Taking An Unpopular View
The Zadroga Act is certainly making waves these days. The bill, which offers compensation and healthcare for 9/11 responders, was recently filibustered by Republicans in the Senate, who cited concerns over funding as well as a refusal to focus on other points of policy before extending tax cuts.
One who bit the bullet and has assumed a public position against the Zadroga Act is Wyoming Senior Senator Mike Enzi, who defended his contrarian views in a refreshingly straightforward and lucid manner. From his defense:
The American people need to know that money is being used effectively because frankly, the nation can't afford careless spending, no matter how well intentioned. Our country is in the midst of trying to head off a short-term economic crisis and long-term deficit crisis that could deeply hurt us all. We need money to help 9/11 responders. We need money to help the men and women who are returning from the front lines of two wars. Victims of natural disasters, the poor and unemployed all warrant our attention. We owe it to all of them to use what money we have in the best way we can. In order to do that, legislators must take the time to consider, amend and vote on bills in the committees of jurisdiction.
I realize that my opposition to this bill, and how it is being considered, is not a popular position in New York. I understand and appreciate the frustration of the 9/11 responders, who want to see a permanent program put in place to address their needs. But it is reasonable for senators to ask questions, get answers and amend legislation before it's rushed to the Senate floor during the final moments of a Congress.
Senator Enzi is not blind to the necessity of aid for 9/11 responders, nor is he the evil, corporate-centric megalomaniac that some like Jon Stewart would have you believe of anyone who expresses reservations about the Zadroga bill. His position is unpopular, but not unreasonable.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Taking An Unpopular View
Yeah, that's nice and all, but can We ever hear a congressman say that it just simply isn't in The Constitution to allow such expenditures?
Including "Victims of natural disasters, the poor and unemployed......."
Edited on Dec 18, 2010 at 7:06pmRe: Taking An Unpopular View
Uh, it's not just Jon Stewart. This is a small amount of money and terrible optics. Help these people and shut up.
May '10
Re: Taking An Unpopular View
So if it's important let them take the money away from something else rather than invent it from thin air. I honestly believe people understand that. And the criticism is impossibly cynical in any case; no one, especially Jon Stewart, believes that the Republicans don't care about first responders. They too are trying to make a political point which is that government as the solution is not a matter of principle -- only of degree.
Jul '10
Re: Taking An Unpopular View
I disagree. It hasn't hurt California to bankroll every good cause that has come down the pike. Parts of it look a lot like Mexico crept northward bringing all the benefits and rewards of a third world country to one descending to second world ranks. This makes for cultural homogeneity over time, a plus in our multiculti age. If you think otherwise, you are very probably a nativist or worse.
Jun '10
Re: Taking An Unpopular View
I salute the NYPD and NYFD heros of 9/11 and respect the DPW and other city workers that worked to bring order back to ground zero in the weeks and months that followed. Can anyone tell me why the generous healthcare coverage and disability pension provisions of these highly-compensated public employees are inadequate to address the problem? Also, are the hundreds of heroes of 9/11 being compensated from federal sources for their injuries and health-impacts to a greater extent that a few TX firefighters who incurred similar effects battling a refinery fire would be? If so, what justifies the difference?
The problem is that the "optics are going to be terrible" for any and all reductions in federal spending. Everyone knows that the spending is unsustainable, but then most run to the defense of individual line items that are "only a small amount of money in the great scheme of things." The sum is the total of the parts.
May '10
Re: Taking An Unpopular View
If you look at the descriptions of the Bill, they refer to 20,000 first responders needing $7 billion.
Please, tell me how there were 20,000 first responders who all got the rough equivalent of pulmonary fibrosis from dust at Ground Zero?
I guarantee that $5 billion out of the $7 billion goes right into the pockets of the Plaintiff's Bar.
Jun '10
Re: Taking An Unpopular View
Duane Oyen: If you look at the descriptions of the Bill, they refer to 20,000 first responders needing $7 billion.
Please, tell me how there were 20,000 first responders who all got the rough equivalent of pulmonary fibrosis from dust at Ground Zero?
I guarantee that $5 billion out of the $7 billion goes right into the pockets of the Plaintiff's Bar. · Dec 19 at 7:05pm
Duane is probably right, which combined with Pigford 1 & 2, means that the plaintiff's bar is getting a very nice return on their substantial investments in Democrats.
Re: Taking An Unpopular View
Actually, some Republicans are afraid of exactly that.
Edited on Dec 20, 2010 at 1:23pm