Alex Koppelman at the New Yorker writes that the reason House Republicans are having trouble with the relief bill for Hurricane Sandy is that it contains almost $30 billion to keep disasters like that one from happening again:
Approving funding to prevent hurricane damage means acknowledging that there is a continuing danger from hurricanes and that it is getting worse, and that means acknowledging that the funding is not just part of some liberal global-warming conspiracy. (An example, from Heritage’s Katherine Rosario: "Rather than concretely helping hurricane victims rebuild and get on their feet, which would be a more proper manifestation of the federal government’s role in our lives, they've taken it upon themselves to decide to spend our money to change the climate of our planet.")
Worse, though, is that the right's lack of foresight isn’t restricted to this one issue. Funding projects that might help Americans who haven’t even been born yet might be good policy, but it’s not going to get anyone elected.
The House today managed to pass one part of the Sandy relief package -- with notable resistance from a Gulf Coast lawmaker. (H/t Justin Sink of the Hill's Morning Read.)
Leave a Comment:
Repubers have everything against a future that they cannot own, steal from, or use as a weapon. Their is something uniquely different about the republican brain - and it ain't good. Perhaps it's a bit like when Marty Feldman returned to Gene Wilder and replied to his question about the label on the jar whereas Marty identified the former owner "Abbey Normal".
And ... because they won't be very prominent in it ...
"The longer I'm here the more I think this planet is used by other planets as an asylum for the insane."
--- George Bernard Shaw
Spending ANY money on "future items" is anathema to the End Times Evangelicals in the Congress.
Amen brother. This also means that tithes are no longer needed of course.
Part of this mess could be alleviated by not allowing any house on the beach to be rebuilt if destroyed. The property should be bought and become public land. A buffer zone would eventually be in place. The government can take your land and give it to a business or make it into a parking lot under "imminent domain" so why not let them take it to make a buffer against further damages?
What the republicans are up to is called being arrogant. They simply say no to anything they themselves are not proposing. It has nothing to do with governing or patriotism.
Paul,
You write some great posts, and I agree with you pretty much all the time. I don't mean to act all know-it-all-y (the only thing I am certain of is that I don't know everything), but the doctrine you refer to is "eminent domain."
Thanks, I was unsure of it as I wrote. You are correct of course. In my defense I was schooled in the South.
Paul,
I disagree. Someone should be able to rebuild a house in an area that has been prone to damage from flooding.
But not by using any government assistance to either rebuild and help pay for flood or other insurance. They should pay all the cost and assume all the risk. They should also not expect first-responder assistance to help evacuate or rescue them in the future. This includes infrastructure - roads and utilities. When I say All the cost and risk, I mean ALL.
There is no stronger defense than having been schooled in the South. Fortunately you have overcome this almost entirely.
I wasn't aware that anyone was schooled in the South.
TheRealChris --
Well, *I* was. Admittedly in what was the most liberal part of Alabama at the time (Huntsville during the 1950s and early 1960s).
Also admittedly far, far less in public schools than by my Depression-adult parents, wrapped like a warm blanket in lots and lots of books.
Left shortly thereafter, never to return.
Sigh, Katherine Rosario again shows that she is willing to make a fool out of herself for her rich employers. Since when are future disaster mitigation projects an attempt to change the weather? Does she not understand the term "mitigate"?
I'm thinking if this woman didn't have a keeper, she would stand outsize in a blizzard because she knows you can't change the weather and going inside would only be a worthless "disaster mitigation project"!
Errr....that is "outside" in a blizzard....
Thank all of you for NOT commenting on all my typos....
Oh brother. You want help for the Sandy victims, fine. You want to whine about anything else? Be honest about it and put it up for a separate vote. Ah, there's the rub. Honesty.
A pox of Chris Christie on your house, Airball. I don't agree with him a ton either, but at least he cares about people. That's extremely rare in a Repub these days.
Ah Blankman, trolling again. Vote did you say when all the GOTP does is obstruct even the mention of a "vote" on anything except women's wombs...Tsk, tsk...
A disaster relief plan should be just that - relief for the victims of the disaster. Any other expenditures, while possibly worthy, should be part of a separate bill and included in the budget - provided Reid ever passes one.
A disaster relief plan should be just that - relief for the victims of the disaster. Any other expenditures, while possibly worthy, should be part of a separate bill and included in the budget - provided Reid ever passes one.
The pork was stripped from the bill-Boehner wouldn't let it be voted on.
Your move.
The pork came out of this round. We'll see next round.
...
Of course the GOP is afraid of the future--the present is not what it used to be.
A contributing factor to the illogicality of conservative thinking is the fact that their past never was what they hold it to have been.
It's a mark of superior maturity and wisdom to act for the benefit of the long term, especially for future generations such that the decision maker may not even feel the benefit during his lifetime.
An infant is all about his own comfort in the moment, while a young child learns to delay gratification for a few minutes or hours. The good parent puts the needs of his child first. And it's the wisest among us who lay the groundwork for projects that may not come to fruition for many years and will last for generations. Think public education or interstate highway system, for example.
So where do you think the Congress we know and love fits along that continuum?
JL - you win the award for "Best Rhetorical Question in a Supporting Blog!"
Where is the Congress we know and love? I wasn't aware that it existed.
