SxyPrincess
New Member
But, Pixie--if you'd only quit working and apply for state assitance you'd see it. DOH!
Firefighters Vote to Boycott Bush’s 9/11 Tribute
- Thread starter TrueBlue
- Start date
But, Pixie--if you'd only quit working and apply for state assitance you'd see it. DOH!
I'm baack!
Ken King wrote:
>It's sad that some only see part of the picture and are so eager to place blame on the wrong person. It is understandable that the IAFF is pissed off, but it should be pissed at Congress. You know, the ones that made the stupid stipulation on spending all of it or none of it.
You may be right, but then shouldn't we be upset with Bush for demanding fast track trade authority, which requires Congress to do just that, all or none approval of trade agreements? It may even be political payback for that. I guess that's how the game is played.
Ken King wrote:
>It's sad that some only see part of the picture and are so eager to place blame on the wrong person. It is understandable that the IAFF is pissed off, but it should be pissed at Congress. You know, the ones that made the stupid stipulation on spending all of it or none of it.
You may be right, but then shouldn't we be upset with Bush for demanding fast track trade authority, which requires Congress to do just that, all or none approval of trade agreements? It may even be political payback for that. I guess that's how the game is played.
Re: I'm baack!
Trade authority, aka treaties, require the advise and consent of the Senate. That body could de-rail the effort at any time they didn't want it. This is not like the supplemental appropriations bill with the language covering the pork spending that had to be accepted in its entirety or none of those additional funds could be spent. If I felt that the 340 million was for a reasonable use and it was going to cost another 5.1 billion in unrelated and non-emergency spending to get it, I would ask, who in their right mind would agree to that?
Trade authority, aka treaties, require the advise and consent of the Senate. That body could de-rail the effort at any time they didn't want it. This is not like the supplemental appropriations bill with the language covering the pork spending that had to be accepted in its entirety or none of those additional funds could be spent. If I felt that the 340 million was for a reasonable use and it was going to cost another 5.1 billion in unrelated and non-emergency spending to get it, I would ask, who in their right mind would agree to that?
H
Heretic
Guest
MGKrebs
I wouldnt say politically incorrect, just the wrong time. Kinda like letting out a big belch in the middle of a funeral, the wrong time.
I wouldnt say politically incorrect, just the wrong time. Kinda like letting out a big belch in the middle of a funeral, the wrong time.
Homeland Security
I have been doing a lot of searching, and I can't find ANYBODY that is claiming the problem with this bill is PORK, including the President. Search for yourself. Here's some links and excerpts;
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020622-42082444.htm
A provision in the bill seeking to create a Homeland Security Department will exempt its employees from whistleblower protection, the very law that helped expose intelligence-gathering missteps before September 11.
The department would not be required to release information under the Freedom of Information Act. This would eliminate the agency's responsibility to answer questions from the public. Advisory committees that normally include public input would be immune, and the Cabinet secretary would have veto power over inspector general audits and investigations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7741-2002Jul26.html
Roadblocks to the plan have emerged in the Senate, where Democrats have defied the president by turning down his request to limit the workplace and union rights of the 170,000 employees who would staff the department.
In his strongest language yet, Bush yesterday vowed not to sign any legislation that doesn't include the management flexibility that the Senate version would deny him.
The key battle yesterday centered on whether to limit the workplace rights of the department's employees. The White House has demanded broad discretion over how to pay and hire, fire and discipline workers, and for the first time on Thursday threatened to veto any legislation that curtails its ability to do so.
Republican Rep. Constance A. Morella (Md.) joined with Democrats to offer a provision that would have allowed employees transferred into the department to belong to a union as long as their duties did not change. Many unions backed the measure.
"I simply refuse to buy the argument that I have to matter-of-factly give the administration as much flexibility as possible," Morella said. "I am a friend of the president and I think he has done a wonderful job guiding this country through this crisis, but on federal employees' issues, his record is less laudable. In fact, in many areas, I find it unacceptable."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58748,00.html
WASHINGTON_—_The House of Representatives heeded President Bush's call Friday and passed an amendment to the homeland security bill that_gives the president the flexibility he has demanded in hiring, transferring and firing non-performing employees.
The 229-201 vote for the amendment states that union collective bargaining rights must apply to workers already covered by union agreements as they move into the new agency, but the president can waive those rights, in writing, during times of national emergency. That is a slightly higher threshold for waiver than the president has under current law for other departments.
