Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
Does anyone know?
Today’s vote was for $9.7 Billion to fund the National Flood Insurance Program.
That’s not a gift – it’s a payment of a debt owed by the government.
As I understand the program, an area of the country has to first agree to some precautions dealing with their flood plains, etc., to help avert or minimize flooding. In exchange for doing so, the government will sell flood insurance to the homeowners.
This area of the country did its part by agreeing to the government terms.
The homeowners did their part by paying the insurance premiums to the government.
Hurricane Sandy did her part by destroying or damaging the homes.
So now it's time for the federal government to uphold their end of the agreement. Yet all 67 votes against making the insurance payments came from Republicans. Perhaps my Google Kung Fu is weak, but I can’t find out why they voted against it.
Does anyone know why?
- Comment (90)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (23)
Comments:
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
Yes, "seriously." These people paid a premium for a program that requires the redistribution of wealth to pay out Tommy. I don't care if the premium is for an "amount certain" or not. The insurance requires taking money from some and giving it to others. That is the very definition of entitlement.
My homeowners policy is for an "amount certain." But the company has to collect enough premiums to stay solvent; they cannot have the coercive power of government take from some and give to others. This program was 20 billion in the hole before Sandy.
Subsidized/guaranteed student loans are an exact parallel. The people pay for it, but not enough to keep the program solvent.
Tommy De Seno
Last time I checked, people are "owed" about 85 trillion dollars in encumbered entitlements. Let's see how that works out while we keep clamoring for what we are "owed."
Entitlement? Seriously? These people paid a premium for an amount certain, completely UNLIKE Social Security, Medicaid and Disability. · 11 minutes ago
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
bereket kelile: I've learned that nothing is what it seems. Washington is like Alice's Wonderland.
The bill that passed today ($9.7 billion) raises the debt limit (appreciate the irony?) of the "insurance" program. It's not an aid bill. That round of spending has already begun. The money from this bill won't be spent for about 2 years.
Here is a link to Paul Ryan's statement released not too long ago:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton/paul-ryan-joins-conservatives-in-opposing-sandy-fl · 2 minutes ago
Ryan's full of it. The fund can't meet current claims right now. Of course the money is for Sandy victims.
Tell Paul Ryan I said the fungibility of commingled money is a concept not lost on me, and tell him I said nice try.
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
John Grant: Yes, "seriously." These people paid a premium for a program that requires the redistribution of wealth to pay out Tommy. I don't care if the premium is for an "amount certain" or not. The insurance requires taking money from some and giving it to others. That is the very definition of entitlement.
My homeowners policy is for an "amount certain." But the company has to collect enough premiums to stay solvent;
Oh - that's where you have it all wrong. Many, many insurance carriers can't meet claims with premiums. That's what re-insurance and other investments are for.
All insurance is a re-distribution of wealth, but it is also a voluntary one. Unlike with taxes, the government didn't have to sell it and the homeowner didn't have to buy it.
But they vountarily agreed with no compulsion as with taxes. The homeowner upheld his end of the bargain. Paul Ryan voted today to have the government welch.
THAT - would have been a gross redistribution of the wealth of the policy holder.
Edited on January 4, 2013 at 9:48pmOct '10
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
Tommy De Seno
Tell Paul Ryan I said the fungibility of commingled money is a concept not lost on me, and tell him I said nice try. · 3 minutes ago
I'll let him know once I get off the phone with Boehner about the upcoming debt ceiling negotiations.
I did read the bill, which is two pages, and there is no specification of what the money is to be used for because it simply raises their borrowing authority. It doesn't say that $X are to spent on aid for Sandy victims. We're familiar with this in California and so you can be forgiven for thinking that the money has to be spent according to what politicians say on TV.
May '10
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
Like it or not, the Fed Flood Insurance program is the law, and it is legitimate law passed by Congress and justified by a lot of factors just as is the Orphan Drug Act, enumerated powers notwithstanding; if the latter is the criterion, you need to eliminate 90% of the government, which, nice as it may be, ain't gonna happen, so stop the Paulite navel-gazing and get with reality.
As long as the $9.7 billion goes to people who actually paid premiums, rather than being the standard feel-sorry-for-you-gotta-bail-you-out nonsense, any member of Congress who voted against this is a freaking grandstanding moron.
Period.
Oct '10
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
Tommy, you are correct in your view about the payout. Unless subsequent posts after #20 make the point, I have your answer as to why there is a federal flood insurance program.
People insist on building in flood plains, whether the Jersey shore, the banks of the Mississippi, or the Outer Banks. Private insurance in areas prone to disaster is prohibitively expensive to the individual. Ever ready to milk the cow of public sentiment, politicians happily spend other peoples money to purchase votes from, in this case, people who love their homestead but do not want to pay the cost.
