E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSTwo and a half months after Hurricane Sandy ravaged the Northeast coast, the political fight over federal spending to assist the recovery efforts continues in Congress.
In the end, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut will almost certainly get more than $60 billion in federal aid to help them recover and rebuild.
But efforts by some House members even as late as Monday night to add unrelated funds to the Sandy emergency aid bill provided an object lesson in why such emergency bills are perfect vehicles for adding more spending.
The House on Tuesday will be voting on both a larger Sandy bill, costing $33.7 billion, offered by Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R- N.J., a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, and a smaller one, costing $17 billion, offered by Appropriations Committee chairman Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky.
Recommended: Obama's promises kept and promises broken
If the House were to pass both those bills and if one adds the $9.7 billion that the House OK’d on Jan. 4 in additional borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance Program, the total aid, at least for now, would be $60.4 billion.
At Monday night’s hearing of the House Rules Committee that considered 92 amendments to the bill, Rogers explained that his version was “Sandy only. We tried to rifle-shot money to this immediate catastrophe…. We kept everything out of my bill except Sandy.”
Rogers reminded committee members that tens of billions of federal dollars have already been spent on helping people hurt by Sandy. “So far FEMA has been able to award states a total of $3.1 billion for the immediate needs that have been taking place while we were scouring the numbers (in the big Sandy relief bill),” he reported. “For example, New York has received $2.1 billion and New Jersey almost $900 million, Connecticut $38 million.”
Among the differences between Frelinghuysen’s bigger bill and Rogers’s smaller one: Frelinghuysen would provide more funding for the operations of federal agencies in the Sandy-affected states – even if the agency is not directly engaged in helping people or businesses hit by the storm. For instance, Frelinghuysen’s bill would provide $50 million to the National Park Service’s Historic Preservation Fund for “expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy” and another $10 million for Sandy-related building and construction expenses for the federal prison system. Rogers’s bill does not include this funding.
Some House Republicans are still balking at the sheer size of the bills and at the near certainty that some money won’t be going directly to victims or towns hit by the storm.
J. Scott Applewhite / AP
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, walks to a strategy session with GOP members, on Capitol Hill, Friday, Jan. 4, 2013, at the start of the first full day of business for the new 113th Congress.
Rules Committee member Rep. Rob Woodall, R- Ga., said Monday night, “If we have an urgent need, let’s agree on that number we can agree on and let’s get it out the door with haste, but if we have a giant need, then let’s give it the slow and thoughtful scrutiny that we owe folks back home.”
He noted that a $60 billion bill for Sandy – to be given just a few days of debate -- would be larger than the normal appropriations bills for the State Department or the Homeland Security Department on which Congress deliberates for months.
Disaster relief bills are massive, have emotional appeal, and aren’t subject to as much scrutiny as spending bills that go through the normal Appropriations Committee process.
This bill has particular momentum since House Speaker John Boehner was so harshly criticized by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and House members from the Northeast for not allowing a vote on a Sandy relief bill on New Years’ Eve.
And the bigger the emergency, the better the opportunity to add more money. Last June’s wildfires in Colorado and the 2011 tsunami in Japan both occurred months before Sandy and hundreds or even thousands of miles away from Sandy, but emergency bills are an opportunity to get aboard a moving train and get money for disasters in one’s own district.
For example:
• Rep. Cory Gardner, R- Colo. and other Colorado members proposed $125 million for watershed protection and flood mitigation around the nation, including about $20 million for areas in Colorado burned by last summer’s wildfires. This watershed protection money was in the Sandy bill that the Senate passed last month.
• Rep. Rick Larsen, D- Wash. proposed an amendment to allow the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration greater leeway over the $290 million in Sandy marine debris cleanup funds so that Pacific Coast states could get some of that money to cope with their own marine debris from the March 2011 Japanese tsunami.
“Just last month, an entire Japanese dock washed up on the Washington state coast,” Larsen said in a statement. “Our state and local governments do not have the resources to deal with this problem, which can cost as much as $4,300 per ton of debris that comes ashore.”
Ultimately the Rules Committee did not allow those two amendments to proceed to the House floor for Tuesday’s debate. It did allow a few amendments to try to offset the cost of the Sandy aid.
For example the House will consider a proposal by Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R- S.C. to offset $17 billion in Sandy funding by a 1.63 percent across-the-board cut in non-Sandy discretionary funding.
“I’ve lived through a hurricane myself; I’ve had my office destroyed by a flood; I think this (emergency aid) is a proper function of the government….I just want to try to find a way to pay for it,” Mulvaney told the Rules Committee. “This is important; there is no question. Is it important enough to borrow money from China to do it, especially when we’re already borrowing money from China to do so many other things?”
Leave a Comment:
Two and a half months... Utterly ridiculous!!!
Since when has it become acceptable to turn our backs on fellow Americans who are suffering through NO fault of their own???
Instead of Congress working 5 days a month, they should keep their sorry asses in DC and tend to the peoples business!
Empty chairs don't legislate on their own!
DO YOUR DAMN J-O-B-S!!!
Timing is never efficient. Though I do have a huge problem with the additions that are attached to a main Bill. Cut out the unnecessary spending (which are probably even more loopholes) for the top earners that are supposed to be getting taxed HIGHER!
Tea members in congress apparently don't quite get the concepts of disaster and emergency, if they did they'd realize that slow-walking consideration of federal aid for the people slammed by super-storm sandy is loathsome behavior !!!
One congressman's pork is another ones project and there children lies the problem as both parties do it., then the problem becomes how to pay of it. IE: the debt ceiling. But in no way should congress, specifically the republican party play politics with the debt ceiling it is wrong on so many levels, but most of it is because they are equally guilty of running up the deficit spending. Pay the bills Boner and quit being an ass.
