Pretty entertaining stuff. David Kurtz says he's My Kind of Democrat. "What I like about Weiner is that he reacts publicly with the range of emotions that someone truly engaged in politics should react with. Politics can be maddening, stultifying, unjust, absurd, and crazy-making. That's why a lot of people hate politics, even people ostensibly in politics. But if you're going to really do politics, if you're going to engage on the battlefield, you have to grapple with all the maddening things that go along with it in order to get done what you actually want done."
Greg Sargent says Anthony Weiner's rant captures Dem impotence. "To be clear, I'm all for the kind of passion Weiner is showing here, but let's direct it properly. Don't get into a shouting match about procedure. As emotionally satisfying as it may be to watch, raging against the GOP opposition machine's successful efforts to tie Dems in knots just makes Dems look whiny, weak and impotent."
I hadn't heard about this bill and didn't understand the opposition. CNN said: "Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner was raging Thursday night on the House floor after it became clear that Republicans had enough votes to defeat a bill that provided health care to 9/11 first responders. Democratic leaders made a motion to suspend the rules, a maneuver that prevented Republicans from offering amendments to the widely popular James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act."
So it was some kind of procedural thing? The Democrats have a solid majority in the House and there's no filibuster, so what was the problem? The Huffington Post had a little more: "a bill that would have provided up to $7.4 billion in aid to those sickened by toxins resulting from the 9/11 attacks." and "At the heart of the debate was a procedural maneuver made by Democrats to suspend the rules before consideration of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. The move allowed leadership to block potential GOP amendments to the measure (there was worry that Republicans would attach something overtly partisan in hopes that it could pass on the otherwise widely-popular measure). It also meant that the party needed a two-thirds majority vote."
Ok, so to avoid allowing Republican's to propose amendments that Dems might want to vote no on, they tried a procedure that required a 2/3 vote, which would have required some Republicans to vote for it. It's a popular "widely popular" bill so that might work though $7.4 billion does sound like a lot of money. Was this a case where the bill was unfunded like the unemployment benefits? Nope. It turns out FoxNews had a very informative article:
Rep Peter King (R-NY) "said Democrats were "petrified" about casting votes as the November elections near on controversial amendments, possibly including one that could ban the bill from covering illegal immigrants who were sickened by Trade Center dust."
"To pay the bill's estimated $7.4 billion cost over 10 years, the legislation would have prevented foreign multinational corporations incorporated in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned in the U.S. Bill supporters said that would close a tax loophole; Republicans branded it a corporate tax increase." That really seems like something the Democrats could use against the Republicans.
"For weeks now, a judge and teams of lawyers have been urging 10,000 former Ground Zero workers to sign on to a court-supervised settlement that would split $713 million among people who developed respiratory problems and other illnesses after inhaling World Trade Center ash. The court deal shares some similarities with the aid program that the federal legislation would have created, but it involves far less money. Only the most seriously ill of the thousands of police officers, firefighters and construction workers suing New York City over their exposure to the dust would be eligible for a hefty payout."
"Nevertheless, with the House rejecting the bill and no vote scheduled on a similar Senate version, it appears almost guaranteed that there will be no new federal law by Sept. 8, the date by which ground zero workers involved in the lawsuits must decide whether to accept the settlement offer."
"The exact number of ailing rescue workers is unclear. Nearly 15,900 people received treatment last year through medical programs set up to treat Sept. 11-related illnesses, but doctors say many of those people suffered from conditions that are common in the general public."'
The NY Daily News had more. "The bill would spend $3.2 billion on health care over the next 10 years for people sickened from their exposure to the toxic smoke and debris of the shattered World Trade Center. It would spend another $4.2 billion to compensate victims over that span, and make another $4.2 billion in compensation available for the next 11 years. "This legislation as written creates a huge $8.4 billion slush fund paid by taxpayers that is open to abuse, fraud and waste," said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), arguing that it would be raided by undeserving scammers with tenuous links to 9/11."
"Mayor Bloomberg slammed the failure, calling it "outrageous," and blaming both sides. "It was wrong for the overwhelming majority of Republicans to vote against the bill, and it was wrong for Democrats to bring the bill to the floor under rules that made passage so much more difficult," he said."
This doesn't make it sound any better: "Democrats vowed they would try again, after Congress' summer vacation."
This whole thing seems ridiculous to me. Dems should have just brought it up for a majority vote. An amendment that bans payments to illegal immigrants doesn't sound so bad to me. Seriously, if that's the compromise that needs to happen to get something passed, what's wrong with that? Wait a minute, the Dems have a strong majority, they didn't need to pass that amendment, they could have just voted no on it. No compromise needed. So just what exactly were they afraid of? If Weiner is ranting that if you like it vote yes and you don't like it vote no, that applies to the amendment as well. Stop being wimps and avoiding votes and bring things up and govern. If the thinking was that if Republicans didn't vote to pass it with 2/3 they could use that against them, then so be it, do that, but be sure to the pass the bill so that people get the health care they need. I'm still not sure what the issue is, I assume most firefighters and police are covered for this through their existing insurance, though there were lots of other people that helped in the cleanup. Still $8.4 billion or $7.4 billion does sound like a lot of money even for the 9/11 cough which I believe is real.
I assume that after it passes the House it would have to go to the Senate where there's always the threat of filibuster. Kevin Drum wrote today Who's Afraid of the Filibuster?. "As I've mentioned before, there's no serious question that Democrats can get rid of the filibuster if they want to. It's not even complicated. They can't do it right now, because it takes 67 votes to change Senate rules in the middle of a congressional session, but at the beginning of a congressional session they can write all the new rules they want and pass them with a simple majority."
"Five Senate Democrats have said they will not support a lowering of the 60-vote bar necessary to pass legislation. Another four lawmakers say they are wary about such a change and would be hesitant to support it. A 10th Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said he would support changing the rule on filibusters of motions to begin debate on legislation, but not necessarily the 60-vote threshold needed to bring up a final vote on bills."
"No matter what anyone says, this has always been the reason the filibuster continues to exist: because both parties want it. ... They're more interested in stopping the other guys when they're in power than they are in getting their own things done when they're in power." He has some more stuff on modest reforms and a followup and a nice graph:
No comments:
Post a Comment