We live in a fire area. The Colorado Springs Waldo Canyon fire forced us to evacuate. Federal money paid part of the cost of suppressing that fire and saved our home along with thousands of others. We have no problem with the State of Colorado funding fire fighting efforts on our behalf, but you, in Asbury Park, New Jersey are paying for our fire safety, and unable to pay the insurance rates that should properly be yours alone.
When politicians purchase our votes, we all lose. But, the Wisdom of the Founders is long ago lost.
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
raycon and lindacon: Tommy, you are correct in your view about the payout. Unless subsequent posts after #20 make the point, I have your answer as to why there is a federal flood insurance program.
People insist on building in flood plains, whether the Jersey shore, the banks of the Mississippi, or the Outer Banks. Private insurance in areas prone to disaster is prohibitively expensive to the individual. Ever ready to milk the cow of public sentiment, politicians happily spend other peoples money to purchase votes from, in this case, people who love their homestead but do not want to pay the cost.
We live in a fire area. The Colorado Springs Waldo Canyon fire forced us to evacuate. Federal money paid part of the cost of suppressing that fire and saved our home along with thousands of others. We have no problem with the State of Colorado funding fire fighting efforts on our behalf, but you, in Asbury Park, New Jersey are paying for our fire safety, and unable to pay the insurance rates that should properly be yours alone.
When politicians purchase our votes, we all lose. But, the Wisdom of the Founders is long ago lost.
Interesting!
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
You mention but minimize the "voluntary" aspect of private insurance. That makes all the difference in the world. Under your definition, all economic activity is redistributive. That is true, but only in the most abstract sense.
In reality, there is a big difference between me deciding to spend money with insurance company "x" and the government taking money from taxpayers to pay for a bankrupt, unconstitutional program. That difference is the difference between having a right to property and not having a right to property.
Tommy De Seno
Oh - that's where you have it all wrong. Many, many insurance carriers can't meet claims with premiums. That's what re-insurance and other investments are for.
All insurance is a re-distribution of wealth, but it is also a voluntary one. Unlike with taxes, the government didn't have to sell it and the homeowner didn't have to buy it.
But they vountarily agreed with no compulsion as with taxes. The homeowner upheld his end of the bargain. Paul Ryan voted today to have the government welch.
THAT - would have been a gross redistribution of the wealth of the policy holder. · 7 minutes ago
Edited 4 minutes ago
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
Well, Pope Duane has made an ex cathedra declaration. Duane locuta est, causa finita est.
The Health Care Reform Act is the law, too, right? May I not criticize its wisdom or call for its repeal?
I like your "justified by a lot of factors" standard. I think that is along the lines of "shut up he explained."
We don't need no stinkin' constitution, we will merely wait for the cognoscenti to determine the relevant "factors."
Back to navel gazing.
Duane Oyen: Like it or not, the Fed Flood Insurance program is the law, and it is legitimate law passed by Congress and justified by a lot of factors just as is the Orphan Drug Act, enumerated powers notwithstanding; if the latter is the criterion, you need to eliminate 90% of the government, which, nice as it may be, ain't gonna happen, so stop the Paulite navel-gazing and get with reality.
As long as the $9.7 billion goes to people who actually paid premiums, rather than being the standard feel-sorry-for-you-gotta-bail-you-out nonsense, any member of Congress who voted against this is a freaking grandstanding moron.
Period. · 8 minutes ago
Oct '10
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
raycon and lindacon:
People insist on building in flood plains, whether the Jersey shore, the banks of the Mississippi, or the Outer Banks. Private insurance in areas prone to disaster is prohibitively expensive to the individual. Ever ready to milk the cow of public sentiment, politicians happily spend other peoples money to purchase votes from, in this case, people who love their homestead but do not want to pay the cost.
Another complicating factor is that there are wealthy people who have expensive homes in high-risk areas and are able to pull strings to get these programs. The program provides a perverse incentive by offering low-cost policies, kind of like offering low-interest mortgages to not-so-credit-worthy buyers.
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
Bereket,
You point to a key factor here. All of these programs are related to crony capitalism or the reception of unearned benefits (as compared to say pay for work performed).
The Founders' view of rights was grounded in the idea that we own ourselves in relation to other human beings. The new view of rights is not only different; it actually requires the violation of the old view. The property rights of some are taken (in whole or in part) to benefit others for these entitlements to work.