"We believe this approach represents a sensible and reasonable compromise," said Rep. Christopher Shays, D-Conn., who sponsored the amendment.
President Bush said Friday that he would have no choice but to veto the homeland security bill if it did not grant him executive power to hire, fire and transfer employees._
I have been doing a lot of searching, and I can't find ANYBODY that is claiming the problem with this bill is PORK, including the President. Search for yourself. Here's some links and excerpts;
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020622-42082444.htm
A provision in the bill seeking to create a Homeland Security Department will exempt its employees from whistleblower protection, the very law that helped expose intelligence-gathering missteps before September 11.
The department would not be required to release information under the Freedom of Information Act. This would eliminate the agency's responsibility to answer questions from the public. Advisory committees that normally include public input would be immune, and the Cabinet secretary would have veto power over inspector general audits and investigations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7741-2002Jul26.html
Roadblocks to the plan have emerged in the Senate, where Democrats have defied the president by turning down his request to limit the workplace and union rights of the 170,000 employees who would staff the department.
In his strongest language yet, Bush yesterday vowed not to sign any legislation that doesn't include the management flexibility that the Senate version would deny him.
The key battle yesterday centered on whether to limit the workplace rights of the department's employees. The White House has demanded broad discretion over how to pay and hire, fire and discipline workers, and for the first time on Thursday threatened to veto any legislation that curtails its ability to do so.
Republican Rep. Constance A. Morella (Md.) joined with Democrats to offer a provision that would have allowed employees transferred into the department to belong to a union as long as their duties did not change. Many unions backed the measure.
"I simply refuse to buy the argument that I have to matter-of-factly give the administration as much flexibility as possible," Morella said. "I am a friend of the president and I think he has done a wonderful job guiding this country through this crisis, but on federal employees' issues, his record is less laudable. In fact, in many areas, I find it unacceptable."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58748,00.html
WASHINGTON_—_The House of Representatives heeded President Bush's call Friday and passed an amendment to the homeland security bill that_gives the president the flexibility he has demanded in hiring, transferring and firing non-performing employees.
The 229-201 vote for the amendment states that union collective bargaining rights must apply to workers already covered by union agreements as they move into the new agency, but the president can waive those rights, in writing, during times of national emergency. That is a slightly higher threshold for waiver than the president has under current law for other departments.
"We believe this approach represents a sensible and reasonable compromise," said Rep. Christopher Shays, D-Conn., who sponsored the amendment.
President Bush said Friday that he would have no choice but to veto the homeland security bill if it did not grant him executive power to hire, fire and transfer employees._
Re: Homeland Security
It may be a matter of semantics but for me 5.1 billion dollars of additional and unrelated spending on the anti-terrorism supplemental is something I feel comfortable calling pork. Maybe a better term would have been "riders". Point being that a lot of dollars unrelated to the intent of the supplemental were marked up and placed under specific conditions of all or none and the President chose none.
Does that mean that what was asked for is not necessary? Well, I believe that 340 million for equipment, facilities, and training of firefighters and EMS personnel seems to be a sound expenditure of our tax money. Is the remaining 4.7 billion as worthy? Don't know, as I haven't read what it covered, have you?
It may be a matter of semantics but for me 5.1 billion dollars of additional and unrelated spending on the anti-terrorism supplemental is something I feel comfortable calling pork. Maybe a better term would have been "riders". Point being that a lot of dollars unrelated to the intent of the supplemental were marked up and placed under specific conditions of all or none and the President chose none.
Does that mean that what was asked for is not necessary? Well, I believe that 340 million for equipment, facilities, and training of firefighters and EMS personnel seems to be a sound expenditure of our tax money. Is the remaining 4.7 billion as worthy? Don't know, as I haven't read what it covered, have you?
To those participants here involved with volunteer fire departments, I have a question....
St. Mary's is the first place I've lived that had a volunteer fire department. It's a term I'd heard before but never thought much about.
So, do you really receive no compensation? Is there at least some retirement benefit?
If there truly is no financial compensation, that seems morally wrong--like the government is stealing from you. There is no such thing as volunteer plumbers, policemen, engineers, carpenters (apart from Habitat for Humanity volunteers, but you know what I mean), airline pilots, etc.
I really can't think of any other skilled occupation wherein it's common for the practitioners to simply give their work away for free. Why is it that firefighting is different? Shouldn't we be paying these guys for what they do? It looks difficult and dangerous--if I knew how to fight fires I certainly wouldn't do it for free (of course, I'm a jerk and I don't believe in altruism).
