Getty Images
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) faced an unexpected firestorm this week when he allowed the 112th Congress to expire without considering federal aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy. The Senate had already approved a $60.4 billion bill, including grants for homeowners and businesses, and investments in regional infrastructure, but Boehner chose not to act.
Under intense bipartisan pressure, the Speaker promised policymakers from affected areas that Sandy aid would be at the top of the to-do list in the new Congress. And sure enough, the House, on its first full day, approved some relief funding.
Under intense pressure from New York and New Jersey officials, the House on Friday adopted legislation that would provide $9.7 billion to cover insurance claims filed by individuals whose homes were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Sandy.
The measure is the first, and least controversial, portion of a much larger aid package sought by the affected states to help homeowners and local governments recover costs associated with the storm. The House has pledged to take up the balance of the aid package on Jan. 15.
Because measures cannot be carried over from Congress to Congress, the Senate still needs to approve this new House aid, but the upper chamber is expected to clear the funding later today.
It's worth noting that the House vote was one-sided, but it wasn't unanimous. The final tally was 354 to 67, and all 67 opponents were Republicans, which followed lobbying efforts from the far-right Club for Growth, which opposed the relief. Among the "nay" votes: failed vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
Today's vote authorized the National Flood Insurance Program to borrow $9.7 billion to fill claims. The provisions Republicans are likely to find more controversial -- $51 billion in aid -- will come to the House floor in two weeks.
Leave a Comment:
I know who's not going to contribute to that 2016 campaign Ryan's hoping for.
Club for Growth??!!?!
Why not some fiscally responsible Pay as we Go? How about charging the fossil fuel industry the clean up costs of this CO2 Spill that washed up on New York and New Jersey beaches?
Because it would slow down the relief, and relief for every other major disaster has been free of the wrangling and delay associated with a tax bill. We should have a carbon tax, but that should be separate from the relief bill.
When Mt. St. Helen clogged roads and rivers with ash, metro NYC paid.
When metro San Francisco suffered the Loma Prieta quake, metro NYC paid.
When Hurricane Andrew devastated southern Florida, metro NYC paid.
When the Midwest flooded, metro NYC paid.
Et cetera.
Fine. Split it off as a separate bill, and watch the GOP line up against fiscal responsibility.
It would be so precious.
The 67 Confederates prove that nothing changes with these scum. As Confederate VP Alexander Stephens said in April 1861:
What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river.
Ah yes. If we start building interstate transportation and interstate commerce then we shall need to require interstate businesses to pay their share. If we are to worry about a storm then we will be trapped into worries over floods, epidemics, sanitation and all such matters that the people see as required for the health and welfare of the nation as a whole.
"We the People of the United
States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"
OOOPS.
Oh, isn't that just special???
Though there are state overlaps here for some of the reps... I would just love to see these 67 be turned against when they need anything for their states. That would be a great act of Karma.
I guess Paul Ryan was feeling guilty for voting for the Fiscal Cliff bill.
Jerks.
How long would the confederacy have lasted if the Union had simply waved good-bye and then refused to trade with them? Suppose the Union had barricaded all roads,rivers and ports from entry by Confederate states? Would the south be in Mexico now?Would they have fought each other over land and slaves? Would England had actually continued relations with the South? I wonder?
Maybe Paul Ryan can take his kids to an empty beachfront neighborhood and teach them how to pretend to help. That kind of parenting should be right up his alley, along with empty Soup Kitchens.
Could it be "shame" that made the Speaker bring this bill to a vote? As for the 67 that voted against this bill - let's see what you say when a natural disaster affects your constituents and state....SMH!!
Could it be "shame" that made the Speaker bring this bill to a vote?
More likely the threat of disgusted Mid-Atlantic and New England Republicans leaving the GOP.
Amazing ! That is about all that I can state , I thought for certain that these repTards would keep up their wall of obstruction , Well 67 of these repTards are true P'sOS , that's for sure !
They are NOT against relief. What a crock. Just because one disagrees with the method and process does not mean they do not want needy people to get assistance. From the article you link:
It stands to reason that people in Washington can not be as accountable for proper use of funds than those closer to the need.
okay, so why none of this mentioned in disasters before Obama took office? Hmmmm? Why such "concern" now?
oh staunch those crocodile tears.
So, if the federal government doesn't send the money, the states should come up with it, Rob?
There statement does not address that issue, Uffdaguy. It doesn't make sense though that some states could deal with the financial burden of a natural disasters. It is a little disproportionate though. North Dakota will never need hurricane relief and blizzards do not do nearly the amount of structural damage. And it doesn't make sense to me to have a city like New Orleans that is BELOW sea level so populated, just like it doesn't make sense to continue to rebuild in a flood zone...that type of stuff.
And velkyn, the absence of objection in prior administration has merit, certainly. I guess one could say the debt continues to grow at a record pace and that could prompt more concern, but your point is valid. If, though, one agrees with the logic it would be stupid to ignore it only because you have grounds to question motive. If someone is shouting the building is on fire but they've bought fire insurance themselves, I'm still getting out of the building and later addressing their motive.
