When I heard this, earlier this morning I couldn't believe it, but then again, the GOP is aparently doing everything they can to live-up to the worst image that the public can hold of them. As one Rep from New Jersey asked,, "Is it because we're blue states and we voted for a Democratic president?" Never in the history of Congress has the House failed to vote for disaster aid. As I was walking across the parking lot on my way to work this morning, where the windchill was hovering near zero degrees, and the wind coming off the Atlantic, I can picture what conditions must be like to the people of New York and the mid-Atlantic states, except, many of these people are still homeless!!!! Even a Rep from New Orleans got up to speak and he was stunned noting that Congress allocated monies for Hurricane Katrina, and that people and organizations from New York and New Jersey assisted people in his state during the disaster. This is shame and the GOP will pay heavily in the end.
Snippet:
House backs away from vote on Sandy relief
Originally published: January 1, 2013 8:12 PM
Updated: January 2, 2013 2:02 AM
By TOM BRUNE [email protected]
WASHINGTON -- In a stunning reversal, the House of Representatives apparently will not vote on the Senate-passed $60.4 billion superstorm Sandy disaster relief package, House officials said Tuesday night.
The surprise decision by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to pull the bill back from an expected vote floored the Long Island delegation, especially Rep. Peter King, of Seaford, the key New York Republican congressman pushing for the aid package. "Tonight's action not to hold this vote on the supplemental is absolutely indefensible," King said. "The bill was ready to go."
Rep. Steve Israel, of Huntington, a member of the House Democratic leadership, also reacted with surprise and anger. "I'm simply shocked at the decision to ignore the Sandy relief bill . . . Congress passed measures to provide aid to Kabul and Baghdad without blinking an eye, but two months after Sandy, the House hasn't acted to help New York."
________________________________________
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/hous ... -1.4396342
House of Rep Nixes Disaster Relief
Moderator: Super Moderators
-
Cherry Kelly
- Pirate
- Posts: 12852
- Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
- Contact:
Cherry Kelly wrote: A bit strange - but what else was attached to the Bill?
Don't know, but this was the bill sent over by the Senate. Seems that the House amended the original bill and removed the line item for the disaster relief, and then a number of representatives took the speaker to task (using the 1-minute speech time alloted for separate discussions) and begged that the speaker reonsider. A vote was called for, the nays had the vote and the House quickly adjourned shortly thereafter. It was quite a spectacle. If you have the chance to see it on CSPAN I recommend that you do.
-
Cherry Kelly
- Pirate
- Posts: 12852
- Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
- Contact:
I would rather see the Riders on the bill.... rad them for myself.
BTW - the fiscal cliff bill passed by the Senate 154 pages received from ??? THREE Minutes - before a vote was taken??? NOT another bill passed without being read!
Wonder if this bill - disaster was also not read in full before sent to house - - -...
BTW - the fiscal cliff bill passed by the Senate 154 pages received from ??? THREE Minutes - before a vote was taken??? NOT another bill passed without being read!
Wonder if this bill - disaster was also not read in full before sent to house - - -...
Can anybody here make a strong case (enumerated powers?) for federal disaster relief - I mean, beyond the emotional stuff? Let me compress reality in order to illustrate my point.
If 'person x' is charged with the task of building a city, and knows there is a tradition of 'federal disaster relief', where is the incentive to build a robust & durable city?
Answer: there is no incentive. Instead, person x will build the most expedient city, and distribute the future liabilities of the decision onto the taxpayers, nationwide.
New Orleans, being built below sea level in a hurricane zone is a prime example of this kind of expedience.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say the largest proponents of 'federal disaster relief' schemes are huge insurance companies who have collected heavy premiums on these 'high risk' properties for ages (which is in reality, due to federal relief, no risk at all) , but now suddenly find it less costly to purchase influential lobbyists to secure 'federal relief' than to actually pay out the claims they would otherwise owe. After all, these corporations must return the largest dividend possible to their 'investors' - it's the law. What a diabolically clever arrangement.
If New York wants to invite 15 million people to reside on a sprinkling of exposed islands, maybe New York should have some sort of workable disaster plan. Or be bonded. Or be held liable. Or have residents sign damage/health waivers.
Related: http://constitutionclub.org/2012/12/21/ ... fest-2012/
http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/edi ... tution.htm
If 'person x' is charged with the task of building a city, and knows there is a tradition of 'federal disaster relief', where is the incentive to build a robust & durable city?