As usual, repubs are too intellectually-challenged to understand that preparing for the future is far more cost-effective than reacting to a preventable disaster. How much would Katrina have cost if the levees had been sufficient to stop the flooding? How much would Sandy have cost if basic infrastructure had been built to withstand a major hurricane? Odds are that we would have saved $10 for every dollar spent in prevention.
Same with health maintenance programs as opposed to triple-bypass surgery after the damage is done. Just sayin'. . . .
Uffda guy (a fellow Norskie, I'm assuming), I don't disagree with you about prevention, certainly not in the case of New Orleans, but what would have been the rationale for NY and NJ preparing for a massive hurricane when the chances of such an occurrence were slim to none for hundreds of years? Global climate change is a new paradigm we need to accept in order to prepare for similar events in the future. That's the first hurdle -- getting the ostriches to pull their heads out of the sand.
While "Fairy Tales" usually have happy endings, it would do well if the GOTP actually woke up to "REALITY" and recognize what is really going on! This petulant, small charactered bunch of ignoramuses are a stain on our body politic.
Actually, reality is that every item in these bills comes with a massive price tag.
So if they make the choice to go through a bill carefully instead of the "you have to pass the bill to see what is in it" mentality... I'm all for it.
However, I do say shame on congress that it took 2 months for a disaster aid bill to come up for a vote...
So this is the pork the gotp Republicans keep talking about.
30 Billion will not stop a disaster like that from happening again nor will any quantity.The spending gods and the titans of taxing never rest.I guess you really do think you can control nature now.No one is against aid for Sandy victims, the unrelated pork that accompanies any bill is what we oppose.Then we're accused of being "incompassionate" or greedy.Many citizens are ignorant enough to believe it too.Reality shows and Hollywood fashion or jock sniffing athlete worshiping is all the want to know about.
We ought to bring a "Matter at Hand" bill to the floor. Just relevant and pertinent legislation DIRECTLY related to the problem being addressed.No more spin doctors or word smiths not writing in laymens' terms.The bovine excrement must stop!!!
They truly can't see the forest for the trees. Stay mired in the petty and the polarized and watch our nation continue to fall ever further behind.
They also don't seem to grasp the concept of 'home'. It's why people went back to New Orleans, why people live in swamps, why people stay in countries that have 75% top tax rates. And as global warming trudges on, there will be ever fewer 'safe' places to locate. Either we think big and figure out how to mitigate damages in the future, or we stay small and fade into the warm abyss. It would probably be comparable to a certain theology's warm abyss...
"What House Republicans have against the future"
Same thing they have against science I guess; the fact that it's sometimes difficult to face.
The deficit is so boring and the debt ceiling is even more boring. Both are made up. There in no debt problem and there is no deficit problem. People who understand the governments powers and commodities are mildly disturbed that our government is dysfunctional, but most are just worried that the government might not send them a check or buy their product or service. I almost rolled on the floor when the Republicans said Governments do not create jobs. Just the cars they buy creates tons. Just think of the paper and office product well you get the idea. But why the debt and deficit are not a problem. The government lease land to oil and gas companies to the tune of millions of acres. If the government wanted to pay off the deficit it could order oil companies to send a million barrel of oil a month to pay off the debt. It's as simple as that. The government has the power and the right to do that. The national oil reserve is obtained as a donation from oil companies in lieu of taxes. Oil companies have so much oil that it is less expensive to donate oil than it is to pour oil into the reserve. That is just one commodity the U.S. could use to pay the debt. There are others. Like corn, wheat, iron, you just name it and it would be appealing to some other country. The president could sign an order to do that and bang it's payed no muss no fuss. The only reason that we don't use this to pay the debt and the deficit is that it forces the price of that commodity down on the world market. The U.S. just sells the promise that a commodity backs the money it borrows. Not a specific commodity but a commodity. It could be wood or silver, or gold. Gold would put more Gold in the market so the U.S. doesn't trade it. it is a stabilizer. Lowering the price of gold buy putting it in the market would freak people out because their shiny stuff would fall in price. So Rachel, the question here is really how much should government do to maintain its infrastructure and the common good. Republicans generally think not much. Democrats think not so much they won't lift themselves up, but enough to give them a boost and help those who have given so much to our country through service and work and those who are unable to do so. Oh and there is an acceptable level of unemployment for the government. The government knows that if jobs were not hard to get people would not work in some areas. Who would run a sewer plant if they could make the same doing something more pleasant. Personally I think there would be someone, bit I practical.
So the Govt doesn't have to worry about the debt because it can seize stuff and give it to someone else? Well that does describe taxation, but it obvious you have no idea how much stuff you'd have to confiscate to cover a trillion dollars, not to mention how much you sound like the soon to be departed Hugo Chavez.
Meanwhile, Govt doesn't create jobs, it takes money from people that make things, i.e. economic wealth. Makers, takers. Congratulations, you are authoritarianism personified.
So God says, "Build an Ark 300 cubits by 300 cubits by 300 cubits and put two of all my Creation in it."
"Well, maybe God," replied the republican. "You see, we won't vote on the money and there hasn't been a flood for 2000 years. And I don't see a cloud in the sky."
God is silent and the request is forgotten. 3 years later the Earth floods and the republican faces God in Heaven. "Why didn't you warn me this was gonna happen?" he whined.
"I did," replied God.
"But that was three years ago!"
"I gave you just enough time to vote for the money to build the Ark," replied God. "I couldn't hold back the inevitable forever."