Sept. 11 Heroes Disdained on the Right
Republicans back away from 9/11 first responders
Nothing was easier, during the months and years that followed the terror attacks of September 2001, than to cloak oneself in the nobility of the police officers, firefighters and construction workers who rushed to the smoking ruins—and the leaders of the Republican Party never hesitated to use them and the city as symbols, culminating in the party's 2004 national convention in Manhattan.
Unfortunately for those heroes, they are no longer so fashionable in right-wing circles, and neither is their hometown. Even as they suffer from the cancers and pulmonary illnesses that have beset them as a result of their service, they seem to be scorned among conservatives in Congress as just another "special interest" seeking a new "entitlement."
If only the first responders had asked for help back when they were still useful as political props! (And not merely as partisan hostages to help preserve the Bush tax cuts for the GOP’s wealthiest patrons.)
Where’s Rudy? And Other Republicans?
The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and
Compensation Act, named for a police officer who died from a respiratory
disease in 2006, had been in the works for several years—which means that
Republican leaders had many, many opportunities to contribute to what ought to
have been a bipartisan measure from the beginning.
Instead, they dishonestly complained about the bill suddenly appearing in the last hours of the lame-duck session. Actually, there had been hours of hearings on how best to provide care and funding, and the Democratic sponsors made every effort to ensure that the legislation was carefully crafted, both fiscally and programmatically. It would have been capped at less than $7 billion and would have ended after a decade, following strict guidelines for providing benefits (following last week’s Senate deal, it is now capped at $4.3 billion over five years).
So what was the real Republican objection to the Zadroga bill? That isn't clear, because almost none of the GOP senators who unanimously blocked a vote on the bill had the courage to explain his or her position on the Senate floor or on television. Their propensity for posturing on the deficit is one possibility; another is their poisonous attitude toward unionized public servants, a category that includes police and firefighters as well as teachers and postal workers. Or perhaps they disliked the original bill's financing via closure of a corporate tax loophole, which provoked howls of protest from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Conservative politicians still remain quick to exploit raw emotion over 9/11 when the opportunity presents itself, as in the debate over the Islamic community center proposed for a site in Lower Manhattan. The hallowed ground zero is sacred to every American, according to the blowhards who indulged in those cheap anti-Muslim rants—but apparently the suffering and dying who hurried there in the hours of danger should fend for themselves.
Certain Republicans should have shouldered considerable responsibility for ensuring the passage of the original legislation, but very few of them stepped up. Rudolph Giuliani spoke out briefly in favor of the bill, but "Mayor 9/11" ought to have lobbied his party's senators far more vigorously—in person, if necessary. What about George W. Bush, whose best-selling presidential memoir dwells at length on his own jut-jawed version of his role in 9/11 history?
To abandon those whom we so rightly venerated is to bring permanent dishonor on the entire nation. So why did Republicans want to stain themselves with this indelible disgrace?