Reagan increased the debt ceiling 17 times, it seems that when a Republican is President the national debt is never an issue !!!
Dick Cheney said so himself; "Deficits DON'T matter"...
What a shock that Republicans are trying to send some pork to their own districts and pet projects rather than focus on Sandy relief. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Wonder if anyone is keeping track of where/how these billions are being spent.
Sure they are.
I couldn't agree more Feisty!
Instead of Congress telling us what they intend to do, I'd love to see them actually do some good. The people of the effected states need financial help and it just isn't right that legislators from other areas continue to turn their backs on them.
If they were actually doing their jobs properly perhaps we wouldn't be borrowing money from China like a spoiled teenager asks for money from their parents.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said on fox last week that he will be the first to vote no on the sandy aid package, so much for the love of mankind, conservative rightwing tea values in the works !!!
Long before this point....... the left would have blamed Bush for the delays......
Yet Paul Ryan didn't have a problem putting his hand out for aid when there was flooding in his state. Bloody hypocrite!
Republicans like to spend just as much as Democrats. Even more when funding the Industrialized War Machine. It is Blue states that contribute to our federal government, Red states contribute nothing and survive on the federal governments teat. I'm talking averages. Look at the graph and stop talking about being responsible as Republicans. You are not. You do not pay enough wages or collect enough taxes to take care of your citizens and the federal government has to step in. I'm tired of the press falling for the "Republicans are fiscally responsible" BS. Time for the press to report accurately on this subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state
"W" is the one that got us into this mess, now we have the tea movement insanity that lingers our economy with blackmail, anyone for a cup of tea - its chock full of nuts !!!
I wish the President would change how things are done in Washington... I recall him campaigning about removing all pork from bills. Both sides do it, someone needs to have the balls to actually change the way things are done.
you get your info from MediaMatters dont you? Reid, Pelosi et al are completely innocent and impotent with this mess.
Since when has it become acceptable to use a natural disaster relief bill to piggy-back whatever pork spending pet project you can come up with - while scolding anyone with some scruples that they are letting people suffer?
Oh yeah...it's the Democrat way. Crying their crocodile tears while fleecing America and paying off their special interest buddies.
Yo Johntho...
In your house... what do you do when you incur too much debt... be it credit cards or any other form of debt? Do you go to the credit card company and ask that they raise the limits on your card, or do you stop spending so much and start paying your card down?
Congress in in the unique position of being able to raise their own credit card limit... which they have been happy to do rather than to make the hard decisions and cut spending to pay off some of that card. Most Americans do not have that luxury. We manage our finances within that constraint... if not... we declare bankruptcy.
Why should Congress be any different. They need to take responsible action - don't raise the debt limit! CUT SPENDING! That is what any reasonable person would do in private life.
Ceasar, a little civics lesson might be useful to you. ALL funding bills must originate in the House. You do realize that Boehner, not Pelosi, controls what bills come to the floor for a vote? This has been the case since the GOP took charge and they always require a majority to get any work done. Pelosi hasn't been Speaker of the House for a few years now (since the beginning of 2011)
You might want to get a better news source than Fox.
This is why all of the talk by our elected officials on debt reduction and the fight over the debt ceiling is nothing more than political posturing. It is the spending on projects in their districts that keeps them in congress.
THE HOUSE is adding $$$$ to the bill.
Some of them in the next month will say it is "Obama's debt." ???
Those same people are right about one thing
Washington has a spending Problem.
.
ah DJ boy when has a budget last passed and how long has Repubs and Boehner been in majority? Civics lessons eh
way back in 11 eh? ancient history in liberal world (when its convenient)
And why do you think that is Ceasar? The only 'budget' the House passes is a right wing fringe dream (the 'Ryan Budget'). They do this because they have a majority in the House and refuse to compromise. They know when they pass them that they have NO chance of passing the Senate. Without any compromise, the reverse is also true, meaning anything the Senate modifies in the House bill is also DOA when it's sent back to the House. It takes BOTH houses to pass a budget. Implying only one is responsible when clearly it takes both to pass it is disingenuous at best, and outright lying at it's worst.
sure DJ you stick to that premise of Liberals good, Repubs bad. Sounds eerily familiar to a Geo. Orwell book
Could it be that the Senate is the one that refuses to compromise? Mind you that Reid & Company have yet to even submit a budget in over 1000 days.
That may or may not be the case as the Senate has done NOTHING but shelve the Congressional budget.
One house has passed a budget. The other has shelved the House bill and offered nothing in return. Who really is to blame here?
Republicans have no problem giving the Israel warmongers 50 billion every year in foreign aid, but when it comes to Americans their answer is "No" !!!
Northeast Republicans voters will remember this in the next election !!!
We need bills that are submitted, debated, and passed or voted down on single issues. No more of the time honored practice of lumping everything including the kitchen sink into a given bill. Had these democrat and republican a$$holes just submitted a bill for "Sandy Relief", and nothing else, it would have passed easily 2 months ago.
As for those of you who feel only republicans are to blame for everything, not only are you stupid, you are the problem!
US Constitution Article1, Section 7
Q22
This just shows your naivete. Contrary to what Fox or the conservative radio hosts have sold you, the Senate can not propose a budget legally. Yes they haven't proposed a budget in 1000 days, but they also haven't proposed a budget since this country was founded.
AH... now we see just where catch44 is coming from... ;-)
You site foreign aid to warmongering ISRAEL but make no mention of 'others' that get foreign aid... do you?
(hate much? It appears your antisemitic attitude is showing through!)
Let me just state the facts for you my friend:
The US spends approximately $50 Billion in foreign aid each year for ALL of the countries that we assist... NOT JUST ISRAEL!
