This can't be good... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/11353p-10746c.html Firefighters blast Bush May boycott 9/11 tribute after veto of funding bill By HELEN KENNEDY DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON - The International Association of Firefighters caused a furor yesterday by voting unanimously to consider boycotting President Bush's October speech honoring the 343 FDNY personnel who died in New York. The umbrella group for the nation's firefighter unions is furious that Bush cut $340 million in funding last week, some of which would have improved outdated radio equipment - a key reason so many firefighters didn't hear warnings to get out of the twin towers Sept. 11. "President Bush, you are either with us or against us. You can't have it both ways," said the association's general president, Harold Schaitberger. "Don't lionize our fallen brothers in one breath and then stab us in the back." Bush killed a $5.1 billion spending bill Tuesday that also contained money for veterans, AIDS prevention, domestic security, Israel and health testing for Ground Zero workers. Virginia firefighter Michael Mohler, who made the boycott motion Wednesday night at the association's convention in Las Vegas, accused Bush of standing with firefighters only for the cameras. "We will work actively to not grant him another photo op with us," he said. The motion to consider boycotting appearances with Bush - including his Oct. 6 tribute in Washington to fallen New York firefighters - was unanimously adopted. The firefighters also cheered a motion to return a videotaped speech Bush had sent the convention and then discussed an FDNY memorial slated for the New York-New York casino. Tom Butler, spokesman for New York's Uniformed Firefighters Association, said news of the vote had not reached union members, many of whom were out rallying for raises yesterday. Bush said he killed the spending bill because he opposed unrelated funding added by the Senate and said he would sign a stripped-down bill. Among the included items he repeatedly ridiculed was $2 million to the Smithsonian Institution for a new building "to house worms and bugs." But the Smithsonian says the specimen collection - currently preserved in 730,000 gallons of highly flammable alcohol blocks from the White House - must be moved. Members of both parties support the move, and Bush's own budget had requested it.
This unfortunately is typical Republican behavior. One of my favorite examples: Preach literacy and run numerous ads of Barbara Bush bouncing a cute little minority kid on her lap while teaching him to read; Cut head start funds at the same time. (I remember this one from his father's administration.) Perhaps the firefighters can embarrass Bush into funding better radios. One sure fired way is to find a major campaign contributor, who can profit from providing the radios, and have him lobby Bush to approve the spending.
Are they going to protest their own mumicipality which, I would assume, ignored the problem with radios and really could have, perhaps, saved some lives? This is far more complex than denying radios for firefighters. It has political overtones and undercurrents both. Times have changed and so must the budget.
This is why I don't get too upset about politics anymore. This buycott organization seems too swift and prepared. This sounds suspiciously like a majority passed something ancillary knowing the President would have to veto it, and trying to force it through by holding a popular issue hostage. Now it is a battle of Chicken. Accept all our ancillary funding or deal with this publicity nightmare.
He vetoed a bill with domestic security spending, veterans, and Israel!!!!!! Obviously, he's against these, too.
The problem with an article like this is that it does not include ALL of the facts. The original budget was $250 million and Bush has raised the budget to over $2 Billion this year and to over $3 billion by 2003. Many are presenting it as an all or nothing $5.1 Billion dollar budget, but Bush is pushing dollar efficiency in the government instead of simply handing out funds. Every group is going to push for more and more, and it is not the governments job to fund everything to its capacity, but to make the budget efficient so that the funds derived from OUR TAXES are not depleted on overspending. The tax cut that gave all of us hundreds of extra dollars was because of a revitalized focus on efficient spending within the government and I am all for it. This is just another effort to Discredit the President. The budget for emergency services has grown exponentially, yet can still be used to discredit the President to make it seem like he doesn't want to promote homeland defense and emergency spending. And Glynch While Talking about you "Republican Behavior" What about when Senate Majority Democrat Tom Daschle brought forth a bill (ONLY THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADERS CAN BRING BILLS FORTH TO THE PRESIDENT TO VETO) in which the US is leasing planes from Boeing, instead of buying them, though over the time period it will cost the Government over a billion extra dollars. And oh yeah....the Daschle's wife represents Boeing in the negotiations.....sounds fair! Politicians are individuals, don't demonize one party or the other.
