Originally Posted By skinnerbox This makes me sick to my stomach: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/senate-republicans-explai_n_798349.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...349.html</a> "WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans, who blocked a bill to provide care for 9/11 first responders suffering health consequences as a result of their work amid the burning and smoking buildings at Ground Zero, explained themselves with a variety of reasons. Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) said he voted against the first responders bill because Republicans had threatened to vote against everything until tax cuts for the rich were extended and a measure to fund the government was passed. Despite the fact that President Barack Obama had met the GOP demands, Senate Republicans continued to block action in the upper chamber until everything was complete and signed into law. "I signed a letter saying we need to be focusing on what we're doing right now," Ensign said, explaining his vote to filibuster the bill. "Plus that was more spending that was not offset," said Ensign, arguing that the program shouldn't be funded without cuts or tax hikes elsewhere. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) also said he opposed moving forward on the bill because he wanted to get to tax cuts and the budget first. "I wanted to get to other items," he said. He then added, upon further reflection, that he had actually been out of town and wasn't around to vote to filibuster the bill. Brownback will become Kansas governor next and, he said, he was busy back home crafting the budget. He is recorded as not having voted. "We need to get the issue addressed for the firefighters and the 911 victims, and we will," Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said on Fox News, clipped by "The Daily Show". "The difference I think with the tax bill is there is a deadline, January first. We have to get this done. Taxes go up on January first." One GOP senator, Orrin Hatch of Utah, who voted to continue filibustering the bill, told HuffPost he couldn't remember how he voted on the measure. Hatch, in that respect, seems about as familiar with the bill as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. In a briefing with reporters, Gibbs noted, in his own defense, that he had never been asked about it by the media before. "No one's questioning the goals of this legislation -- the question is why can't we do it without adding to the deficit? That's why Senator Hatch opposed the bill," a spokeswoman for Hatch said." Are these people actually this heartless? Tax cuts for the rich -- which will definitely add billions to the deficit -- that's the priority? But helping to save the lives of the first responders is not a priority? Because like the tax cuts for the rich, it will add to the deficit? Adding to the deficit helping the rich -- OK. Adding to the deficit helping first responders -- not OK. Let me guess... using 9/11 as an right wing election issue doesn't play anymore, correct? "So sorry, first responders. We, the GOP members of Congress, only care about your suffering and fatal conditions if it gets us re-elected. Now that the country has moved on... quit bothering us and find some charity to take care of you. We've got tax cuts for our super wealthy campaign donors to focus on." Jerks. 8^P
Originally Posted By fkurucz "Let me guess... using 9/11 as an right wing election issue doesn't play anymore, correct?" Bingo, now we're fighting "socialism". Here is another prediction. THe GOP will want to make the 1 year Social Security tax holiday permament and maybe even expand it. For now the tax holiday is being covered by more borrowing (Instead of raiding the "trust fund" which would also involve more borrowing). I believe that this is a back door way of dismantling Social Security. It won't happen tomorrow, but I could see it as a long term plan to shut it down.