Here is an article that outlines foreign aid spending:
http://www.inquisitr.com/357691/american-foreign-aid-spending-funding-by-country-report/
For those that are too lazy to go read it... here is the breakdown. (where is Israel in this list? They didn't even make the top listing in this article... go figure.)
American foreign aid by country statistics:
India – $124,485,000
China – $17,800,000
Russian Federation – $66,138,000
Iran – $472,060,000
Iraq – $472,060,000
Ukraine – $120,907,000
Myanmar – $38,527,000
Yemen – $545,699,000
Indonesia – $205,716,000
Turkmenistan – $11,074,000
Mexico – $178,189,000
Nicaragua – $24,462,000
Brazil – $24,340,000
South Africa – $571,135,000
Namibia – $103,218,000
Mozambique – $386,692,000
Ethiopia – $519,003,000
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya – $203,183,000
Niger – $17,540,000
Venezuela – $5,000,000
Peru – $99,837,000
Ecuador – $22,669,000
Chile – $1,400,000
----------------------------------------------------
People like you sicken me you hater!
BTW... use the interactive map... its amazing.
Checkout these middle-eastern numbers...
Israel - $2,500,000
Egypt - $1,553,900,000
Afghanistan - $2,523,719,000
Pakistan - $1,385,953,000
Iraq - $472,060,000
Iran - $472,060,000 (Even Iran gets almost TWICE as much as Israel!)
Who are we giving the foreign aid to? Not Israel.
(NOW... if you want to talk about foreign military funding... THAT is a different story - but you specifically said FOREIGN AID)
Next time use the correct terms.
Jersey Michael
Uh... Jersey Mike...
The Senate DOES have to approve the budgets that are submitted to it from the House of Representatives.
FACT: The HoR HAS submitted numerous budgets to the Senate for debate - none of which were brought to the floor by Harry Reid. NONE! He will not even give the Senate an opportunity to debate the budgets. If he had, the Senate could have written revisions to the budget and then sent it back to the HoR for debate and a vote.
No... You are blaming the WRONG body of Congress. Harry is the OBSTRUCTIONIST!
They shoudl have passed budgets that would get passed by the Senate. If they knew their budget was going to get voted down in the Senate then the House's only motivation to pass the budget was political theater and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
SOTB, you question the integrity of a liberal..HOW DARE.. do you not know they receive their info from real journalists such as Maddow or M. Murray of FR/NBC. not Faux News and Reichwing propaganda sites.
LOL @ THEM
Jersey Michael, Your "logic" reminds me of someone trying to fly an airplane BACKWARDS ... it just will not get off the ground. In a totally asinine way, you are saying the House should get their budget proposal pre-approved by the Senate before submitting it to them ! The Senate, under Harry Reid's failed "leadership" sits on passed budgets at Obama's request !
It is Obama's job to see to it that the laws of our country are carried out. Getting an annual budget passed is required by law. Obama has FLUNKED .... a big time "F" would be his grade !
SickoftheBickering,
btw your numbers are off. Israel received 2.692 billion and Iran received nothing. I know you won't believe me, but before you start going of the deep end, take a look at the source.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/foreign_commerce_aid/foreign_aid.html
Ask yourself why your conservative website deliberately lied to you. Do they all of their sheep are so gullible that no one would fact check them?
jim,
I don't expect them to get it pre-approved, but I do expect the Speaker of the House to ask the Senate leadership if a bill getting passed is feasible before wasting all that time doing absolutely nothing but creating paperwork.
Actually the Senate doesn't need to do any such thing. They may or may not take up a bill submitted by the House. They may choose to amend it, or pass it as is. If they ratify it, it goes on to the President for his signature. If they amend it, then the amendments to the bill must be ratified and any difference hashed out between the House and the Senate. If they choose to not take up the bill, it is considered dead, and the house can either send a new bill, defer the existing, or drop it all together.
No where in the Constitution does it state the Senate must take up a House passed bill. Feel free to post the Article, Section, and Clause where it states they are required to act. We'll wait...
"Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
-- Then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in a March 16, 2006 floor speech explaining his decision to oppose a request to increase the federal debt limit, then set at $8.2 trillion.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/crabby-obama-caught-in-budget-trap/#ixzz2I4e4Fdqq
More wasted words from you ... same concept. Where's the leadership from the White House ?
Not you canon, back up to #1.35. Passing a budget is required by law. That requires Senate passage as well. Apparently DJ doesn't understand the legal requirement or chooses to ignore it ... as does Obama himself.
jim,
I'll end the discussion the same way I started it.
US Constitution Article1, Section 7
It is the responsibility of the House to propose a rational budget. You can blame the Senate or Obama all you want, but the Constitution is clear on this point.
That is right Jersey Mike...
They may propose or concur with amendments...
That means they may propose their own OR change that of the HoR with amendments. In either case it gets sent back to the HoR for debate and further amendments or a totally new proposal. OR they could simply ratify it without changes.
NONETHELESS, EVENTUALLY BOTH BODIES OF CONGRESS MUST RATIFY A BUDGET!
At that point it is sent to the President for a signature or a veto... and if veto'ed the process starts all over again.
The problem is that good old Harry Reid has repeatedly halted the process by refusing to even bring the budget up for debate and/or a vote.
I am sorry... but any way you slice it... HARRY IS THE PROBLEM!
Move along...
Nothing to see here...
Just Gov't as usual.
God youre a stupid redheaded loser. Most Americans are for helping those in need but not the Dems in congress who see this as another money grab.
"Republicans like to spend just as much as Democrats."
