What saved the 9/11 first responder bill?

Great news: a 9/11 health bill passed the Senate! But wait, what changed? Why did GOP opposition go away? Most reports on the new version of the 9/11 bill appear content with the low-hanging fruit and what the Republicans want you to see as their main objection. If you just skim the headlines, you might think it was John Stewart shaming Congressional Republicans combined with the new version lowering the cost estimate versus the original version.

Dig deeper. The big, hairy deal for the Republicans was the change in how we're paying for it ... and not in an entirely good way. The old bill was paid for by closing a tax loophole benefiting foreign corporations. As the Financial Times put it, "But the revenue offsets could prove to be significant irritants in economic ties with China and India." So the Chamber of Commerce, with significant dues coming from China and India, lobbied against the bill for that reason. As previously detailed, the GOP listens to the Chamber. Pressure from John Stewart or no, the Republicans weren't about to accept any bill closing that tax loophole and making the Chamber -- by far the top spending lobbying group -- less eager to campaign for the GOP. The new version instead sets up a fee on government procurement contracts with countries that haven't signed onto a WTO agreement and extends visa fees. That's less offensive to the Chamber, so it's OK with the Republicans.

I suppose the new way of paying for it is OK. At first glance, it at least sounds better than not implementing those fees. But imagine if the GOP weren't so influenced by the Chamber. Maybe in that alternate world we would have done both: closed the loophole and implemented the fees.

After the photo op (how the GOP turned their backs on 9/11 first responders)

The story in the House of the bill to care for 9/11 first responders is well told by the folks at Crooks and Liars in "Republicans to 9/11 Responders: Die, and Die Quickly". They include a list of the mostly Republican set of House members who voted against it. There's also a good video of Rep Weiner standing up for what's right, not just in supporting the bill but also in how things should be done.

"If you believe that it's right, you vote yes. You don't hide behind procedure and give cover to your pals." -- Rep. Anthony Weiner

Here's are the Republican Senators who effectively stood against the 9/11 first responders by filibustering the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010:

NAYs ---42
Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brown (R-MA) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID)	DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kirk (R-IL) Kyl (R-AZ) LeMieux (R-FL)	Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 1

Brownback (R-KS) While the majority leader also technically voted against closure, he's the one Senator who had good excuse. With the abuse of the filibuster, it has become common for the majority leader to switch his vote to "no" at the last minute in order to retain the ability to reintroduce the bill later. The rest of them -- all those Republicans -- should have their names inscribed and displayed as the main exhibit in a museum of shame and hypocrisy.