A baneful side effect is that this puts American citizens at each other's throats as members of opposing special interests. Person "a" who receives entitlement "x" will often be quite happy to cut entitlement "y" received by person "b." This understandably enrages person "b."
bereket kelile
Another complicating factor is that there are wealthy people who have expensive homes in high-risk areas and are able to pull strings to get these programs. The program provides a perverse incentive by offering low-cost policies, kind of like offering low-interest mortgages to not-so-credit-worthy buyers. · 2 minutes ago
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
bereket kelile
raycon and lindacon:
People insist on building in flood plains, whether the Jersey shore, the banks of the Mississippi, or the Outer Banks. Private insurance in areas prone to disaster is prohibitively expensive to the individual. Ever ready to milk the cow of public sentiment, politicians happily spend other peoples money to purchase votes from, in this case, people who love their homestead but do not want to pay the cost.
Another complicating factor is that there are wealthy people who have expensive homes in high-risk areas and are able to pull strings to get these programs. The program provides a perverse incentive by offering low-cost policies, kind of like offering low-interest mortgages to not-so-credit-worthy buyers. · 5 minutes ago
True for some, but this can be a common misconception about the Jersey Shore. The Bayshore area is not wealthy at all. Union Beach, a working class town, lost 70 houses the first day of the storm and I heard about 260 are condemned.
May '12
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
Tommy, you have mentioned the phrase "the optics are terrible" several times in this Comment Thread.
When will the optics be good to reform this (in the scheme of things) minor program, or any of the major contributors to the deficit?
Sep '10
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
"All insurance is a redistribution of wealth" I have never heard of a more inaccurate definition. Insurance is mechanism for distributing risk. If the cost of this distribution is born by the people who are subject to the risk there should be no distribution of wealth. If the cost of the distribution is forced onto others it is properly no longer "insurance" but welfare.
The program should be called the "National flood welfare program".
I guess you can argue the people who signed up for the welfare program are entitled to the promised payments, but these people should be added to the 47% even if they are paying income taxes.
Most government welfare payments do not go to the poor and this program is just one example of this.
May '10
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
Tommy De Seno
Whiskey Sam
Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., a fiscal conservative who voted against the flood bill, said he was among those with concerns about the budget deficit. "We have to talk seriously about offsets," Huelskamp said. "We can't take $60 billion off budget, that's my problem with it."
Been a long time since there was a hurricane in Kansas. Bet Rep. Huelskamp will be first at the trough for off-budget billions if there's a big tornado, or crop failure.
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
Edward Smith: Tommy, you have mentioned the phrase "the optics are terrible" several times in this Comment Thread.
When will the optics be good to reform this (in the scheme of things) minor program, or any of the major contributors to the deficit? · 5 minutes ago
Absolutely any time at all. But you don't do it by refusing to pay the claims of validly purchased insurance policies.
I'd support reform or destruction of the program right now. But there is no reason to vote against legitimately made claims to do it. No reason to use these people as pawns in a war.
That's what makes the optics bad. Another reason for the Dems to say we don't care about people. Just handed it to them.
Mar '11
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
I'd distinguish between voting to fulfill the government's obligation under the flood insurance program and voting to fulfill the government's obligation under the flood insurance program by simply borrowing money to do so. The former is admirable; the latter, not so much.
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
Right up until you pay the first claim that exceeds premiums. Then it is most certainly a redistribution of wealth.
But the better analogy is the one I used. Insurance is a bet. When I buy health insurnace, every month I don't get sick, I lose the bet. Every month I do get sick, the insurance company loses the bet.
May '12
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
I recall the reaction to the proposal to allow people contributing to Social Security to invest their own money towards their own retirement - by the people this would have now helped.
Tommy De Seno
Edward Smith: Tommy, you have mentioned the phrase "the optics are terrible" several times in this Comment Thread.
When will the optics be good to reform this (in the scheme of things) minor program, or any of the major contributors to the deficit? · 5 minutes ago
Absolutely any time at all. But you don't do it by refusing to pay the claims of validly purchased insurance policies.
I'd support reform or destruction of the program right now. But there is no reason to vote against legitimately made claims to do it. No reason to use these people as pawns in a war.
That's what makes the optics bad. Another reason for the Dems to say we don't care about people. Just handed it to them. · 2 minutes ago
Sep '12
Re: Why Was There Republican Opposition To Today’s Sandy Relief Bill?
I think there's a key difference in that a disaster has just occurred for a specific group of people. I would support the federal government announcing "we can't afford to provide disaster insurance, so as of January 1, 2014 we will only pay off claims that have already been incurred" or something like that, just as I would support the government telling me, "Sorry, I know you've already earned 40+ quarters in Social Security, but we're ending the program for everyone under 50, because it's insolvent."
What I don't support, and what Tommy is objecting to, is pulling the rug out after an obligation has already put people in a position of need.
I can still plan for retirement. My 90 year-old grandpa cannot. Cutting off SS benefits for me is ok. Cutting them off for him is immoral.