No -- Republicans like to spend MORE!!! Republicans talk one game but play another. Remember -- George W. Bush and his Republican controlled Congress inherited the largest surplus of all times in January 2001. By January of 2007 they turned that surplus into the highest deficit of all times and didn't include most of the costs of the two wars they started in the calculations. Bush and his Republican Congress increased spending by 7.3% in his first term and 8.1% in his second term. Contrast that to Clinton who increased spending by 3.2% in his first term and 3.9% in his second or to President Obama who only increased spending by 1.4% in his first term -- the LOWEST since Eisenhower.
sandy is simple. if it was florida the money would done be approved. but this is a blue stae so the house does'nt want to fund it.
thats money they could use to give exxon more tax breaks
Reagan didn't blow 7 trillion dollars either. Then bang employees and employers for a payroll tax increase because you blew all our money.
Typical Dems.....bang the American people for your mindless spending.
Dear God, Please find a job for a certain red haired loser so she can stop posting her Obama worshiping crap here 24/7/365.
Thank you.
All major programs are initiated by the president of whichever party. Getting some from the opposing party to accept a presidents platform doesn't change who owns them. The buck stops with the president. Obama owns Obamacare regardless of who voted to approve it and Bush owns his tax cuts, 2 wars and drug plan all unfunded.
I own a company. I employ 88 workers averaging about $90,000 a year. I had my first layoffs (2 employees) due to this God-awful, job-killing obamacare. And I will have to lower year-end bonuses due to obamacare.
But I have never borrowed a dime for my business other than using a credit card for office supplies costing a few hundred $$$.
I can't imagine why the American public lets this obama administration get away with his out-of-control spending. I give the guy credit though: He somehow convinced the majority of voters that his $60 billion tax hike on the rich was going to solve the $1.2 trillion spending problem. Of course he never told these voting sheep that it's only 5% of the problem.
President Obama owns Boehner and McConnell.
Bobster,
Alot of companies are doing the same because of the joke known as Obamacare. Be ready for some personal attacks on you from the insane far left libs that hang around this site.
Bobster-1557895
So you're paying out close to 8 million in salary a year and had to lay off 2 employees because of a small rise of costs due to Obamacare?
So are you missing these 2 employees, or were you perhaps overstaffed 2 employees? What kind of profit margins do you run where the last 2 employees were the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of upgraded cost versus income? Was the $180,000 (average per your numbers for 2 employees) that you 'saved' acceptable to your gross margin for the year? Will you suffer any degraded service making your product less valuable, or are you expecting other employees to pick up the bill and go for overtime?
Or were you just overstaffed and are able to meet the demand of your customers without said 2 employees?
Thanks.
i do believe that the damage estimate was in the 69 billion dollar range and if so why should the tax payer pony up 60 billion, these cities and states should have had insurance of some kind to offset these costs not to mention the home owners.
these cities and states will not be satisified until they suck the whole 60 billion dry
Slumlord, what part of the country do you live in? Obviously it must be someplace that never gets any inclement weather, or other natural disasters. I'm sure that much of the 60 billion dollars will be money well spent, and will allow the northeast to once again be a productive part of our nation
Charlie, several important facts.
1. Republican control of the HoR in 1994 had more to due with budget surpluses than Clinton.
2. A prosperous US economy had way more to do with budget surpluses than either party.
3. Don't confuse the a budget year surplus or deficit with the national debt, it has never been anywhere near zero in the lifetime of anyone who is living today.
4. In 6 of the 8 years Bush was President, revenue to the federal government was higher than anytime under Clinton.
5. There was a little event, perhaps you've heard of it, "9/11" that had nearly everything to do with the increased spending under Bush. Yet Bush looks like a penny pincher compared to Obama.
Trimming out the pork is called a line item veto, every President has wanted this power and Congress has always REFUSED to grant any President such powers. Wonder why? Remember Palin's bridge to nowhere?
Slumlord... there you go talking sense again... how dare you! <snark>
You are absolutely correct. This is a big scam. This administration will do ANYTHING to win over popular opinion.
Repo,
I give my employees 2/3 of the pre-tax profits each year. This is why they average way above the the average local salary for technical people. But according to my finance guy, the cost of obamacare will cost my company heavily. So I laid off 2 people and requiring my other workers to pitch in. I am also cutting year-end bonuses since this obama idiot is causing me to provide health insurance. My employees are livid!! They are mostly young folks and many do not want health insurance at the cost of losing a chunk of their $90k. They told me that can buy their own policy with the money they make. Or choose not get insurance. Their choice. It's called freedom.
Obama is also requiring me to pay higher taxes now. I will spend less of course. I may reduce year-end bonuses even more. Not sure yet. But why would the feds be doing this to me and my company when the economy is on the brink of disaster? We need to put more people to work. But obama is killing a small business like mine. I now have people making less money. I eliminated 2 jobs. I am being taxed more. How is any of this any good?
And before you libbies go all crazy on me, remember what I said above: I give my employees 2/3 of my year-end profit. Every small business owner I know does something similar. But of course you libbies, obama, the MSM, Hollywood, etc. consider us greedy monsters.
Gee they are tacking on extra spending in the bill...and yet the repubs cry and cry about debt. They sure do like to spend like Dems...they just don't want anyone paying for it through higher taxes. Let's see...spend more and have people pay less...seems like a workable system. But hey, it's all Obama's fault.
you better check again as to who is adding the spending as it is ALL DEMOCRATS as they know no other way to get votes than to buy them ~ ENOUGH SPENDING YOU DAMN LIBERALS ~
Fedup - as usual, your post is filled with lies. The majority of the "tack-ons" are in red states by the southern Republicans - as was pointed out last week in great detail. Try to actually get the facts before you post what makes you appear to be totally lacking in knowledge.
67 tea movement "NO-NO's" in congress for sandy assistance because of their hate for the northeast is sad !!!
They do not hate the Northeast- I happened to be part of a group that rented a 18 wheeler with relief goods from SC to NJ and NY- food, water, blankets etc... Man come on ,I love that part of the country. I am a Southern but not a tea party member, don't lump us all together.
