« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Tell Senators to Vote No on Obama’s Pork “Disaster Aid” Bill

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  December 21st, 2012 at 02:20 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

After the divisive intro-movement battle in the House over taxes, here is a fight in the Senate we can all join in together.  Obama and Reid are using the disaster of Hurricane Sandy to push through a $60.4 billion package that is full of pork and special interest handouts.   Only $11.5 billion will go towards FEMA’s disaster relief fund.  CBO projects that 64% of the funds will not be spent until FY 2015.  The entire rationale of an emergency bill is that the aid money is desperately needed now.  The fact that much of the funds will not be spent for several years reveals this as a liberal stimulus bill.

Yet, they are deeming it an emergency so that the Senate does not have to find cuts to other programs to pay for this spending.

The following senators, many of whom would see their states receive some of the pork, are equivocating.  They need to hear from us.  Cloture will be held around 5 pm, and if Reid picks off 7 Republicans, this thing will pass and saddle the House with another problem.  The cost of this package is worth more than all the annual revenue from raising the marginal tax rates, dividends, and CapGains on those earning more than $250k.

Ayotte
Boozman
Cochran
Graham
Hoeven
Murkowski
Sessions
Shelby
Rubio

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Melody Warbington

    I called Sessions and Shelby. According to their clerks, neither have made a statement. I voiced my opposition to the bill, even if it means $ for Alabama and my hopes that my senators will not disappoint me. FWIW.

  • http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/ spoasteph97

    Please help!
    Can someone explain what Senator Toomey was doing? He made a budget point of order on a portion of the bill (he said it was worth $3 billion). Senator Mikulski (Democrat) asked to waive the budget point of order. They had a roll call vote and the motion to waive failed. Does that mean that the portion of the bill is taken out? Thanks.

  • carolina

    All $60.4 billion passed. (one tiny $200 mil program was dropped) Good ole dems doing what they do best = spend, spend, spend.

  • http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/ spoasteph97

    Thanks so much. It’s good that we won this one (although there will probably have to be a vote when they get back on Thursday).

  • checkmate2012

    It didn’t actually pass yet but they say they have the votes. Not too late too call your Senators to object!

    “Senate Democrats said Friday they have enough votes to approve a more than $60 billion Sandy relief bill, overcoming objections that it includes too many pet projects unrelated to the storm.

    “Today’s votes puts us on a certain path towards providing the relief needed to help our families recover and rebuild,” New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said in a statement. “We will pass this package next week and House Republicans have a moral obligation to come back to Washington and get this important work done.”

    The bill survived a filibuster threat, but the actual vote isn’t expected to come until Dec. 27, when amendments may change the actual size of the bill. If it passes, the legislation will head to the House of Representatives for its approval.”

    From: http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2012/dec/21/60b-sandy-relief-bill-advances-senate/

  • carolina

    Thanks for the correction about final passage. Actually, politico says Reid won’t pass this during “this congress”. Sounds like he will wait until the new congress is sworn in (and they have more dems in the Senate & House), then he will reintroduce it for quick passage – to send to the House.

  • checkmate2012

    This bill is a disgrace and Dick Durbin said spending off-sets aren’t fair in disasters. When TX was burning in 2011 with over 9,000 fires, the White House denied Perry’s request for a disaster declaration, stating they’d already helped TX with 25 FMAGs but they don’t help individuals just fire fighting efforts. I recall that aid was dependent on a State’s ability to fund its own recovery. Aren’t NJ and NY two of the richest states?

    I’m not uncaring of the difficulties faced by areas hit by Sandy at all, but this bill is outrageous with all its waste.

    Directly from www.whitehouse.gov, in their request for aid, what exactly does this statement mean, as it seems to be contradictory; phsyical losses but not repairs:

    “Targeting public assistance for public benefit – Through the Small Business Administration,the Federal Government has loan programs appropriate to assist many businesses in covering unmet physical and economic losses from disasters. With limited exceptions related to small businesses that face long-term business disruption, public resources should not be used to restore lost revenue or pay for repairs to privately-owned business assets.”

    See the entire alphabet of departments that will get money in these pork bill:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
    supplemental__december_7_2012_hurricane_sandy_funding_needs.pdf.pdf

  • commonsenseobserver

    Start with Rubio. Pork, or Presidency?

  • commonsenseobserver

    Surely we can rely on President Obama to tackle major infrastructure reconstruction later on if rebuilding roads and bridges is such a priority of his. This is a *relief* bill.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Only in the United Kingdom.

  • viperscale

    And whoever votes “no” on this bill will be labeled as wanting to let hundreds of innocent people die. The problem is that there is so many different things all packaged in one bill that while there is always some good (usually what they advertise the bill as) most of it is bad or unnecessary. I can’t believe Marco Rubio is doing this.

  • viperscale

    Why can’t States have their own disaster relief programs. It seems the federal government screws up EVERYTHING.

  • http://www.licgop.com licgop

    That would so go against everything every fiscally liberal Republican (like Bush, Gingrich, and Romney) and all Democrats have been preaching to us abut how government works since FDR. After all if the federal government can’t help us who can?

  • http://www.licgop.com licgop

    Why can’t you? What about Rubio ever screamed fiscal conservative?

  • viperscale

    NOTHING… and yet come time for presidential election I believe every one of us (not including me) will support Marco Rubio over someone like Rand Paul. I see people here who actually label Rubio as “Tea Party”.

  • viperscale

    Just out of curiosity (and you don’t have to answer). Who did you support for the Republican nomination when it was between Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul?

  • Bill S

    Remember who Rubio was running against? Would you vote for him or Orange Charlie? Stop whining about Rubio. He was light years ahead of the competition.

  • viperscale

    Your right, but I sometimes wonder why they don’t just stand up for conservative principles all the time on everything. Boehner is better then Obama yet why does he always try to appease the Dems?

  • commonsenseobserver

    Maybe because states can’t do anything about federal red tape. Of course, during Katrina, we saw that the federal government can’t do anything about red tape at any level.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Well, if the package is going to pass anyway, would you rather the money went to the fictional state of North Pole or the fictional state of Viperscale’s home?

  • commonsenseobserver

    I wouldn’t. I find him a lightweight. Don’t like the Pauls either.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Toomey’s always the best. Would make an excellent Treasury Secretary or something. ^^

  • viperscale

    Clumping the Paul’s together is kind of misleading. Who is more of a fiscal conservative in the Senate then Rand Paul?

  • commonsenseobserver

    Being President requires more than turning up, casting the right votes, and looking plausible, whatever the example set by the current one in the White House or the 42nd one may say. That’s why Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, and Jim DeMint will never be presidents.

  • viperscale

    But you would rather have any of those three then a moderate in the White House, right?

  • commonsenseobserver

    It depends on what you mean by “moderate”. And I’m not sure I’d take Ron Paul over, say, Mitt Romney.

  • http://conservatisthandbook.blogspot.com cjd87

    So spending money “only 2 years” from now is going to help the people who were affected by the storm how exactly? And if we want to rebuild infrastructure so be it but vote on it openly and honestly.