Answer: there is no incentive. Instead, person x will build the most expedient city, and distribute the future liabilities of the decision onto the taxpayers, nationwide.
New Orleans, being built below sea level in a hurricane zone is a prime example of this kind of expedience.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say the largest proponents of 'federal disaster relief' schemes are huge insurance companies who have collected heavy premiums on these 'high risk' properties for ages (which is in reality, due to federal relief, no risk at all) , but now suddenly find it less costly to purchase influential lobbyists to secure 'federal relief' than to actually pay out the claims they would otherwise owe. After all, these corporations must return the largest dividend possible to their 'investors' - it's the law. What a diabolically clever arrangement.
If New York wants to invite 15 million people to reside on a sprinkling of exposed islands, maybe New York should have some sort of workable disaster plan. Or be bonded. Or be held liable. Or have residents sign damage/health waivers.
Related: http://constitutionclub.org/2012/12/21/ ... fest-2012/
http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/edi ... tution.htm
Last edited by SquidInk on 01-02-2013 02:44 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
A few issues with this question as presented. Fist, there is no single operson charged with developing a city, unless you're speaking of a to-be-built city. For the areas here, many of these communities predate the country's founding and were integral to the formation of the country. Many of the major battles, for instance, in the War of Independence were fought in the very area affectd by this storm. These cities and towns developed over the course of the past four hundred years or so, and city planning certainly wasn't a concern back then relative to natural disasters. I can understand the issue of those who deliberately choose to build mega mansions on the coast knowing full well that the area has a history of flooding. I guess a similar argument can be made for, say, the entire state of California and Alasak regarding earthquakes - why build anythikng there knowing that you can get hit by an earthquake, or the entire area from Texas-Mexican border to Canada, between the Rocklies and Apalachians because of the threat of tornados. Can't build there either I guess.....
Personally, I'd rather see us use our funding for relief here first, then worry about the rest of the world afterwards...... Especially since many countries where we send aid, we have peopel screaming "Death to America" and trying to figure out ways to kill people here or abroad.
Personally, I'd rather see us use our funding for relief here first, then worry about the rest of the world afterwards...... Especially since many countries where we send aid, we have peopel screaming "Death to America" and trying to figure out ways to kill people here or abroad.
Diogenes wrote: Another thought - there are many folks who elect to go without insurance.
Even if you don't own a home you can purchase renters insurance which provides you with Loss of Use coverage.
We are bailing out folks in many cases who have elected not to insure.
Perhaps. But then there is also the issue of those who have insured, have paid their (ever-increasing) premiums and are still stuck. Insurers have been rewriting coastal insurance policies the past few years for pretty much the entire northeast. I know that, for where I live, many homeowners who have been living in homes that go back centuries, have seen their premiums skyrocket.
But there is another argument to made, and that is one of scale. OK, so we don't what to bail-out those who live in coastal communities. So, where do we draw the line? Should farmers be uninsurable because, well heck, you KNOW that you're living in an area subject to (pick one) drought, flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes or hail? How about the non-residential properties? Are they also exempt because people were idiotic to site a business in a coastal community? That'll kill the tourism trade in a heartbeat. No hotels, no restaurants, etc. Or, how about industry that relies on being sited in a coastal region like ports and their businesses that make their livelihood off of port business, such as tug boat operators, barges operators, truckers who have to pick-up products that need to make their way inland to all those Red States..... Or, my personal favorite - how about idiots who get themselves lost either hiking or flip their boats out in the ocean, causing rescuers to risk their lives in rescuing them? They should have known, right?
The fact is, for any location in the country, a case can be made for refusing to provide relief in a disaster. The government isn't going to do it. OK, so, who then? Insurers have been long known to find ways to fit-in the fine print to make sure that they don't have to pay claims - remember the old "Act of God" clause? Apparently the only way religion is being recognized in this country nowadays is as a tactic to avoid honoring claims by insurers......
Breaking from Gov Christi. I saw this on CSPAN earlier in the evening. The divide being created by the GOP is both unnecessary and may also create a tit-for-tat scenario where what should be a no-brainer vote turns into cases where state are pitted against each other. You can already see the dynamic at work. The GOP is at-risk for alienating voters in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic and sympathetic voters. Sad.......