Don't worry Mr. O has threatened to delay checks to Seniors and Vets so that will fund the pork in the Sandy Bill. Why does he threatened our Seniors and Vets but not a one on those on the dole or foreign aid. There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with his thinking and that of those who go along with this reckless socialist.
Catch 44, I live on Long Beach Island, N.J. we had volunteers from Alabama who came up to help us. You have no idea what you are talking about.
"you better check again as to who is adding the spending as it is ALL DEMOCRATS as they know no other way to get votes than to buy them"
Another uninformed ditto-head. Read the REAL NUMBERS
Increase in federal budgets by presidential terms.
Reagan 1982 – 85 8.7%
Reagan 1986- 89 4.9%
Bush 1990- 93 5.4%
Clinton 1994-97 3.2%
Clinton 1998-01 3.9%
Bush 43 2002 -05 7.3%
Bush 43 2006-09 8.1%
Obama 2010-13 1.4%
Don't believe me --- read it in Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
He isn't interested in facts which is why those on the right never link facts to back up their claims. The old saying is when you can't win on facts you sling krap and hope some sticks.
When have the Dems paid taxes?
Since the socalist Obama supporters here seem to agree that congress (house and senate ) must agree to make spending happen. I would like to say that the socalist democrats here seem to forget that untill the 2nd year of Obama rule the democrats were in charge of the entire congress starting two years before Bushs term ended? When did the housing crises unfold? When the democrats voted in two of the biggerst socalist in there ranks, Barnie franks, chris dodd to run fanny and freddie.
In two years the anti american socalist destroyed most peoples employment, retirement and homes! By trying to social engineer society again! This time is was not just in the US but the entire world!!
I am glad to see the the real democrats are finally owning up to the destruction of the economy and the pain and suffering they have caused to the poor, retired and middle class.
On the positive side for the socalist this opened the door thru lies and misinformation to the world from the socalist party that allowed Barack Obama to be elected. These are truly tragic times we can only hope the masses will wake up soon.
Laker Steve, maybe not, but he WAS too busy busting unions and robbing their pension funds. I know you'll say the unions should have been busted, but stealing their retirement funds?
"When have the Dems paid taxes?"
I probably pay more in taxes in a year than you make.
Charlie,
that number BS is just that BS. Obama has added more to the national debt than all the presidents
before him. Of course Democrats can't do math, they can't even do a budget.
I'm sick and tired of you liberal whiners, this relief package had so much pork in it that any reasonable person would have said no to it, but NO, all I hear is all this crying, especially that idiot Governor Chris Christy.
Republicans want to give the dance but they will not pay the band!
Hell with this do nothing Congress always being on vacation, when are they going to start getting part time wages.
Tea movement in congress adds to Sandy's pain, delays and obstruction in approving federal aid are shameful partisan politics !!!
Barry could just do it through executive order......... no wait, that would force him to sign his name to the idea.........
Same reason he uses the auto-pen....... in his mind, he can say, "I did not sign that"... learned that from Clinton...... "I did not have sex.."
Job 1: Never, Congress has it set up if we default the Vets and Seniors do not get paid but Congress gets theirs. Time to get the pitch forks and tar/feather's ready.
Mr. Cantor released the "work" schedule for '13. They will be in session only 185 days. A little more than part time. If the republicans are so keen on cutting benefits for the population, why don't they cut their health care and take a cut in pay? If I only worked 20.3 hours a week and still demanded full time pay, I would be in the unemployment line---WHY NOT THEM? It seems strange to me that when the republicans are in office, deficits don't matter just like Cheney said. Now, all of a sudden it is up to the democrats to fix everything in one little term. Banks encourage us to refinance when the interest rates are low to save money. The Gov't should do the same thing, pass the debt ceiling and borrow money now while it is cheap. If you pay your bills, any credit card will always increase your line of credit and your credit score goes up--- DUH. More working people means more tax payers, more in the budget, more stimulus money available, more jobs, more demand, more jobs and on and on and on. How hard is that? Be good republicans and remember Cheney!!!
TAJ, I agree with a lot that you have to say. However, I would like to remind you that "in session" is only a portion of Congress' job. They have to allow time to be back in their home states to represent their constituents. I totally agree that our representatives and senators have WAY too much time off and WAY more benefits than deserved, but the "in session" piece of data needs to be taken in context. Thx.
Oscar, point taken. I just wish they would really listen to us when they are in their home district. With all the discussion about gun safety, background checks, ammo limits and all the rest, don't you think too that they should really be the voice of the people? There is so much debate about so many subjects, so much diversion, and we are like a school of fish. One little strange movement and whoosh, off we go in another direction. There has to be focus. I am so sick of all the talking points on both sides, they all redirect our attention or try to scare the bejesus out of us and then they do what the money dictates. I was watching NCIS the other night and there was a quote that stunned me. One character said, "Bad things happen when good men do nothing". I guess my wish is for a few good men/women to have the courage to do something honest, worthwhile, concrete and for the good of the many. I don't think that is too much to hope for.
So true, TAJ. However, how do you reconcile "lots of good men doing something and the one man in power doing nothing/ignoring them?"
There was a recent hotly contested issue in the public realm. Poll after poll, and person after person I talked to, indicated that the majority of people did NOT want this one law/bill. I wrote to my senator, as did many people I know, and the response I got was (paraphrased) " *I* believe....blah, blah....."*I* think.........blah blah.......so *I* will vote for it." It was never mentioned that "my constituents" believe.....just what THE SENATOR believed. POWER, my friend. We need to vote out the power. I am dumbfounded each and every election when the same power-hungry, ingore-the-constituents A-HOLES get re-elected time after time.
I try not to be in the school of fish, but how do you fight it? I am but me and you are but you. How do we get beyond that?
This congress is very resortful on spending money and so is this president. Add pork to bills and scream if it doesn't pass and then point your finger at the other guy.
