Roy Blunt's disastrous response to disasters
Yael T. AbouhalkahPoor Roy Blunt. The Republican U.S. senator from Missouri looks like a hypocrite for voting against federal assistance for victims of Superstorm Sandy.
The Star’s story includes Blunt’s “defense,” that the normal budgeting process wasn’t followed in the case of Sandy, explaining why Blunt was more prone to support U.S. assistance for victims of the 2011 Joplin tornado.
In reality, of course, the Joplin twister struck the state of Missouri - which Blunt represents - which more accurately tells people why he was all for getting U.S. taxpayers to chip in a couple of years ago.
As he said at the time: “When the disaster exceeds the ability of communities and states, the federal government has a responsibility to help people rebuild.”
Now Blunt is saying something similar, but playing along with the conservative Republican thought process that disaster assistance has to be “offset” with spending reductions.
If that idea really made much sense, the U.S. Congress would have been doing that after every disaster. The members don’t do that, partly because they have a long history of trying to quickly respond to disasters. Also, Congress doesn’t have a very responsible budgeting process anyway, so disasters never seem to be budgeted for, even though they occur every year.
In this case, Blunt and other GOP members who voted against help for Sandy’s victims want to look like the good guys and gals on the budget. Gosh, we’d be glad to be of assistance, but we just don’t have the money.
Blunt, though, made sure Congress found the money in 2011 when one of Missouri’s towns was leveled by a tornado. It’s a shame - but at least understandable for cheap political reasons - that Blunt couldn’t have the same attitude about the victims of Sandy in 2013.
George Hunsucker
Northland
4 months, 3 weeks agoSo yt, can you tell us how much pork is in this “disaster relief bill”?
I know it will come as a shock to you big-spenders, but America is borrowing $.40 for every $1 it is spending. It is fun to continue the charade, but America is growing poorer and poorer as we amass more debt. But it is fun until the music stops……
Matt Henry
4 months, 3 weeks agoCan’t you even give lip service to the real reason this bill had so many detractors, that it was laden with pork so that nearly half of the amount wasn’t going to help recover from the storm?
Why do you have to consistently be such a shill for the left? Don’t you have any principles in your bones at all?
Mark Hastert
4 months, 3 weeks agoGee I hope we don’t have any tornadoes or floods along the Missouri River. Sen Blunt and his colleagues just might get a bad case of what goes around comes around.
Matt Henry
4 months, 3 weeks agoIf the bill to help us out includes subsidies and payouts to other businesses and special interests that have absolutely nothing to the do with these tornadoes and floods, to the tune of $.40 for every dollar, then I would hope his “colleagues” would have the good sense to vote no until they do the right thing.
Shelley Powers
4 months, 3 weeks agoAnd here we have in comments, yet more nice, generous Republicans who most likely didn’t say the same thing about “pork” when it came to the many disasters suffered in Missouri—including the floods, which cost money because we have people demanding to build homes and farms in flood plains.
Yeah, show us how generous and open and caring Missourians are.
And next disaster hits this state—most likely this year—be sure to say, no you all don’t want federal aid.
Shelley Powers
4 months, 3 weeks agoMatt Henry, prove it. You’re making claims, but I notice you don’t provide references to back your claims.
You haven’t looked at the bill. You most likely picked up your ‘information’ from Limbaugh or Hannity, or idiotic son Paul.
Kent Mueller
4 months, 3 weeks agoShelley, I read with humor your comment..”Matt Henry, prove it. You’re making claims, but I notice you don’t provide references to back your claims.”
I’ll let Matt respond if he so desires. But, the funny part is this…..Shelley, you said he “most likely picked up your “information” from Limbaugh or Hannity, or idiotic son Paul.”
Shelley…Your’re making claims, but I notice you don’t provide references to back your claims!!!!! Now, where did I hear that? Shelley, how do you know where Matt gets his information?
It is amazing how many times I hear and see liberals say what they “know” about conservatives. Amazing.
Phil Cardarella
4 months, 3 weeks agoRoy does NOT “look like a hypcrite.”
Roy IS a hypocrite.
Matt Henry
4 months, 3 weeks agoOh for Pete’s sake. Even Michael Freakin’ Bloomberg criticized the amount of unrelated expenses in this bill. I didn’t know there was a person on either side of the aisle who didn’t acknowledge this obvious point, but I have to defend it against an ideological illiterate? Oh well….
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/03/pork-holding-up-senate-sandy-relief-bill-funneled-into-the-troughs-of-gop-deficit-hawks-you-betcha/
How many more links do you want? 100? 1000?
Oh, and if you don’t think conservatives have been just as critical of Republicans as Democrats on spending then you are just providing more evidence that you have been paying absolutely no attention.
Nancy Rapp Goth
4 months, 2 weeks ago@Matt Henry - the Forbes article in your link refers to a Senate version from December which the House refused to take up, vs HR 152, passed by the House on Jan 15, 2013 which I believe was passed today by the Senate.
Nancy Rapp Goth
4 months, 2 weeks agoThe governors of the tri-state area most impacted by Sandy — New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut — cited a damage figure stemming from the storm of $82 billion, so H.R. 152 covers about 62 percent of the total damage.
Nancy Rapp Goth
4 months, 2 weeks agoThe final package voted on the by House consisted of the Rogers and Frelinghuysen amendments and the disaster aid reforms. Ultimately the bill provides around $50.5 billion to the areas affected by the storm. Almost all of that total is designated “emergency spending,” meaning it falls outside of budgetary caps established for this fiscal year by the 2011 debt ceiling agreement.
Matt Henry
4 months, 2 weeks agoI offer my mea culpas in that it is true that the final bill was much less “pork-laden” than that which had passed the senate but ultimately couldn’t get through the house. As for those who voted against the bill, Pat Toomey’s comment sums it up pretty well:
“Some people have used the occasion of the misery these people are suffering through to add on all kinds of spending that has absolutely nothing to do with Superstorm Sandy, and none of it is offset…”
While it was not at greasy as the first bill (because of resistance in the house), the final did have more than a pittance in money spent that was for pet projects. Would there have been more than a handful of votes against the bill had it not had a bunch of non-essential stuff tacked on? I doubt it. I don’t blame these Congressmen for trying to force some fiscal restraint while so many of the rest are acting like we are not 16t in debt.
George Hunsucker
Northland
4 months, 2 weeks agoOK nancy, are you saying the bill has zero pork spending?????
George Hunsucker
Northland
4 months, 2 weeks agoWhen did it become the federal govt’s job to rebuild state infrastructure due to natural disasters?
I know you libs loveeeeeeeeeeeeeee big govt., but this is ridiculous…..