Maybe I've been reading too much Ayn Rand stuff, but it really seems wrong to "steal" from people by not compensating them for their skills.
St. Mary's is the first place I've lived that had a volunteer fire department. It's a term I'd heard before but never thought much about.
So, do you really receive no compensation? Is there at least some retirement benefit?
If there truly is no financial compensation, that seems morally wrong--like the government is stealing from you. There is no such thing as volunteer plumbers, policemen, engineers, carpenters (apart from Habitat for Humanity volunteers, but you know what I mean), airline pilots, etc.
I really can't think of any other skilled occupation wherein it's common for the practitioners to simply give their work away for free. Why is it that firefighting is different? Shouldn't we be paying these guys for what they do? It looks difficult and dangerous--if I knew how to fight fires I certainly wouldn't do it for free (of course, I'm a jerk and I don't believe in altruism).
Maybe I've been reading too much Ayn Rand stuff, but it really seems wrong to "steal" from people by not compensating them for their skills.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I agree with those who think the actions of the firefighters are ill-advised. Fire fighters got a lot of great publicity and affection after 9/11, despite the fact that a lot of those who were killed died because they didn't follow well-established procedures. Once one takes off the noble sacrifice glasses, one sees that the FDNY screwed the pooch pretty badly. Yes, more money for communications equipment is important, but all the best C3 technology in the world isn't going to help when you have a cluster of guys dashing off without orders.
In any case, by turning their backs on the memories of those who died because they didn't get the funding they feel they deserve is a very shallow gesture in my eyes. Bush isn't saying that they don't warrant the money in the bill, he's saying that he doesn't want to spend three times more on pork than what the emergency requirements are. Those forefighters need to wake up to the fact that there's more to the world than just their needs.
I have heard President Bush's speech about the pork in the bill, and I am glad he's not going to approve it. Most of the funding that's been added is for new construction and other projects at military bases. Yes, many of these efforts are important, but they are not emergency items or even short lead time items. They are someone's pet projects, and they should go through the regular budget process.
The deal with the "bug house" is that the Smithsonian has a vast warehouse of insect samples that are stored in flammable solutions (alcohol and fermeldehyde), that pose a very slight potential of danger to government buildings if some terrorist decided to blow up that building. So some people want to build a safehouse where these samples can be safely stored away from high-value targets. Again, a nice-to-do thing but not an emergency.
I also agree with Bush's desire to hold out for more control over hiring/firing of government workers in the security groups. I'm glad to see that someone is finally stepping up to the plate and saying that they realize that it was a bad idea to rush to hire 100,000 people before you figure out how to screen and train them, and that they don't want to have to fight through 20,000 union regs to get rid of the bad apples.
You go Bush!
In any case, by turning their backs on the memories of those who died because they didn't get the funding they feel they deserve is a very shallow gesture in my eyes. Bush isn't saying that they don't warrant the money in the bill, he's saying that he doesn't want to spend three times more on pork than what the emergency requirements are. Those forefighters need to wake up to the fact that there's more to the world than just their needs.
I have heard President Bush's speech about the pork in the bill, and I am glad he's not going to approve it. Most of the funding that's been added is for new construction and other projects at military bases. Yes, many of these efforts are important, but they are not emergency items or even short lead time items. They are someone's pet projects, and they should go through the regular budget process.
The deal with the "bug house" is that the Smithsonian has a vast warehouse of insect samples that are stored in flammable solutions (alcohol and fermeldehyde), that pose a very slight potential of danger to government buildings if some terrorist decided to blow up that building. So some people want to build a safehouse where these samples can be safely stored away from high-value targets. Again, a nice-to-do thing but not an emergency.
I also agree with Bush's desire to hold out for more control over hiring/firing of government workers in the security groups. I'm glad to see that someone is finally stepping up to the plate and saying that they realize that it was a bad idea to rush to hire 100,000 people before you figure out how to screen and train them, and that they don't want to have to fight through 20,000 union regs to get rid of the bad apples.
You go Bush!
It seems that the IAFF never intended a boycott of the memorial service. See their information at http://daily.iaff.org/081802has.htm
While not happy about the President's decision to not use the funding they aren't as PO'd as the press made it sound in the article.
While not happy about the President's decision to not use the funding they aren't as PO'd as the press made it sound in the article.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Sounds like someone's trial balloon just went "POP".