This comming from a partisan hack, priceless.
I always hear about Democrats refusal to work across the aisle, just thought I'd enlighten you a bit. Just looked up presidential vetoes and GWB used the veto pen 12 times, all in his second term, Obama has used it 2 times. Before you make a fool of yourself and say anything about Bush's first term, that was when he had a Republican congress. Reagan used it 78 times and GHWB used it 44 times. Odd that the President that "refuses to work across the aisle" has been more sparing than any president in modern history with the veto pen.
But efforts by some House members even as late as Monday night to add unrelated funds to the Sandy emergency aid bill provided an object lesson in why such emergency bills are perfect vehicles for adding more spending.
STOP!!!!!!
The openly corrupt government is making King George look like a nice guy.
If our founding fathers were alive today they would be writing a new declaration.
We as a group are letting them get away with this, we have become accepting and complacent with the corruption. Be outraged people! Write congressmen and senators, swarm them with emails. Let them know this is unnappropriate.
If they continue this garbage, vote them ALL out.
All.
Incumbants have proven they will plunder as the smoldering fires of Rome grow. Get rid of them.
If our founding fathers were alive today they would kick the Tea Movement out of congress !!!
Yeah cause a party movement that is relatively new is the only reason we are in a mess and not the guys who have been in for years and decades....yeah thats it.
Actually, They would more likely kick out the liberals that push dependence upon government handouts as a way of life. Our forefathers envisioned a country where a man (person) was able to pursue his own goals and dreams without governmental interference. That does not mean governmental assistance.
They stated outright that we all have the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS... NOTHING MORE!
No government assistance in pursuing those dreams and that happiness. No government housing. No government food stamps. No government welfare. No No No!
Citizens were expected to stand on their own two feet. They were expected (by their own churches) to help a neighbor (on the local level) when that neighbor was in need.
No... I believe that our forefathers would be disappointed at what our government has become.
Sick, take a good close look at the Constitution, pretty liberal document--I believe the Founders would be appalled on how we treat our fellow citizens, I also believe that that "document" also states provide for the common welfare, which means what in your estimation?
Sick, Preamble to the Constitution:
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.
Your argument is moot and mean-spirited--way off from original, can't cherry pick. You are also paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution trumps the Declaration--get your facts straight.
Skyparrot... that is a good name for you because your head is in the clouds and you parrot the liberal lines. :OP
Thanks for the cut-and-paste of the Preamble to the US Constitution... I already had it memorized from civics class in the 8th grade. :OP
And no... I was NOT confusing the Preamble with the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence stated quite nicely the point I was making.
As for your question about the 'promote the general welfare' clause...
In my humble opinion... 'promote the general welfare' does NOT mean providing housing, food, healthcare or any of the daily things we need to live. Our forefathers expected people to take care of these things for themselves.
NO... Our forefathers were focused on something much bigger. I believe that what they meant by 'promote the general welfare' was that our government should have the power to engage in activity that promotes the general welfare of the union... not the general population. What does that mean? The government should collect and spend tax dollars in a way that helps to strengthen (or promote the general welfare of) the union. For example, if promoting interstate commerce is viewed as a means for creating a stronger economic environment, and a stronger economic environment is viewed as strengthening the union... then tax dollars collected and spent promoting interstate commerce would be seen as promoting the general welfare.
Checkout this Wikipedia article on this discussion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause
The section on the United States summarizes the Supreme Court rulings regarding what is meant by the 'promote the general welfare' clause in the US Constitution and seems to fall in line with my view of what is meant by this clause - and that is NOT to give people freebees.
Finally, I am sorry to see that you feel my argument is 'moot' and 'mean-spirited'. It was not intended that way. I merely wanted to stimulate conversation. I should have known better though... anytime someone posts a sensible thought on this site it is met with anger and hatred from the left.
Really??? Yes I've seen angry statements from the left, but the right aren't near blame free. I'm retired now, but I worked all my life to earn my few years of rest. Does that make me a freeloader? If it does, then there is no hope for the country I love.
Golly John, nobody is calling you a 'freeloader'. Why would you make that assumption? Do you have a guilty conscience?
No. People that are retired are not the people we are talking about. The left wants you to believe that is who we are talking about... but that's not true! Retired people who have worked and paid into programs like SS have done their part. No one is talking about them as freeloaders. Quit being so defensive.
We are talking about the 'takers'... and by taker we mean those who take without contributing. You know who they are.
So quit playing the role of the martyr.
These idiots in Congress need to stop adding these "riders" into other packages. Every item should come for a vote on their own merits and stop pushing this nonsense through in other packages that are needed. It isn't like they are so busy they don't have time to review and vote on each item separately.
1) It should be a "Sandy-only" bill.
2) The spending on Sandy should be offsett with cuts in spending elsewhere.
Oscar.... you are the voice of reason.
(prepare to be attacked for that since this site does not respect reason in any way, shape or form.)
(voted you up man!)
Thanks, SotB! Was already attacked three hours ago. Some people are SOOO predictable, no?? ;-)
What part of stop the pork don't they get? Get the needed money to the people affected by Sandy. And I do wonder if they took less vacation would they just do more damage. Sad!
Does this new requirement apply from here forward, or only when republicans control the House and democrats control the Senate and White House.
It's my OPINION, RedDevPS, and it's not NEW. Thx.
Its not new and yes, no more pork added to emergency bills. I would say no more pork period, but lets be real, we are talking about congress.
Baby steps!
catch44,
The Tea Party movement started in 2009, place your blame elsewhere.
The Tea Party got it's name in 2009, but the principles have been in Washington for decades. Although they would probably call him a liberal, Ronald Reagan was the first president to start the shift of the Republican Party to the extreme right. His destruction of the Air Traffic Controllers union gave the extremists in the Republican party the momentum they needed to organize.