So basically, you are saying that there really should be no UNITED States of America, just a BUNCH of States of America. Here in Minnesota, I don't really have any fear of amphibious invasion from overseas, so does that mean I shouldn't have to pay taxes to support the Navy? There is no point in being anything more than a tribal society like Afghanistan if you are not willing to see the entire nation succeed. If we had decided to remain a loose confederation of independent states, as some of the Founding Fathers discussed in the earliest days after independence, then we would never have become the great nation we are today. It's the same old right-wing crock, talking about rugged independence, when in fact, only a miniscule number of people in this world could ever be truly independent, and almost none of them being American. The blue states, especially those in the Northeast, consistently pay out far more in taxes than they ever get back. They fund the military that ends up based in red states, benefitting their economies. They fund welfare for the poor rural whites in the South. They have funded disaster relief for hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, and just about any other disaster you can think of. Now, when they need help for a change, the moochers and takers in the red states complain about helping out their fellow citizens. Frankly, I've had more than enough of that hypocrisy, and I'm half hoping that the next time a massive hurricane devastates Florida, or drought continues to destroy farmland all across the South, or tornadoes rip paths of death and destruction through Old Dixie, that congressional delegations from the Northeast will refuse any assistance unless there are offsets, such as in military bases and defense contracts down south. Wanna rebuild Florida after the next Andrew? Ok, you can pay for it by shutting down a few of those military bases and ports in the Sunshine State.
Uffdaguy, I'm not saying there's no role for the federal government in relief programs, I'm just saying there's two sides to the issue both pro and con, one example illustrated by this quote from a Washington Post article:
There are limited resources for everything the government does and we've done a poor job (on both sides) of prioritizing and making long term decisions. Feel free to disagree.
Sorry, there aren't two sides to this, there's only one: that of the United States of America. A country that takes care of its citizens when things such as Hurricane Sandy happen and treats such occurrances for what they are: emergencies the effects of which are repaired now while taking steps to mitigate those effects should they occur again.
The Federal government has access to unlimited funds, if you wish to argue that those funds shouldn't be used to help victims of a natural disaster or to ensure that when the next hurricane strikes the northeast the damage won't be so great, fine. Argue away.
Just can the "worry" about costs. It's transparently false, especially coming from anyone who's supported any Republican since the turn of the century.
Doug, no is saying do not help those in need during an emergency, the questions is "how"...what's the best process, method, mechanism, source, etc... Sorry if you can not see that.
What? Then what the hell is anyone debating about, just pay every citizen $1 million a year and everybody go home! You really think the government has acces to "unlimited funds"????????????
Gee, it only took two months! Way to go for disaster relief! A-holes.
so, how long until these 67 twits cast votes for disaster funding in their states? Well, I'm guessing most already have.
Can we all just agree that they're evil and move on?
The Do-Nothings did something? Weird. Twilight Zone weird.
If Congress is worried about where the money for natural disasters will come from, we can take from Congresses pay. Working two weeks of every month with free medical and pension, I know they can afford it. Congress worked 8 days in November, the people of New York, New Jersey workd hard to stay warm, after they lost their homes and jobs. I just can't wait until a disaster hits Virgina, what ever will Eric Cantor do? Where will the money come from, LOSER!
Congress works an average of two days per week per year. They just need to give up some pay for time they don't work anyway.
I'm just wondering, do the people that own beachfront homes still get their replacement flood insurance from the government for $5 a year?
One of the 67 Republicans voting against the bill for Hurricane Sandy relief was Greg Palazzo, of Biloxi MS (one of the places hit hardest by Katrina). Here's what he had to say about federal hurricane relief after being hit by Hurricane Isaac, just this past summer:
I welcome the federal disaster assistance designation for the state of Mississippi, including all 15 counties currently located in the 4th Congressional District. President Obama signed a Major Disaster Declaration for the State of Mississippi making federal aid available to supplement state and local response efforts for emergency protective measures and debris removal in the area affected by Hurricane Isaac beginning on August 26, 2012.
He was also one of the co-sponsors of H.R. 6459 to provide disaster relief.
Sorry, Ms. Conaway, but for every silver lining you find, there are 10,000 dark clouds in Mississippi, the state that should find itself another country to be part of.
Southern hypocrisy - it makes any other hypocrisy look like nothing.
Some of the GOP from KS also voted no on this bill. When Greensburg was leveled, the government did not hesitate to give KS the assistance needed to rebuild. There are natural disasters every single year in KS and every single year, KS applies for relief. Last year we had the worst droughts in a long time and Wichita was hit with the worst tornado in years. So why would the idiots vote no on this bill. The pork was taken out of the bill. This bill was supposed to be about helping NY and NJ rebuilding what they lost due to no fault of their own. Our KS reps are alienating our great state from the rest of the country. The Koch brothers have bought the GOP. These people need to get their heads out of each other's butts and realize that KS is going to need assistance again this year and next year and the year after. I don't like saying this, but when the time comes, if I were a representatve from NY and NJ, I would vote NO for the relief.
In case you want a list of those voting against the bill...a place to start for 2014
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll007.xml
The situation in this country will not change until the people decide it needs to...2014 is coming...let's change things...
As the average temperature rises 5 degrees or so this century and climate changes occur, I am really hoping that tornadoes or other natural disasters will devastate the homes of the GOP Billionaires' Club, who manipulate the TP, media, and government to their own ends, rape the nation and 99.99% of its citizens, and continue to deny that their policies and subsidies have any negative effects on us or our Earth. Just like tobacco doesn't cause cancer or other health problems... But I doubt it has occurred to them that there might be some negative consequences that their vast resources can't save them from, since they now do such a good job of living a life removed. We must do things to get them out of our way by 2014 to survival in future, let alone health and happiness.
Greater than 50% of Texas Revenue is Federal Revenue + 6 Military bases + NASA + Border Patrol + 4 Drones + Filed for FEMA relief 325 times! + Road Construction + Health care + Food. If they loose all of there Federal Revenue Texas State taxes will most likely go up at least 300%! I thought Texans balanced there budgets and did not need the Federal Government?