And Heypartner is very right. The President can only veto what is brought to him and cannot make changes or amendments. The bills can only be brought to him by the Senate Majority Leader Democrat Tom Daschle. For all we know this $5.1 Billion dollar bill which included such noble things as Aids research, funds for veterans and additional funding for Israel. Maybe he didn't agree with giving Israel more money, seeing how we give them billions annually in aid and economic and military support. But he can't cross through sections and decide what he likes in a bill, either sign it or veto it. Thats the System, folks, though this article only talks about $350 million out of the WHOLE $5.1 Billion!!!!! What if the $4.7 billion was not appropriated correctly?? Very bad reporting and obviously very partial
Wrath of Khan: I agree with you that this is about individual politicians and not parties. And that's about all I agree with. Cheaper over the long run to buy rather than rent? I promise you it's not cheaper than maintaining the surplus so we aren't back to paying interest on the deficit. That's billions in tax dollars that goes down a hole, never to be seen again. And it's all thanks to the tax cut. You say Bush is promoting dollar efficiency rather than just giving out funds? What the hell was the tax cut??? That's right. It was inefficient fund giving, at the expense of efficiency. The average American got $300. Was that worth a return to deficit spending? Oh, wait. That's right. The tax cut was intended to boost the economy. Good thing, too. I'd hate to see this economy if it hadn't gotten a "boost." You Bushies just better get down on your knees and thank your lucky stars for Jim Jeffords. Without him, you'd have a Republican Senate and no one to blame but yourselves for the worst economy since the last time a Bush was president. But that's all Clinton's fault right? Like everything else...
No it's not "all" thanks to the tax cut. It's thanks to spending more than you take in. Did a tax cut make up the entire budget? I'm sure you could point to any number of federal programs that were funded by the budget and ask if they were worth a return to deficit spending. Why would you blame politicians for a bad economy?
Keynesian economic theory (which I support ) promotes the government achieving a deficit through increased spending and lowering of taxes during recessions or continued economic weakness. The government can then pay back much of that deficit when the push from additional spending filters down into more jobs and more taxes i.e. more revenue from the government without raising taxes. The way a company uses debt and research and development to grow future earnings. I do agree with you that interest payments are a loss in society, but the benefit of additional consumer spending through tax cuts outweighs that in my opinion. I don't believe under democratic leadership that if that money was not given back in taxes that it would have been used to pay back the defecit, but more towards additional inefficient government programs to take the power and the choice out of the public sector.
Freak, the tax cut was the largest in history. Don't compare it to government programs. Or, rather, tell me which program you're comparing it to -- one of equal cost -- and why we should have kept the tax cut while eliminating spending on, say, education, the military or whichever other equal-sized program you'd like to cite. Every single government program on which tax dollars are spent is the result of (a) someone arguing it was needed, and (b) no one being able to argue well enough that it wasn't. No one has argued that the tax cut was "necessary," only that it would improve the economy and would not send us into deficit spending. Wrong on both counts. And please remember, while you're trying to pin all this on Daschle, that the budget that sent us into deficit spending was drafted by a Republican president and passed by a Republican majority in the House and the Senate. It happened before the Jeffords defection. I don't just blame Bush for the deficit. I blame everyone (Republicans and Democrats) who voted for the biggest tax cut in the history of the world, and one in which the wealthiest five percent of the country got over 90% of the money, at a time when most trusted economists warned it would send us back into deficit spending. If Bush were a Libertarian, arguing only for cutting taxes and never for spending, he would have a better case. He is for spending, too. Repubs and Dems are both for spending -- they just disagree on what merits spending. Neither party is innocent of wasting tax dollars and neither party is innocent of destroying the surplus with one single vote. But the tax cut, which again gave most Americans about $300, was Bush's baby and he will have to defend it come 2004. As a Democrat, as dissapointed as I am in my party for going along with it, I can't ****ing wait.
Nope but I do think it was irresponsible and poor management of the nation's budget. I'm sure you could point to any number of federal programs that were funded by the budget and ask if they were worth a return to deficit spending.
