Source: ProPublica


• 31 Senate Republicans Opposed Sandy Relief After Supporting Disaster Aid For Home States (Think Progress)

• 37 Congressional Republicans Opposed Sandy Relief After Supporting Disaster Aid For Home States (Think Progress)

Category: Current Affairs, Digital Media

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

17 Responses to “How Disaster Aid Recipients Voted on Sandy Relief”

  1. rd says:

    I found the Sandy relief votes to be very revealing on how polarized, dysfunctional, and ineffective Congress has become.

    There actually ended up being several votes, over a period of a couple of months. The first one or two were no-brainer Yes votes because they were dealing with immediate relief requirements for a major, multi-state disaster.

    However, by the third vote, it became obvious that there were some funding requests that deserved some rational debate. However, because the house GOP had simply been intransigent on it from Day 1, they were unable to come to grips with the ocnsequence of good vs bad funding requests inside the big bill since they simply held the position that the Federal government should get out of the disaster relief business (unless it was their state). As a result, we just got another one of the stupid shouting matches over an all-or-nothing vote instead of a rational discussion about what should be funded in a disaster relief bill and what should be assigned to other bills for future, such as overall transportation bills etc.

    So the end result, is that we probably ended up with several billion dollars of wasteful spending that principled debate could have eliminated or tuned better. These endless all-or-nothing pitched battles appear to be increasingly ineffective in controlling government spending, so it isunclear what theyare about. Unfortunately, we are in an era of poor debating and political skills,particularly on the right at a time when they are desparately needed to comeup with balanced,effective policies during trying times.

  2. GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

    At least we didn’t hear, “Keep your government hands off my FEMA aid.”

  3. Orange14 says:

    Given that New Orleans received $14.5B to improve the flood control system after Katrina with very little opposition (and yes Governor Jindal, the latest and greatest GOP hope didn’t raise a whimper over this ‘government’ handout) I only hope that the next time the Southern states come to feed at the government trough following a disaster they get pay back.

    We should also end government flood insurance and let these folks pay market rates!

  4. econimonium says:


  5. rjgirving says:

    Mr Ritholz, Federal Govt assistance in relief of Sandy damages is normal and necessary. No problem so far. BEA in their Technical Note of Jan 30, 2013 re Q4 GDP estimates private property damage of $35.8B and govt property damage of $8.6B of which private insurance covers 20.6B and the separate Govt flood insurance bill covers 7.5B. Looks like unisured damages of 16.3B vs the Sandy Relief bill of $50B. Okay, some of the excess may be for mitigation of future flood damage and poor initial estimates. But, $34B of excess while Senator Schumar publicly describes the $50B as the initial downpayment to be followed by supplementals. This bill singlehandly consumes the estimated additional revenue from increased tax rates in 2013, and it is a downpayment? No attempt to offset any other spending anywhere? My family is in NJ, I grew up there, but would probably vote NO as currently configured. I lost, okay, glad my home state of Nj is helped, but our fiscal discipline is surely out of whack. Best regards – RJG

  6. petessake says:

    The 2012 disaster map only scratched the surface. It would be revealing to also show the map of the freeloaders who panhandled for “drought” assistance in 2011 and 2012; who groveled for flood disaster assistance from the flooding on the upper and lower Missouri-Mississippi Rivers; and, my personal “favorite” those welfare queens who claimed disaster assistance for blizzards, forest, and grassland fires. The republican no votes on assistance for Sandi were immoral.

  7. Greg0658 says:

    ~drought assistance is in the form of insurance bought in advance – but you still pay 1 way or another
    ~Illinois would see some color if it went back to 2008+ with Hur.Ike

    that said my take is wondering how things would be different if Laborers decided on rebuild’g here/there and not Money .. not gonna happen in my lifetime but thats my stick

    just back from a dog walk and we have another water break – thats old pipes for ya and IL weather – down today up tomorrow

  8. beaufou says:

    Reds: States of dissonance

  9. catclub says:

    I am in Mississippi, and the MS and LA troglodytes look pretty sane on this vote. They have been hit enough times to know another one will be coming. And they will want NY/NJ reps to vote for it.

    I will agree with PETESSAKE and note that the 2012 map is incomplete relative to flood and drought and fire. Not to mention previous years.

  10. JimRino says:

    Southern and Western Republicans say FU to Northeastern REPUBLICANS.
    Kill the Republican party already.

  11. Bob A says:

    somebody should declare the republican party a disaster area
    …and then shove it out to sea

  12. cyaker says:

    As Pat Moynahan said or should have we are e suckers.

    In 2005 the last data I have New Jersey got back $0.61 for every dollar they sent to Washington NY $0.79 and CT $0.69 . You would think a grateful nation would help them in their hour of need but no they all play politics. This country may not be Fiscally bankrupt but it is morally bankrupt

    Tax Foundation Special Report No. 158, “Federal Tax Burdens and Spending by State,” and U.S. Census Bureau’s Consolidated Federal Funds Report for 2005.

  13. rd says:

    JimRino and Bob A.:

    The Republican Party leadership is listening to your requests and is working hard to fulfill them. They appear to be succeeding.

  14. BennyProfane says:

    So, how many of those billions of dollars are going to be used to build dunes and “replenish” beaches that will be washed away within 24 hours when the next storm hits, which doesn’t have to be a major hurricane like Sandy? A nice nor’easter that is just an inconvenience to inlanders can do a lot of destruction to the beach areas. An awful lot.

    As someone said above, make flood insurance private and stop subsidizing stupid building practices. I just visited a friend on Long Island who described how he was literally inches away from his house being flooded by that last storm. He’s right on the mainland side in Islip on the Robert Moses causeway. Lucky guy, and, I wish him the best, but, do you know what his flood insurance bill was last year? $750. That’s it. Hell, that’s less than most car insurance policies for fairly expensive cars. And he’s just blocks away from massive property damage. Thankfully congress is ending this subsidy, slowly, Can’t be quick enough. But, meanwhile, I have to listen to these children in congress act like 7 year olds. “mew, mew, my portion is smaller than Suzie’s! mew mew”.

  15. petessake says:

    Greg, drought assistance is only a form of insurance for some crop insurance – there is no government drought insurance for ranchers which is the preponderant land use west of 100th meridian. And the majority of those “crops” grown in the plains are feed and not food – the most inefficient use of agricultural energy.

  16. ZedLoch says:

    Clearly they just want to cut [YOUR] spending.

  17. DeDude says:

    I guess these principled guys are willing to put a line in the sand on spending – as long as it is not their own sand.