Repub writer putting blame on FAA on the Dems.

[The Backlash Cometh]

I find all kinds of wrong with his reasoning. First, because I don't think it's the Dem's fault. Second, because subsidizing airport safety is never a bad thing. Third, because keeping smaller airports solvent is also not a bad idea. And fourth, everything changed after 9/11.

Blame for FAA fiasco falls squarely on Democrats

There is a reason for the hyperbole. Democrats want to distract you from what is really going on because this self-inflicted wound is entirely their doing.

The flap is over federal subsidies for rural airports, known as the Essential Air Service program.

It began in 1978 when the feds deregulated airlines. The smaller, unprofitable rural airports were going to lose their service.

So the feds gave carriers cash incentives to continue flights.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-mike-thomas-mica-faa-080411-20110803,0,2837396.column

[marmar]

1. This dude has five brain cells, three of which are battling each other.

nt

[gratuitous]

2. No, this is Republican pettiness at its best

Delta Airlines got munched by a ruling against them for their union-busting ways. The Republicans promulgated a reauthorization of FAA funding that would make it easier for Delta to keep their employees working for less money and fewer benefits. They knew the anti-union language would make the bill unpalatable to Democrats, but they passed it anyway. When it went down to predictable defeat, the Republicans simply let the FAA funding lapse, putting passengers at risk, forcing inspectors to work for free (and hope they get paid for their time later), and shutting down construction projects. The Republicans deem these all acceptable losses to curry favor with Delta, confident that they will pay no price, politically or otherwise, for this betrayal of the public.

I think they're wrong.

[Igel]

3. Simple solution, then.

Have the Senate vote on the bill, amended if they don't like the House version; then they can deal with conference committee. They've had many a bill worked over *during* a real recess. This isn't even a real recess.

Or perhaps the Senate could have voted it down.

Instead, the Senate decided to say, "Oh, look: A bill. Let's have somebody else pick up the bill, we're going home."

As it is, the Senate seems to be saying, a bit too often: Look, House, we don't like this bill, it's so DOA that we're not even going to bother to vote on it--we just want you to go and pass a bill to our liking, one that we can pass without having to work out any relations between the (D) and the (R).

That's not the Senate's role, whatever Reid may think.

The (R) are petty. But it's hard to see the (D) as having much more heft.