Get your tin cups out!!!! The government is passing out money...
Whoa! I thought the house gop was AGAINST spending; or, do they just like to babble stupidly about any subject that arises?
Finally, the money is coming. It's late, but still appreciated. As we have always been generous to others in time of need, we here in New Jersey would now like to thank our fellow Americans for your generosity in return.
This was the second devastating event to hit us in the 21st Century (the first was losing 800+ of our citizens in the 9/11 terrorist attacks). But we will come back - we always do.
Having said this, I always knew this day would come. Our shores were far too overdeveloped, and this is an opportunity to see if we have learned some hard lessons as to how NOT to build.
Thanks again.
"...tens of billions of federal dollars have already been spent on helping people hurt by Sandy."
I guess I'm confused about your use of "Finally" and "It's late," Jersey Devil.
Be nice Oscar!
These guys in Congress just do not get. First things first get the good folks in NJ and NY the relief money they need. That is one reason we pay taxes! Two- knock off all the riders, and pork- geez politicians to the end!
I find it interesting that red state congressmen are all of the sudden interested in restricting funds to harmed areas...they sure didn't mind their welfare from the rest of us after the various hurricanes and they don't turn down those tax transfer payments from the rest of us do they?
Also requests from Colorado and Washington State, not exactly "redneck" country.
It's money being spend on crap that has nothing to do with Sandy! STOP THE SPENDING!
Just to provide some much needed education, while the request from Washington was a Democrat, the one from Colorado was from a Republican. Neither party is free of blame for the pork
Why do democrap congress members ALWAYS add pork to any bill? This crap only delays bills such as this one. STOP THE SPENDING DEMOCRAPS!
STOP THE SPENDING REPUBLICONS!
Republicons control congress, hence, control spending.
The pair of you need to knock it off with the partisanship. You do realize as long as we are fighting each other, Congress will continue to go on its merry over-spending-irresponsible way? It's BOTH parties!
At this point, only a foolish person thinks one party is better than the other.
Dear MsWheezer, I'll knock it off when democrats "policy spending" catches up with republicons "policy spending".
And that won't happen for a very LONG TIME.
Chris,
I am sorry to say, but you my friend are an idiot. :-(
The republicans DO NOT control Congress.
Basic civic lesson for the tard - There are two bodies that make up Congress - The House of Representatives and the Senate.
Republicans control the House of Representatives - THAT's IT!
Democrats control the Senate. SO..... Repubs do NOT control CONGRESS.
If you want to incorrectly BLAME others feel free to do that... but just know that WE ALL know how goofy you really are.
sickof the bickering, thanks for the civic lesson. But I often refer to the house as congress. As does various news outlets do. And yes I do realize that the senate is controlled by the democrats.
OK, sorry I did not spell it out in simpleton terms for you.
Well my friend... if you commonly refer to the House as 'Congress' you would be WRONG to do so.
And BTW... I did not need it spelled out in 'simpleton' terms... I did however take the time to spell it out for you since you obviously needed it ;-)
(You are welcome)
Chris, after making a fool of yourself, no need to try and be "chippy" since "sickof the Bickering" schholed you. Just because YOU have been using the term "Congress' improperly, does not mean that such wrongful usage is common or accepted.
Post #14.4 is totally on target.
With the current filibuster rules in the senate, republicans do control congress.
Chris should be whooped for making a mistake like that. Of course, we have a member of the house - Mulvaney R-SC talking about borrowing money from China. I have heard this from other house republicans. So maybe we should forgive Chris.
The House should add articles of impeachment of Obama to the Bill.
For what.......winning reelection?.
For intentionally usurping his constitutionally-defined authority and overriding the second amendment !
If I remember correctly, changing this would require a 3/4 vote of all states ... not Obama waving his magic wand !
Not all people named Jim are this stupid.
Thank God.
This is one of the things that the American public are totally disgusted over in Washington. Why, on earth, can't things be passed on their own merit. Clumping together a whole bunch of things into a single item is totally wrong. If Sandy needs funding, FUND IT. If the Colorado fires need funding, FUND IT. If a tornado strikes some town, FUND IT. Quit lumping everything together. And then make sure there is oversight into whether the money goes for what it is intended for. The American public hates it when something gets funded that is totally unrelated or money is spent on something else. We need ALOT more checks and balances.
The politically term du jour is 'transparency' - which is just a whole lot of BS. Other than articles pertaining to national security - there is absolutely no reason that anything and everything these asses do NOT to be posted in an on-line, real time media. This isn't the dark ages - and yes, we do have the technology! Imagine that!
C-SPAN does live broadcasts - and there is plenty of room for someone to put up a 'live' site that lists and details any and all activities these jerks attempt.
We need OUR interests protected - not theirs.
Couldn't agree more, Mark440. Still waiting for Mr. Transparency himself, Barack Hussein Obama, to lead by example and practice what he preached.
Oscar, how short our memory is. I guess you can't recall just a few years ago when even the most mundane actions of the previous administration were hidden for the purpose of " national security"
Yes the Federal Government is corrupt, and so are the state and local governments.
After the $100 billion was given to the victims of Katrina, schools were still closed, houses were not rebuilt, and in short it was difficult to find where the money got spent, it mostly just vanished.
Giving money to local governments to spend on victims is only slightly better than giving money to an African dictator, to help his population. The money disappears, and the people who need the help are not helped.
I realize that a certain amount of "shrinkage" will occur as the politicians give contracts to their friends. But do they have to steal every penny? cant some of the money go where it is intended ?
Bill, if you can remember, what party was in office all the way across the upper gulf when Katrina hit?
Good Morning Everyon!
