Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Is the Tea Party the biggest Natural Disaster so far?

Is the Tea Party the biggest Natural Disaster so far?
Thread Tools
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2011, 07:29 AM
 
A short post, because I don't have much time this morning, but check out this blog post from Your Liberal Media Elite:

Natural Disasters Could Challenge Campaign Spending Promises - FoxNews.com

In short, Republican promises to offset all spending with tax cuts and ban earmarks are making funding FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers more difficult procedurally. They'll probably get funded, I guess. Your Tax Dollars (not necessarily) At Work!

(As always, Wonkette is funny. )
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2011, 02:30 PM
 
I dunno. Exercising shrimp seems kinda wasteful too. Where is the oversite?
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2011, 06:31 PM
 
Has there been earmark abuse? Certainly. Should there be better oversight of where all that money is going? Sure. But when your ban on earmarks gets in the way of real work that is needed, perhaps your ban is a little too over-reaching. I just hope there's some other way to get emergency money to where it needs to go.

Originally Posted by The Fox News Blog in the OP
House Republicans banned earmarks at the beginning of this Congress. The GOP defines an earmark as "a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula driven or competitive award process."

Landry says the government needs to dredge the Mississippi River once the floodwaters recede. There will be dozens of levees and dams in need of repair. The levee the government blew up in Missouri could cost a couple of hundred million dollars alone. But how does Congress designate these projects for the Army Corps of Engineers if earmarks are outlawed? How would Congress ask the Corps to dredge the Mississippi? In other words, lawmakers would be setting aside a specific amount of money and targeting it for a specific project in a specific space.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2011, 08:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Has there been earmark abuse? Certainly. Should there be better oversight of where all that money is going? Sure. But when your ban on earmarks gets in the way of real work that is needed, perhaps your ban is a little too over-reaching. I just hope there's some other way to get emergency money to where it needs to go.
Perhaps the "real work that is necessary" is just a ruse for wasteful expenditure. What if the reactionary donations from those across the country and their impact in actual aide dwarf that provided by the Federal government?

The Tea Party is only the worst disaster to the ardent left. Contrary to their rep, tolerance for contrarian ideology and dissent are not their strength.
ebuddy
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2011, 07:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Perhaps the "real work that is necessary" is just a ruse for wasteful expenditure. What if the reactionary donations from those across the country and their impact in actual aide dwarf that provided by the Federal government?

The Tea Party is only the worst disaster to the ardent left. Contrary to their rep, tolerance for contrarian ideology and dissent are not their strength.
Is the Army Corps of Engineers supposed to rely on donations to dredge the Mississippi after these floods because the Congress is unwilling to pass a spending bill that targets a specific geographical area? There is an awful lot of Interstate commerce happening on that river, it's entirely in the Congress's enumerated powers to make it safe for commerce.

This isn't protecting against wasteful spending, it's an abdication of responsibility on the part of the House (where these budget bills originate). Philosophical issues are getting in the way of things that need to be done: I don't think that's why the voters sent all those Tea Party Republicans to congress in the first place.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2011, 07:31 AM
 
So, get it passed in the Senate(Democrat controlled) and get back to us on who's blocking things.
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2011, 08:05 AM
 
Spending bills originate in the House.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2011, 08:17 AM
 
Hey, fatties, here's an idea...

You know all that money you're spending interfering in everyone else's business (e.g. Libya)? Why don't you mind your own business and use the savings there to fund the army engineers?

Simple, no?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2011, 08:25 AM
 
Sounds good to me. (Although it's mostly you Euros who are sticking your necks out in North Africa, we're just shooting a few cruise missiles at camels every now and then.)

And I'm not fat, I'm just big-boned!
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2011, 08:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Sounds good to me. (Although it's mostly you Euros who are sticking your necks out in North Africa, we're just shooting a few cruise missiles at camels every now and then.)
I know. We have the same problems with our politicians.
Here's a clip of the snot-gobbler letting politicians' real thoughts slip out:
YouTube - ‪gordon-brown-save-the-world.flv‬‏

Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
And I'm not fat, I'm just big-boned!
BEEEEFCAKE!
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2011, 08:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Is the Army Corps of Engineers supposed to rely on donations to dredge the Mississippi after these floods because the Congress is unwilling to pass a spending bill that targets a specific geographical area? There is an awful lot of Interstate commerce happening on that river, it's entirely in the Congress's enumerated powers to make it safe for commerce.

