Posted on 02/04/2016 8:24:46 AM PST by Gandalf the Mauve
A powerful firefighters union went after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Wednesday for claiming to be their defender and champion in his Iowa caucuses victory speech.
"What Ted Cruz did the other night in his Iowa victory speech is disgusting," said Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters. "He said he embraces fire fighters and the dangerous work they do, says he's our friend and calls himself a great patriot. But when it came time to actually have the backs of fire fighters across the U.S., he was AWOL. Cruz is the worst kind of politician who will say or do anything to get elected."
That anger stems from Cruz invoking the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the work of the first responders in his remarks Monday night, when he said he would be different from President Barack Obama....
But what irks Schaitberger is that Cruz opposed reauthorizing the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which provides health care for those same firefighters and first responders....
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
another Cruz Lie exposed
HuffPo. lol.
A union? Attacking Ted Cruz? Wow...color me shocked.
NOT. Next...
Yeh, Firefighters don’t deserve coverage or consideration by Cruz because they are union.
So Christian.
But St. Cruz prays you know! He is the ‘rigtheous’ one according to his Freeper followers.
Yes, his entire career has been in the govt sector but because he starts fights he’s considered an ‘outsider.’
Guess Alan Grayson is an ‘outsider’ too.
There's more than one union for firemen. This is the smaller, traditionally Communist one. Hence the "International."
The Huffington Post?
Go, Trump! Go, brave Firefighters, and First Responders!
Or do you a fan of all those permanent "temporary" federal programs?
Ted wins on this issue just as he did in Iowa, taking a principled stand against the ethanol subsidy. The 9/11 health bill was just like the Hurricane Sandy relief legislation, larded with pork spending on things quite remote (substantively and geographically) to the title of the bill. That is an easy concept for voters to understand. You see bills all the time with the title “Motherhood, Blind Widows and Orphans Relief act of xxxx” which include massive amounts of spending on completely unrelated matters. The criticism shouldn’t be leveled at those who say stop - but at those who cynically bundle their pet pork under such titles.
Union?!
Says all that needs to be said :/
Sometimes it is like FR has been spoofed...
Go unions, go Bernie! Free stuff for everybody, every special interest! (Cue Howard Dean primal scream.)
The 9/11 Health Bill makes no sense to me. In New York City, firemen, policemen, and other city workers have excellent medical benefits. Why would these workers need additional health insurance or medical coverage? Are we supposed to believe that there are firemen — and I am a big fan of firemen, by the way — who worked on 9/11 and have lost or will lose their medical benefits? If they are still working, they have health insurance; if they’ve retired, they have health insurance; and if they have gone on disability, whether on account of 9/11 or not, they have health insurance.
I’m not being sarcastic when I ask: who would the 9/11 Health Bill cover, and why wouldn’t those people not already have medical coverage?
Ain’t it...
People really ought to do just a tad of research before jumping on this stuff.
Just checking, but what other big gov't subsidies does your version of the Bible tell you to support?
OK, what was attached to the bill that made it unacceptable? Hidden pork, some kind of freedom-killing new regulatory thing, some additional abuse of tax dollars? It happens all the time.
-----
It is not 100% coverage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.