In some ways you can blame the government for the cleanup and its probably acceptable, but are we ourselves not at fault here? I mean were the ones that choose to live in those areas knowing the dangers that may occur, then when something happens and we don't have the funds to repair it we blame the government. Life is about fixing our own problems not waiting for the government to do it for you.
I doubt that ANY of these pols was elected or re-elected touting more spending. I would wager that ALL of them decried exactly the opposite. In that, they have all blatantly mis-represented themselves to the voting public. But, if I understand it all correctly - there is not a damned thing that can be done until the next election cycle. On that, I call hogwash!!
Surely, there has got to be something in our laws that allows for the recall or impeachment of the jerks who are not respecting nor upholding the will of the constituents in these fiscal matters.
Does anyone know what the process is called and/or how to get it started to get some of these jerks OUT of office before they spend every last dime we have???
That's part of politics isn't it Mark? everything is wheel and deal even to get elected.
Very simple to get the jerks out of office, vote them out !
We had our chance a few months ago, and chose to send most of them back to Washington.
Actually quite a few of them brag how much money they send back to their districts, so they do brag on the spending, and bringing the money back home. Of course it goes to their pals in their district, not to the average guy who needs the work.
Bill - the next election cycle is some ways off - which means they have all the time in the world to plunder at will. I don't agree with that....and I am tired of these asses blatantly mis-representing their intentions.
There has to be a legal mechanism to remove them from office.
I can accept some of it as 'part of politics' - But when they blatantly and intentionally lie - WE have to draw the line on what we will accept as responsible and respectable behavior.
Right now, Lance Armstrong is getting roasted by the country for his role in the doping scandal. The evidence points to he did and he lied. And folks are after him like wolves on a rabbit.
It's time the rabbits in DC learn to run.
Mark440, it's called "dereliction of duty (misleading the public?)." And all the politicians KNOW that you and your fellow constituents do NOT have the money to match THEIR money to take them to court for it. The best we can hope for is to elect them OUT of their current jobs. The best we can do is get the word out during the next campaign season to VOTE THEM OUT!!
the republicans are thr party of fools. they can bail out wallstreet but not main street.
we are a nation of givers they are a party of takers. kick em all out and lets put this country back on the track of WE THE PEOPLE!
We the people are the fools, at least to me, I mean we keep re-electing these politicians never learning our lesson.
kr, I suggest you do some research into just WHO bailed out Wall Street. Clue: it wasn't JUST Republicans.
The tea GOP all should be fired!
Its the fault of both parties not wanting to bend in the slightest to the other side for any issue.
So Rushless, I guess you feel you should decide who everyone's representative is - not just yours.
double post
triple post
Dear Congress,
Stop Spending our money!
Business as usual for Congress. I live in the west and understand about the wildfire problem but we westerners know we are the last region of the country to be considered about our emergencies. BTW I am not including California as part of the west. It is it's own sinking animal.
The politicians are the smart ones here, they keep getting themselves re-elected living off of our tax dollars not caring about an issue until something happens or its re-election time and what's done in the mean time?, absolutely nothing. Then when someone like Hurricane Sandy does happen they bicker about the funding blaming the other party for it.
I meant to say at the end when Somthing like Hurricane Sandy happens
FruVegge, I wonder, if you live near a bridge and it is washed out by, oh let's say a hurricane, how in the world could you fix that problem yourself? This notion that government is bad has got to stop. This would become a free for all, and I do not mean gifts!!. The people with the money to fix things would, and then they would certainly charge you for the privilege of using the thing they fixed. This is what Government is for. We pay taxes, they see a need, or get a request, the Gov't spends the money we ALL paid in and we ALL get to use it for no extra charge. I don't like this "for profit" idea the republicans push. There have been thousands of cases of abuse, bribery and inefficient operation, all the while, someone is making money hand over fist. But, what the hell, that is the republican mantra --"profit before people" at any cost to any one except the owner!!
Infrastructure like roadways and bridges and etc.. should be for the government to repair. There is abuse and bribery from all parts of government not just one party.
I know that, I was referring to private sector "contracts" with the gov't. I do not mean to argue a point, but above you said you are responsible for fixing your problems. There are some none of us can fix without Congress. I hope all of you have heard of sandyhookpromise.org. Please go to that site. The situation in that little town could have been avoided if the government had acted before. There is no way to fix it, no way to bring those kids back or the teachers. This is the kind on inaction I hate. I am not an anti gun person but I do wonder how it is that people feel they need a rifle that shoots rounds six per second, 3000 ft. per. sec. from a drum holding 100 bullets. Is that for those extraordinarily fast deer or the rabbit too near it's nest? Enough with the second amendment and all the money from manufacturers of guns and ammo. I am exercising my first amendment right. I wonder how many of you would dispute the need for restraint if you could see pictures of those dead babies, identifiable only by the clothes they wore that day. Think about that before you spout off about the responsibility of government and to whom it is responsible. This has everything to do with money and who is getting paid by whom and for what. Somehow I don't think it is the taxpayers that have much of a say in this matter. Peace to all.
The Federal government is bad, TAJ. And if a LOCAL bridge washes out, it should be handled by the LOCAl governments - the state government should be the biggest entity involved. The more we look to the federal government for help, or the more help they give away, the more moneyu they will require from us. The more money they take from us through taxes, the more they waste. The more they waste, the more they raise taxes to get more money, all in the name of helping us.
Frankly, I am not sure we need ANY more help from a bunch of cretins that can't pass an emergency spending bill to help storm VICTIMS, people who are actually suffering, without also attaching pork barrell spening in order to buy votes.
Legislators thaat attempt to attach riders to bills like this, in order to get special spending for their own districts, should be listed on a website so we can see who they are, how much they are asking for, and why. The people need to know.
You're right, infrastructure should be maintained by the government, but you can't refuse to allocate funds for the necessary repairs, then complain about the repairs not being done.