re: Rep. Justin Amash just voted against care for 9/11 first responders

First post.

I’m not familiar with the bill’s intricacies, but here is Justin Smash’s own explanation for his vote. It seems fairly reasonable and aligned with libertarian viewpoints. “Our Constitution empowers Congress to appropriate money. Typically, this means we must vote annually to spend on a particular object. This process holds government accountable to the people. The 9/11 VCF works differently by authorizing 70+ years of unlimited, automatic spending. This bill even excludes its spending from counting under budgetary rules. Unlimited, automatic spending is convenient for current legislators, who can take one popular vote and leave fiscal consequences to future generations. No program in government should operate this way. There are multiple better ways to structure the 9/11 VCF. The bill could require annual or biennial appropriations, ensuring that Congress prioritize and account for spending. Alternatively, Congress could fund a large, defined endowment within the budget. Let's get it done.”

quote:

---

It wasn't an attack on just New York it was an attack on the whole USA. It wasn't just 1 state. Military was also attacked but using your train of thought pearl harbor was just a Hawaiian issue.

---

The majority of the health care cost does stem around one state, more specifically one city and one site. A city who can easily use the revenue from their high tax rate to fund the health care and pensions of the first responders who they employed.

Should the federal government be responsible for similar funds to be made available to workers in private industry who were exposed to the same hazardous materials?

quote:

---

Justin Amaash has posted on why he voted against it, like he does with all of his votes.

---

Of course you're a fanboy because he dislikes Trump. You're tied into your skin color and think in that mindset. You're part of the problem, tribalism within America.