Were you out of the country the last ten years? We had an enormous deficit, Clinton and a combo Dem-controlled/Repub-controlled Congress eliminated it and turned it into a surplus and then Bush and a combo of small minds from both parties eliminated the surplus and shot us back into deficit spending with the commensurate billions of dollars down the drain in interest. After all the Republican hand-wringing over the deficit, lo these many years, it took a Dem prez to eliminate it. And you do NOT get to use that weakass old argument about Dems being tax-and-spenders unconcerned about the deficit ANYMORE. I wasn't even a Clinton fan, but on this point all by itself, it was a good, good thing he was president and a bad, bad thing he was replaced by another supply sider. We are a capitalist society. In such, trickle down economics are a myth and a cynical one at that, since we've seen already what a disaster they can be. Pick an argument which isn't so easily refuted by recent history. Maybe prison furloughs or how dumb one of our guys looks in a tank...
WTF???!!! Batman that's the problem. It is OUR money, not Washington's. We earned it...not Washington. That's the philosophical difference. 5% of the people pay 55% of the taxes. This being the case OF COURSE an across the board tax cut will impact the largest payers more on a sheer dollars basis. What you are leaving out is that the tax cut made it that an entire class of the poor now pay NO TAXES. It is this type of inaccurate half truth that has caused me to not vote for a single Dem candidate since 1992. Most of us work to pay our Federal income taxes (forget about all of the hidden taxes out there -- look at your phone bill as an example) from January through April. That's disgusting. That's damned close to being equal partners with the government...that's damned close to being socialism. It is repugnant to what this country was based on from its inception. Don't tell me its not...we didn't even have an income tax until 1916. During the 1950s (which was the biggest prosperity this country has ever seen) our tax rates were a fraction of what they are today. The system over the last 30 years has been turned on its head and now we wonder why the hell its all screwed up...go figure.
WTF???!!! Batman that's the problem. It is OUR money, not Washington's. We earned it...not Washington. That's the philosophical difference. The problem is that Washington -- with our implicit approval by reelecting these people year after year -- racked up $4 trillion in debt on our names over the past 20 years. That money has to be paid off by someone - we can't say well, it's our money now, so it shouldn't be used to pay off debts that were created on our behalf. Shoving that debt to our kids so that we can have a little extra money now is fiscally irresponsible. Keynesian economic theory (which I support ) promotes the government achieving a deficit through increased spending and lowering of taxes during recessions or continued economic weakness. The government can then pay back much of that deficit when the push from additional spending filters down into more jobs and more taxes But we both know the reality is that any debts racked up now WON'T just be paid off as soon as the revenues are there. As such, it's ridiculous to go deficit spending when you know the other half of the equation is just a myth. We finally had a bi-partiscan formula that was working - it was wrecked by a tax cut that was based on political motivation rather than any economic theory (don't believe me? Tell me why the Bush tax cut plan didn't change one iota from early 2000 to late 2000 when our financial picture changed 180 degrees. If the tax cut was built on economic theory, SOMETHING in it would have changed when the economic climate did - whether it grew or shrunk or whatever).
Well the poor do pay payroll taxes. So to say they pay no taxes in itself might be a half truth. As far as the poor not paying income taxes and the rich paying a large percentage of the taxes what's the problem? I see nothing wrong with that. Forgive me if I don't feel sorry for multi-millioinaires and billionaires who have to pay taxes. If I made 50 million dollars in a year and had to give 25 million dollars of it to the govt. then I wouldn't expect anyone to feel sorry for me. I would be delighted. I still have 25 million dollars! Before it gets brought up, I honestly don't believe that most of those multi-millionaires and billionaires 'earned' it. Sure there are some people who came from extreme poverty to make it rich, but they are the exception and not the rule. More often than not, the extremely rich come from wealthy families, and if not that, from families that have connections. Nepotism, and cronyism puts those people into the positions to make that money more times than not. Let's look at Bush for instance. The guy was born rich, never ran a successful business, and was bailed out time and time again by his friends of his father, and he made millions. There are plenty of other business men with similar tales, and I refuse to feel sorry them because they have to pay taxes. Meanwhile there are plenty of hardworking people in the middle to lower income brackets that didn't get the same breaks, have the same connections etc. Whatever money they have, they reall did earn it.
I was reacting to Batman's assertion that this was a giving of funds. It was a rebate of what we paid in. We had a surplus. Surlus means they took in too much. So why not give it back to the people who paid it in. I know it was "only" $300. To a lot of people that is a significant amount of money. I resent it being trivialized.