Snippet:
NJ Gov. Christie blasts fellow Republican Boehner
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican who has praised President Barack Obama's handling of Superstorm Sandy, on Wednesday blasted U.S. House Speaker John Boehner for delaying a vote for federal storm relief.
In an emotional but measured State House news conference, Christie called the speaker's inaction "inexcusable," and said he can no longer believe information he's getting from congressional leaders who had assured him the bill would be brought to a vote.
He accused his party of paying too much attention to "palace intrigue" and said the delay in passing a $60 billion relief bill is hurting the people in his state. New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut suffered the most damage from Sandy.
"There's only one group to blame for the continued suffering of these innocent victims, the House majority and their speaker, John Boehner," Christie said, reading from prepared remarks rather than giving one of his trademark impromptu takedowns of a critic. "This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. National disasters happen in red states and blue states, states with Democratic governors and Republican governors."
The day's message once again cast Christie as someone willing to go against big-wigs in his party.
As he has since the storm ripped up parts of New Jersey's shore and other areas on Oct. 29, Christie said his mission is to help the people of his state recover, not to serve his party.
But once again, he's in an unusual political position for someone on the national stage, though he was right in line with New Jersey officials of both parties who expressed anger Wednesday over the House inaction.
Christie, a high-profile Republican who flirted in 2011 with running against Obama, a Democrat, was a top campaign attraction for Republican candidates this year and a headliner at the National Republican Convention. He publicly praised Obama for his post-storm leadership, and literally embraced him.
It became the stuff of "Saturday Night Live" satire. Some conservatives said Christie's tightness with the president, even as he endorsed Republican Mitt Romney, could have tilted the election.
Now, he is in a public battle with Boehner, the highest-ranking Republican in Congress. Christie's news conference came hours after a phone conversation he said he had with Boehner; he would not say what they told one another.
At the news conference, he directed a comment to Boehner: "Do your job and come through for the people of this country."
Even before word came out Wednesday afternoon that Boehner was planning a vote on the aid by Jan. 15, Christie said assurances like those don't mean anything to him now.
"There is no reason for me at the moment to believe anything they tell me because they've been telling me stuff for weeks and they haven't delivered," said Christie.
Christie said the House was playing politics with the aid and that it's hurting people in the three East Coast states who are relying on aid decisions to be able to repair their homes, reopen businesses and make decisions about how to rebuild after the storm of two months ago.
Should he decide to seek the presidency in 2016, Christie's stance — putting loyalty to his oath of office over party orthodoxy — could pay dividends with a general electorate that generally disdains Washington and anyone considered an insider.
Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, said Christie's attack was emblematic of a division emerging in the Republican Party between the more conservative members who are calling for spending cuts wherever and whenever possible and "more pragmatic" members of the party who think that spending is needed in certain instances.
"This is an example of another moment of him separating himself from a section of the GOP that is not very well-liked right now," Zelizer said of Christie. "I don't think it's politics. I think it's general frustration."
But by taking on the Republican leadership and the tea party, Christie could be setting himself up for problems down the road if he tries to seek the nomination of a party that doesn't look kindly on those who break from its ranks.
Gigi Liaguno-Dorr, who lives in the devastated Union Beach, was furious with how little attention — and aid — her blue-collar community has received.
"Do they not want a bill because they don't understand how bad it is here?" she asked. "Is it out of sight, out of mind?"
She also criticized Christie for not visiting her town, though he did mention it Wednesday as a place where a delay in aid would have real effects.
http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/NJ ... 161535.php
Snippet:
NJ Gov. Christie blasts fellow Republican Boehner
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican who has praised President Barack Obama's handling of Superstorm Sandy, on Wednesday blasted U.S. House Speaker John Boehner for delaying a vote for federal storm relief.
In an emotional but measured State House news conference, Christie called the speaker's inaction "inexcusable," and said he can no longer believe information he's getting from congressional leaders who had assured him the bill would be brought to a vote.
He accused his party of paying too much attention to "palace intrigue" and said the delay in passing a $60 billion relief bill is hurting the people in his state. New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut suffered the most damage from Sandy.
"There's only one group to blame for the continued suffering of these innocent victims, the House majority and their speaker, John Boehner," Christie said, reading from prepared remarks rather than giving one of his trademark impromptu takedowns of a critic. "This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. National disasters happen in red states and blue states, states with Democratic governors and Republican governors."
