservative Republican President (according to Daily Kos progressives who hate Obama's tax cut compromise).

[Five-0]

If all we are worried about is short term economic success, we should just have the government subsidize the housing loan market. What a sec, $hit never mind.

[HudsonHawk]

9/11 responders and recovery workers agree to $625 million settlement - NYPOST.com

Sickened 9/11 responders voted to approve a sweeping $625 million legal settlement yesterday, ending what could have been decades' worth of lawsuits against the city and construction firms over exposure to toxic World Trade Center dust...

Many plaintiffs said they had signed on out of fear that they would otherwise spend years in litigation with an uncertain outcome. Others said they signed on so people sicker than they would get at least some money.

The settlement -- which ranges from $3,250 to workers who've yet to become sick to $1.8 million to the most seriously ill -- will be paid for by the federally funded $1 billion WTC Captive Insurance Co.

They will receive a special health-insurance policy for certain blood and respiratory cancer with a benefit cap of $100,000.

Separate settlement talks with the Port Authority could boost the final settlement pool to $725 million...

What responders will get:
Tier I
* 2,383 responders, not yet ill
$3,250
Tier II

* 1,567 responders, with a physician’s diagnosis of illness

$4,335 to $7,500
Tier III
* 1,567 responders, with more severe illnesses
$5,420 to $11,000
Tier IV
* 5,308 responders, with most severe illnesses
Group A: $12,000 to $1.83 million
Group B: $6,420 to $646,167
Group C: $7,500 to $885,032

[Five-0]

Is that the settlement that about 95% of responsers have agreed to Hudson? If so, I know those that don't agree to it can still go through court on thier own.

[countybear]

If all we are worried about is short term economic success, we should just have the government subsidize the housing loan market. What a sec, $hit never mind.

REP!!

[MacLean]

The article you linked to Jenna, which you mentioned isn't a "bastion of progressivism" calls the extension of the tax rate a "stimulus" and "Obama tax cut" right in their article title.

I observe this with dry wit from a "non bastion of progressivism."

Please explain to this dumb conservative how extending a pre-existing rate is a cut or a stimulus?

[Jenna]

Please explain to this dumb conservative how extending a pre-existing rate is a cut or a stimulus?

The article's point is that extending a pre-existing low tax rate is not a stimulus.

In any case, the original point of this thread was about how the Republican Senators blocked the bill to provide $7.4 billion to assist 9/11 survivors with healthcare and compensation. My point is that it seems really stingy of them to block the 9/11 bill given how little it costs when compared to giveaways to groups that are in far less need, such as the $75 billion in tax breaks for millionaires that the Congressional Republicans (and Obama) are pushing through.

[Five-0]

See Post #9 and #10.

Allowing people to keep more of the money that they earn is not a "giveaway". I do not accept your premise as such.

[jmur5074]

The article's point is that extending a pre-existing low tax rate is not a stimulus.

In any case, the original focus of this thread is about how the Republican Senators blocked the bill to provide $7.4 billion to assist 9/11 survivors with healthcare and compensation. My point is that it seems really stingy of them to block the 9/11 bill given how little it costs when compared to giveaways to groups that are in far less need, such as the $75 billion in tax breaks for millionaires that the Congressional Republicans (and Obama) are pushing through.

Jenna, maybe those republican's recognize the fact that this country FINALLY needs to stop spending money. Money we don't have. Maybe they realize that extending the Bush tax cuts will assist in revitalizing our economy by stimulating job growth. Remember, it's trickle up, not trickle down. The rich fat cat's getting the tax breaks are the same rich fat cats that are opening or expanding stores, restaurants, factories, etc, and providing jobs.

Maybe they read up on one of our most fiscally responsible presidents, Grover Cleveland. He was a huge supporter of a limited government. After a drought ruined crops all across Texas, Congress appropriated $10,000 to buy seed for affected farmers. Cleveland vetoed the expense and gave this statement (I bolded some of my favorite parts):

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.


So maybe, this is just an example of us finally moving in the right direction.

Oh, and Cleveland was a democrat.

[MacLean]

In any case, the original point of this thread was about how the Republican Senators blocked the bill to provide $7.4 billion to assist 9/11 survivors with healthcare and compensation. My point is that it seems really stingy of them to block the 9/11 bill given how little it costs when compared to giveaways to groups that are in far less need, such as the $75 billion in tax breaks for millionaires that the Congressional Republicans (and Obama) are pushing through.

That isn't logic, it's a faulty premise.

The tax "cuts" which are really an extension of the existing tax rates do not "cost" money.

When you don't take my money, it isn't a cost to the government.

I'm decidedly not a millionaire, and the proposed Democrat tax increases would cost jobs and economic recovery.

We do not allocate success based on need in a free and capitalist democratic republic.

[HudsonHawk]

Is that the settlement that about 95% of responsers have agreed to Hudson? If so, I know those that don't agree to it can still go through court on thier own.

A little over 95% of 10,563 plaintiffs voted for the settlement. They are also still able to receive benefits from the Zadroga Bill if it passes. After weighing the possibility of a greater judgment against the cost and time of a trial, along with the difficulty of proving your illness was 9/11 related, I think that the settlement was a good choice.

World Trade Center rescue workers accept $712 million settlement in 9/11 health case

"Only 87.4% of Tier 1 plaintiffs - who stand to receive the least - opted in. But 98% of Tier 4 plaintiffs, who are considered the sickest and will receive the biggest awards, took the deal... Those who did not sign on and plan to press ahead with individual suits will be excluded from the Zadroga Bill, the $7.4 billion federal health care coverage proposal that is being debated in Congress."

As mentioned above the Tier 1 plantiffs are people who are NOT sick. While some of them may have a 9/11 related illness later in life, many people question the validity of those plaintiff's claims.

[pgg]

I didn't know that people being able to keep their own money was considered a "giveaway".

[countybear]

That isn't logic, it's a faulty premise.

The tax "cuts" which are really an extension of the existing tax rates do not "cost" money.

When you don't take my money, it isn't a cost to the government.

I'm decidedly not a millionaire, and the proposed Democrat tax increases would cost jobs and economic recovery.

We do not allocate success based on need in a free and capitalist democratic republic.

Very well put, Mac. Unfortunately, we have to realize that the progressive mindset is one that dictates that the government is the purveyor of the people's wealth, not simply a steward of their entrustments. Redistribution of wealth, in their mind, is government's right and entitlement, simply because it is the State. Progressivism abjectly refuses to admit that with government funding comes government controls, and therefore, infringement upon even basic liberties. This is why I must honestly question how so many can decry "civil liberties", all while begging for oppressive government intrusion into the free market, and ultimately, control of the very lives of the people. It is the divine comedy, perhaps the ultimate irony.

The New Deal rapidly breached the dam and now progressivism has convinced much of the masses to accept what I like to call, "The Raw Deal".