For the past decade, 9/11 has been invoked time and time again by the Republicans whenever they wished to start a war, restrict liberty, expand interrogation techniques or silence critics. As such, you would think that they would have voted in favor of a bill intended to provide treatment and compensation to those harmed by that attack.
However, the bill was defeated with 256 (12 Republicans) votes for it and 159 (155 Republicans) against. That is not a typo: the vote was 256 to 159. The reason it did not pass was because the Democrats had decided to use a procedure that required much more than a simple majority. More on this later.
One reason for the Republican opposition was the view that the $7.4 program would be an “entitlement program.”
While it seems likely that some of the money will be misused (after all, 95% of the money sent to rebuild Iraq is unaccounted for), providing medical support and compensation for those harmed in the 9/11 attack does not seem to be mere entitlement. After all, these people are victims of an enemy attack. If we are willing to dump billions into the war on terror to protect Americans from harm, it seems inconsistent to be unwilling to spend money to protect Americans who were harmed by this attack. Of course, the Republican view seems to often be that we can only protect Americans by going to war, granting lucrative contracts to private contractors, setting up secret prisons and so on. Providing health care or support t0 those who have been directly impacted by terror seems to be out of the question.
However, the Republicans do not bear all the blame for what occurred. As noted above, the Democrats decided to not go with a simple majority vote (which would have resulted in the bill passing). Apparently, the Democrats were worried that the Republicans would tag on amendments that would “embarrass” the Democrats in the upcoming elections. For example, it has been claimed that they intended to amend the bill so that illegal immigrants injured in 9/11 would not be eligible for the benefits provided by the bill.
Of course, this raises a question about blame. The Republicans can claim that the Democrats were responsible because they decided to go with the alternative procedure out of selfishness. If the Democrats had only loved America enough to go with a majority vote, then the bill would have passed. Of course, the Democrats can point out that the Republicans seemed to be intent on using the bill for their own selfish purposes-that is, so they could tag on amendments that would hurt the Democrats.
The end result is that both parties come across as rather bad. After all, both of them are playing political games with the victims of 9/11, which seems to be a rather awful thing to do.
Unfortunately, these people have the system almost completely locked up: come election day we mainly just have a choice between scoundrels.
If the Republicans control Congress, it’s their fault.
If the Democrats control Congress, Republicans are still to blame.
Let’s remember that Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006. In the last fiscal year of Republican control, the budget deficit was 160 billion–still too high–but an order of magnitude smaller than today’s deficits. The rest of the world is climbing out of recession while we are digging a hole for ourselves.
And I don’t even consider myself a Republican. I simply see the current trajectory as economic suicide, and I place the blame firmly on the Democrats.
“If the Republicans control Congress, it’s their fault.
If the Democrats control Congress, Republicans are still to blame.”
The word “control” is crucial here. Are you factoring in the power of the filibuster?
when is the last time someone filibustered? The current political scene counts it as a noun when it is supposed to be a verb. Pathetic.
I believe it’s both a noun and a verb.
On your first point, filibusters were never commonplace . After 1922 66 votes were required to end a filibuster. Now it takes only 60. If the Dems see that the Reps are going to filibuster a bill, and the Dems know they don’t have 60 votes to gain cloture the Reps don’t need to bother filibustering. The Dems will cave. In other words, a minority can stop the apparent will of the majority, if they can gather 40% of the Senators representing the people. So, there’s no need for an actual filibuster; a real threat of a filibuster is more than enough. The only time a party is filibuster-proof is when it has 60% control of the Senate and can count on ‘all’l of its members to vote “aye”. And that’s pretty damn rare.
One thing’s more or less certain. The threat of the filibuster works both ways; i.e— it will inevitably come back to bite you in the ass.
I’m gone for a little over a week, and the good doctor’s liberal bias has already grown significantly. I’ll have to do some weeding before it grows to Rosie O’donnell proportions.
Let’s see how he starts this article. The opening paragraph, along with the closing one sets the tone for any short piece of writing, and so too, it shows us how the writer thinks:
So, here it is again.
Opening:
“For the past decade, 9/11 has been invoked time and time again by the Republicans whenever they wished to start a war, restrict liberty, expand interrogation techniques or silence critics.”
1) How could they have started a war without Dem support?
They didn’t. They had tons of votes for both wars, from Dems. And the wars continue.
2) Mike, tell me exactly how your liberty is restricted. Real things. Tell me. You think you can just throw vague terms out there and people will agree. Well, I’m sure freddie will agree, but I just don’t see it.
3) Expand interrogation techniques? Yes, some Republicans argued for the utility of waterboarding. But again, the party of do nothing (the party the Doctor says he has no affiliation with, and yet agrees with the most often) has done nothing to outlaw waterboarding, even now that they have the pwer to do so.
As this WSJ article states, outlawing the technique now, would indicate that it was not illegal before.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB124087403668161211.html
Who was it that signed an executive order banning torture or cruel treatment? George Bush. As did Obama…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6909331.stm
And you seem to have written a number of articles indictaing that 9-11 was really no big deal. Peopel die all the time. We should just leave the terrorists alone.
But, I agree, 9-11 victims should be taken care of. Maybe your party can get something done worth doing. They can get the bill passed. So let’s see them do it.
I agree with you. I never claimed that they started the war without the votes of some Democrats.
Since I live a fairly simple life, the impact on me is not that great. However, it isn’t just about me. But, to list some things: I had to be concerned that my email and phone conversations were (are?) being monitored without due process, I now need to use a passport to go to Canada and Mexico, and what I could bring on airplanes was restricted. However, the important thing is not how it impacts me. I do not measure rightness merely in terms of what impacts me directly.
Agreed. But, this has nothing to do with my claims. I didn’t even write about what the Democrats should or should not do about waterboarding.
My point is not that 9/11 is not a “big deal.” My point has been that a rational response is proportionate to the threat. Terrorism is serious and a matter of concern, but it is not even a top ten threat in terms of what kills people (at least in regards to Americans).
I have never argued that we should leave terrorists alone.
I’m only a Democrat because that way I get to vote in the primary. I’d rather be an independent, but then I’d be left with just voting for those who the Democrats and Republicans decide are worthy of being candidates.
The Democrats are, as you have often pointed out, largely incapable of decisive action. I will hand it to the Republicans-they tend to do stuff.