The day's message once again cast Christie as someone willing to go against big-wigs in his party.
As he has since the storm ripped up parts of New Jersey's shore and other areas on Oct. 29, Christie said his mission is to help the people of his state recover, not to serve his party.
But once again, he's in an unusual political position for someone on the national stage, though he was right in line with New Jersey officials of both parties who expressed anger Wednesday over the House inaction.
Christie, a high-profile Republican who flirted in 2011 with running against Obama, a Democrat, was a top campaign attraction for Republican candidates this year and a headliner at the National Republican Convention. He publicly praised Obama for his post-storm leadership, and literally embraced him.
It became the stuff of "Saturday Night Live" satire. Some conservatives said Christie's tightness with the president, even as he endorsed Republican Mitt Romney, could have tilted the election.
Now, he is in a public battle with Boehner, the highest-ranking Republican in Congress. Christie's news conference came hours after a phone conversation he said he had with Boehner; he would not say what they told one another.
At the news conference, he directed a comment to Boehner: "Do your job and come through for the people of this country."
Even before word came out Wednesday afternoon that Boehner was planning a vote on the aid by Jan. 15, Christie said assurances like those don't mean anything to him now.
"There is no reason for me at the moment to believe anything they tell me because they've been telling me stuff for weeks and they haven't delivered," said Christie.
Christie said the House was playing politics with the aid and that it's hurting people in the three East Coast states who are relying on aid decisions to be able to repair their homes, reopen businesses and make decisions about how to rebuild after the storm of two months ago.
Should he decide to seek the presidency in 2016, Christie's stance — putting loyalty to his oath of office over party orthodoxy — could pay dividends with a general electorate that generally disdains Washington and anyone considered an insider.
Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, said Christie's attack was emblematic of a division emerging in the Republican Party between the more conservative members who are calling for spending cuts wherever and whenever possible and "more pragmatic" members of the party who think that spending is needed in certain instances.
"This is an example of another moment of him separating himself from a section of the GOP that is not very well-liked right now," Zelizer said of Christie. "I don't think it's politics. I think it's general frustration."
But by taking on the Republican leadership and the tea party, Christie could be setting himself up for problems down the road if he tries to seek the nomination of a party that doesn't look kindly on those who break from its ranks.
Gigi Liaguno-Dorr, who lives in the devastated Union Beach, was furious with how little attention — and aid — her blue-collar community has received.
"Do they not want a bill because they don't understand how bad it is here?" she asked. "Is it out of sight, out of mind?"
She also criticized Christie for not visiting her town, though he did mention it Wednesday as a place where a delay in aid would have real effects.
http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/NJ ... 161535.php
-
Cherry Kelly
- Pirate
- Posts: 12852
- Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
- Contact:
Should go after insurance companies - list them and homes they were supposedly covering. After all many of those insurance companies are charging and 'covering' such??
A family member lost their home - several miles from the gulf coast. They had both flood and disaster coverage. Their place was flooded from hurricane waters from flooded river - IE flooded from waters going back to gulf. (IE north river going south) - they fought to recover damages for several years after that one and got pennies on the dollar as they say. Needless to say they sold the property and moved north.
Disaster relief package is loaded with pork (as are most bills). There is discussion on removing ALL the pork and only approving actual disaster .... but I say go after the insurance companies for those that were supposed to be covered!
A family member lost their home - several miles from the gulf coast. They had both flood and disaster coverage. Their place was flooded from hurricane waters from flooded river - IE flooded from waters going back to gulf. (IE north river going south) - they fought to recover damages for several years after that one and got pennies on the dollar as they say. Needless to say they sold the property and moved north.
Disaster relief package is loaded with pork (as are most bills). There is discussion on removing ALL the pork and only approving actual disaster .... but I say go after the insurance companies for those that were supposed to be covered!
Cherry Kelly wrote: Should go after insurance companies - list them and homes they were supposedly covering. After all many of those insurance companies are charging and 'covering' such??
A family member lost their home - several miles from the gulf coast. They had both flood and disaster coverage. Their place was flooded from hurricane waters from flooded river - IE flooded from waters going back to gulf. (IE north river going south) - they fought to recover damages for several years after that one and got pennies on the dollar as they say. Needless to say they sold the property and moved north.