This isn't protecting against wasteful spending, it's an abdication of responsibility on the part of the House (where these budget bills originate). Philosophical issues are getting in the way of things that need to be done: I don't think that's why the voters sent all those Tea Party Republicans to congress in the first place.
I've not heard of a bill that eliminates disaster relief. Link please. Otherwise, I'm talking about the kind of ruses that end up having us pay for things like exercise apparatus for sea creatures.
ebuddy
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2011, 08:53 PM
 
Maybe it was that kind of seals that got Bin Laden?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2011, 11:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I've not heard of a bill that eliminates disaster relief. Link please. Otherwise, I'm talking about the kind of ruses that end up having us pay for things like exercise apparatus for sea creatures.
Originally Posted by The initial thing I linked to. Does anyone click on those?

In tight budget times, lawmakers are intent to find "pay-fors" to cover the additional costs of the natural disasters. In the case of the $1 billion for FEMA, the Appropriations Committee transferred unused funds from an Energy Department "green vehicle" program. Still, this money is not for NEXT fiscal year. It's for THIS fiscal year. The fiscal year for which Congress and President Obama just finished doing battle. The fiscal year where Republicans successfully pared $61 billion out of the budget.

An alternative interpretation, but inaccurate interpretation of Tuesday's $1 billion FEMA infusion means the budget deal dwindled to just $60 billion.

....

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) is a senior member of the Appropriations Committee and represents the district right next to where the tornadoes hit Sunday. Emerson conceded it may be hard to court conservatives whose districts aren't experiencing a natural disaster.

"We can try and be responsible, but people need money," Emerson said. "While I think it's important we do everything to offset (the additional FEMA spending), I don't think we can find all that money."
It's not that the bill eliminates disaster relief, it's that there are some folks in Congress who are insisting on tying paying for the disaster relief to spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. I haven't kept up on it, for all I know the money has been released. The proper choice, IMHO, is to release the money right away, when it's needed most. It's fine to reduce spending on other areas to make up for it, but you don't need to take the time to find it up front.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2011, 09:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
It's not that the bill eliminates disaster relief, it's that there are some folks in Congress who are insisting on tying paying for the disaster relief to spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. I haven't kept up on it, for all I know the money has been released. The proper choice, IMHO, is to release the money right away, when it's needed most. It's fine to reduce spending on other areas to make up for it, but you don't need to take the time to find it up front.
  • Emergency relief always has been and always will be "off-budget".
  • The GOP measure is a one-year moratorium, not a full-on ban and it was adopted in early March of 2010. I'm not even sure it applies to the Mississippi levee relief scenario, are you?
  • A Congressional earmark ban cedes spending authority to the Executive branch. If the money is spent, Obama has to put his name on it. In the case of any emergency aide or disaster relief, this shouldn't be difficult to defend.
  • The earmark ban garnered resounding support from Nancy Pelosi and other (D)s so while it was authored and passed in the House, both parties have been wrangling for this football.
  • Obama ran on the "PAYGO" platform and vowed to veto bills with earmarks in them in his State of the Union address along with a budget freeze.
  • The Obama-appointed, bipartisan debt commission recommended a full-on ban of earmarks.
  • The fact is, earmarks become what are called "Christmas trees" of giveaways in that an initial transportation bill for example, ends up giving Alaska a "bridge to nowhere". There are ways to appropriate money and circumvent the earmark process, but the intent of the ban was to increase the transparency necessary for getting such funds in accord with the Democrat Congress' promise to do just that in 2007 (never materialized) and Obama's promise to ban them outright.
  • Earmark abuse has brought us to this point and let the record show that disaster relief measures held hostage by moves to curb the prior abuses are due solely to the prior abuses.
  • I have the sneaking suspicion that this view would have been framed differently just a few short years ago in that a Democratic Congress' distasteful bill passed by an (R) Republican President would have been credited to the (R) President and not the (D) Congress, but I digress.
ebuddy
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2011, 10:36 AM
 
The thing that makes this situation different is that, while emergency relief has always been "off-budget", some folks are (were?) holding up the relief spending in Congress in order to find offsetting spending cuts anyway.

I agree with you points about the earmark ban, how abuse of earmarks led to the push for the ban, how both parties have been pushing it, and how the formal ban has likely expired anyway. I also agree that the spending on disaster relief shouldn't be difficult to defend. But that has nothing to do with holding up the relief until offsetting spending cuts could be found. And the very clear notion in the linked article that if further spending cuts couldn't be found, there was the very real possibility of FEMA running out of money by the end of August. (Although I suspect an early hurricane in Eric Cantor's district may change the Republican Leadership's view on that.) That's what's angering me the most over this: it is simply putting political principles regarding spending ahead of the general welfare.

