The editors of USA Today see things very much as I do with respect to the aid bill for the states hit by Hurricane Sandy that’s making its way through Congress:
The spending least worthy of an emergency loophole is the billions the bill demands for projects to protect against damage from future storms. Most or all of this spending makes sense. Protecting subway tunnels from flooding could save millions in the next storm, for example, and coastal communities behind sand barriers weathered the storm much better than those that elected not to build them.
The question is who should pay, and how. The Sandy bill unwisely changes the traditional cost-sharing formula that requires state and local governments to put up 35% of the funding for such projects, dropping that to just 10%.
Working-class towns might not be able to afford the tens of millions it costs to build sand barriers, but New York and New Jersey, for all their own budget woes, are relatively well-off states. It’s a matter of priorities.
Yes, we’re one country. What I’m curious about is why a non-emergency subsidy for Greenwich, Connecticut, for example, is more worthy of support than aid for poor kids in inner city Chicago? Aren’t they part of that “one country”, too?
I supported the federal aid to Sandy, so long as they didn’t change the formula. Not surprising, what’s good enough for fly-over country isn’t good enough for the elites. My fallback position is that whenever the federal government is paying the freight, the feds decide what’s in the national interest. No writing checks for local government to make local improvements through politically-connected contractors answering to local preservationists and land developers.
Of course not Dave. Sheesh.
Who could disagree with you, Dave? Not me. But certainly Schumer, Christie and their ilk.
How many times have I pointed out that we have plenty of money – and would not be in near fiscal calamity – for the truley needy? But that’s not what big government is about. Its about power, influence, risk shifting and just plain and simple slopping at the trough.
Every time I hear a lefty type complaining about a righty and their supposed uncaring attitude for the poor or otherwise in needy I think “are you really that dumb, or just so irrationally wedded to the notion of the state and screwing those with money that you are blind to those you profess to care about?”
I’m not sure what the article means by sand barriers. I assumed they meant the type of sand barriers that Gov. Jindal wanted to erect to contain the BP oil spill, which were criticized for not being able to withstand storms. Googling suggests that they are talking about sand barriers being erected on the beach with a bulldozer from existing sand. It would appear to be temporary; otherwise the use of the beach for recreation is essentially destroyed. That sounds way too much like an ongoing operating expense. How about backing off of the beach?
I think I’ve been clear on my opinions toward subsidies for the rich.
Who kills first in a UAV depends on how fast I can get my hands on one.
I think that singles, the poor, the childfree, gays, atheists and others with no voice should pay the entire bill for those rich Leftcosters. That’s the way we run Social Security, Medicare, our public schools and national parks and forests.
May I remind you?
And I still ain’t nothing next to those South Louisiana women.
Small wonder the Republicans don’t want us in comabt.
Hey Janis, did you spot the 14-year-old Laurence Fishburne in that clip?
He must be the young black man at 25.
Wrong! The boy in front at 56.
This seems like fairly normal, though rotten politicos. So, you have liberal Chris Christie trying to take advantage of this disaster by trying to get free money for his state. This would never happen if you had a good conservative governor running that state.
Steve
I think there’s a natural human tendency to want to help people affected by acute problems compared to people affected by chronic problems. Hence natural disaster victims get money and inner city kids don’t.