Disaster relief package is loaded with pork (as are most bills). There is discussion on removing ALL the pork and only approving actual disaster .... but I say go after the insurance companies for those that were supposed to be covered!
I hear ya. Insurance companies are one of the biggest scams going. You can pay premiums for years - decades even, and if you use your policy once you can be penalized, or then considered uninsurable.
Looks like Cherry Kelly is on to something: Uproar over bloated Sandy Aid Package.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/01/03/mor ... d-package/
It seems that the Main Idea, out of all this crap is to wipe the Repubs off the face of the map, to demonize them and it is going really well in doing so. Not that I have that much sympathy for either party. But if you only watch mainstream media you get the "chant" 40 times or more a day it does magically become true and believed. Even if the Republicans have the greatest ideas to save our sorry asses, who would believe them or even report on it?:(
Drowning people sometimes get very particular on who saves them. I used to think this was a very sarcastic remark, now I believe it is just a true statement.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/01/03/mor ... d-package/
It seems that the Main Idea, out of all this crap is to wipe the Repubs off the face of the map, to demonize them and it is going really well in doing so. Not that I have that much sympathy for either party. But if you only watch mainstream media you get the "chant" 40 times or more a day it does magically become true and believed. Even if the Republicans have the greatest ideas to save our sorry asses, who would believe them or even report on it?:(
Drowning people sometimes get very particular on who saves them. I used to think this was a very sarcastic remark, now I believe it is just a true statement.
Doka wrote: Looks like Cherry Kelly is on to something: Uproar over bloated Sandy Aid Package.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/01/03/mor ... d-package/
It seems that the Main Idea, out of all this crap is to wipe the Repubs off the face of the map, to demonize them and it is going really well in doing so. Not that I have that much sympathy for either party. But if you only watch mainstream media you get the "chant" 40 times or more a day it does magically become true and believed. Even if the Republicans have the greatest ideas to save our sorry asses, who would believe them or even report on it?:(
Drowning people sometimes get very particular on who saves them. I used to think this was a very sarcastic remark, now I believe it is just a true statement.
Ain't it the way though? Put out a spending bill called (whatever) and then load-on the pork. Head Start? Alaskan fisheries???? Looks like the next round of budget meetings are going to be a doozie.....
-
Cherry Kelly
- Pirate
- Posts: 12852
- Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
- Contact:
we need to start one of those petitions we've been hearing about for other things...
NO MORE PORK on bills! ALL bills must be read out loud - all congress critters must personally read each bill and sign a statement that they have done so - before any bill can be read and voted on. KEEP all bills to under 10 pages. (being a bit generous here)
NOW one realizes the budget is way too long, but it too should be gone over by accountants! not these lawyer elected congress critters - break it up into so many pages and go over each item. ANY group that fails to account for every penny to their budget gets an automatic decrease of - say 4-5%. When two or more groups are doing same types of jobs - reduce them to ONE group who also must account for every penny! (OK might be generous here and allow them to be as high as $1 off full accounting.)
NO MORE PORK on bills! ALL bills must be read out loud - all congress critters must personally read each bill and sign a statement that they have done so - before any bill can be read and voted on. KEEP all bills to under 10 pages. (being a bit generous here)
NOW one realizes the budget is way too long, but it too should be gone over by accountants! not these lawyer elected congress critters - break it up into so many pages and go over each item. ANY group that fails to account for every penny to their budget gets an automatic decrease of - say 4-5%. When two or more groups are doing same types of jobs - reduce them to ONE group who also must account for every penny! (OK might be generous here and allow them to be as high as $1 off full accounting.)
Just finished reading McConnell rules out more taxes in fiscal fight . Sounds like the same old political BS to me. Funny thing about all of this, all the cuts are domestic and in areas that would hurt the most, NOT in foreign aid or any of those areas.
And then, of course, there is talk by the Democrats about "more revenue". Just how does government get "revenue"? Well, either rob a bank or raise taxes. Guess what will happen...
Any thoughts?
And then, of course, there is talk by the Democrats about "more revenue". Just how does government get "revenue"? Well, either rob a bank or raise taxes. Guess what will happen...
Any thoughts?
1N73LL1G3NC3 15 7H3 4B1L17Y 704D4P7 70 CH4NG3.
-573PH3N H4WK1NG
-573PH3N H4WK1NG