(We all know Democrats would never be in this position, because to put political principles ahead of the general welfare, you have to have political principles to begin with.)

Edit: I did a little bit more looking around on the topic this morning. My analysis:

FEMA still has some money right now, but it's generally accepted that they will need more money soon, before the end of the fiscal year. Traditionally, FEMA budgets for an average year and depends on Congress to authorize more funding in years with more disasters. (Again, all spending bills originate in the House.)

Up until now, this funding has been provided on an "emergency" basis, which is off-budget, as you correctly note. But the current House leadership does not want to designate it as emergency funding. My conjecture is that they are waiting for the President to specifically ask for emergency funding for FEMA, so that when they go back to their constituents they can "blame" the emergency spending (and the lack of offsetting budget cuts) on Obama.

Not sure why the President hasn't done this yet: it is something that I would imagine he would happily be "blamed" for. Sure, he's out of town and drinking lots of Guinness this week, but if he can sign bills into law remotely now, you figure he ought to be able to send Boehner an E-mail asking for cash?
( Last edited by Dork.; May 28, 2011 at 11:05 AM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2011, 01:28 PM
 
Shouldn't disaster/emergency relief be a local enterprise?

This isn't a philosophical local vs. federal argument. I'm asking practically. Who is in a better position to deal with it?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2011, 07:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
The thing that makes this situation different is that, while emergency relief has always been "off-budget", some folks are (were?) holding up the relief spending in Congress in order to find offsetting spending cuts anyway.

I agree with you points about the earmark ban, how abuse of earmarks led to the push for the ban, how both parties have been pushing it, and how the formal ban has likely expired anyway. I also agree that the spending on disaster relief shouldn't be difficult to defend. But that has nothing to do with holding up the relief until offsetting spending cuts could be found. And the very clear notion in the linked article that if further spending cuts couldn't be found, there was the very real possibility of FEMA running out of money by the end of August. (Although I suspect an early hurricane in Eric Cantor's district may change the Republican Leadership's view on that.) That's what's angering me the most over this: it is simply putting political principles regarding spending ahead of the general welfare.

(We all know Democrats would never be in this position, because to put political principles ahead of the general welfare, you have to have political principles to begin with.)

Edit: I did a little bit more looking around on the topic this morning. My analysis:

FEMA still has some money right now, but it's generally accepted that they will need more money soon, before the end of the fiscal year. Traditionally, FEMA budgets for an average year and depends on Congress to authorize more funding in years with more disasters. (Again, all spending bills originate in the House.)

Up until now, this funding has been provided on an "emergency" basis, which is off-budget, as you correctly note. But the current House leadership does not want to designate it as emergency funding. My conjecture is that they are waiting for the President to specifically ask for emergency funding for FEMA, so that when they go back to their constituents they can "blame" the emergency spending (and the lack of offsetting budget cuts) on Obama.

Not sure why the President hasn't done this yet: it is something that I would imagine he would happily be "blamed" for. Sure, he's out of town and drinking lots of Guinness this week, but if he can sign bills into law remotely now, you figure he ought to be able to send Boehner an E-mail asking for cash?
I'm not sure Republicans would willingly exploit the only caveat of a measure they're proposing, but if the FUD gets slung they can tout the bipartisan nature of an earmark ban starting with Obama who, at least in rhetoric, has promised a full-on earmark ban. They might be able to use this as an indication that the President is not serious about spending cuts, but... FEMA? I suppose it wouldn't be the first time Republicans cannibalized their image by failing to adequately explain what at the surface could look like an unreasonably cruel stance.

You can bet if Obama's behaviors aren't making sense, it is because they are a political calculation first and an honest attempt at a resolution second IMO.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2011, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Shouldn't disaster/emergency relief be a local enterprise?

This isn't a philosophical local vs. federal argument. I'm asking practically. Who is in a better position to deal with it?
In terms of crumbling roads/bridges etc. that States are actively collecting taxes to maintain (and aren't), I couldn't agree more. Something like the storms of late and their subsequent flooding and destruction certainly make a better case for Federal assistance, although like you I can't help, but feel these should and could be addressed more effectively and efficiently by local entities.
ebuddy
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:38 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,