« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Urge Conservatives to Write Amendment to Offset Sandy Funds!

By: spoasteph97 (Diary)  |  January 4th, 2013 at 09:19 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I’m encouraging conservative reps to get together and write an amendment to offset the Sandy funds (the $51 billion that will be coming up). For the appropriate parts, they should find wasteful spending and bring the amendment to the floor of the house. Then, they can vote for the amendment. Even if it fails, they have something to back up their vote. A lot of people are attacking them write now (wrongfully), but it is difficult to explain to these people who are driven by emotion rather than looking ahead for the future generations.

If conservative reps write an amendment, giving the $51 billion (or whatever amount is truly necessary) for Sandy victims, and then offsetting it with spending cuts, they can claim that they are serious about both helping the victims and fighting for the next generation by stopping the debt.

Conservative reps need to communicate the right message. I applaud them for their courageous vote today (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll007.xml), but they have to play smarter in the future. Democrats like to lie, and I will bet you they will make these into campaign ads that Conservatives will have nothing to show for.

Here is research done by the Heritage Foundation on areas that could be cut: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/11/150-billion-in-spending-cuts-to-offset-defense-sequestration

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/hurricane-sandy-relief-bill-and-bloated-deficit-spending

Conservative reps should get working so they can communicate a better message. Let’s do this!

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • commonsenseobserver

    Should they be passing that bill at all, since it’s full of pork? Now, there are legitimate reasons to pass it with offsets, or even maybe without, but it’d be much easier and better if they picked out the pork and got rid of it in the first place. Michael Bloomberg has given them a reason. :)

    Of course, I’m not even sure either one would pass, since the pork was strategically placed to attract votes from both sides of the aisle, and many others will be demagogued into submission.

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

      They can try to pass an amendment to get rid of the pork. Almost everyone (even liberals) are outraged over the pork. That one they can argue.

      Any money going to New York, Connecticut, or New Jersey should be allowed to pass as long as it is offset. That’s what I want conservative representatives to work on so they will be on OFFENSE! Right now, majority of them are having to “defend” their votes (I’ve read several articles). They should be playing on a field of offense…not defense. :)

      • PowerToThePeople

        No, they need to sit down and figure out a way to end pork entirely. It is too late to stop it in this bill. Instead of spending a great amount of futile effort trying to stop the sandy relief bill, they need to use it as a catalyst to stop this type of absurd attachments in the future once and for all.

        • commonsenseobserver

          Legislative line-item veto, perhaps.
          And actually enshrine a strong earmark ban in statute law, binding both parties in both chambers, and in the White House.

          • PowerToThePeople

            Line item could work, but that would be dependent on a president willing to use the veto. We need to push for pork free bills and make that a law. If you want 50 million to fix sidewalks in your state, ask for it directly and have it voted into the budget. But until we stop all lawmakers ability to put massive amount of money into bills, this will never stop.

    • PowerToThePeople

      This is a no win battle, vote against it even though it is a BS bill, and you look like the evil party.

      Again, this goes back to the whole bed/sleep it in idea. When bills have been offered over the last so many years banning the attachment of pork into bills, we rejected the idea. By we I mean our party and most of its members. Now we are in a corner and have no choice. Perception is key, and voting against “helping” the Sandy victims will be perceived as dead wrong as most of your average citizens have no clue as to what the bill really contains, only what is in the title.

      • commonsenseobserver

        We could easily send an amended bill back to the Senate with little disquiet?

        • PowerToThePeople

          Could, but on this we must be careful. As I said, perception is everything, look at the last election and why so many voted against Romney or stayed home even though he was heads and shoulders above Obama although that is not saying much. If we are labeled as the party who refused to help the Sandy victims it will haunt us for 20 years even though the bill is a joke and does little to actually help anyone other than the pork receivers.

          We should remember Katrina and how Bush to this day is decried for his uncaring response to the disaster even though most if not all the blame actually lies with the gov of LA at that time. But as I said, perception is all that matters.

  • checkmate2012

    I agree with you that an amendment should be attempted. PttP is right that perception matters here but that’s because the R’s don’t communicate the facts very well. Plus, what would the perception be of R’s if they don’t try to eliminate the pork? The Heritage article pointed out a couple of important points R’s could/should use:

    -the prez didn’t even ask for emergency funds until 12/7, over a month after the storm and then called it emergency funds. And I read the prez’s request that included funding requests for nearly every dept. that had most of the pork and then the Senate piled more onto to it.
    -the Senate passed the bill on 12/28, nearly ran out the clock as usual meanwhile they were busy naming post offices.
    -none of the states passed bills to fund the storm recovery, from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/hurricane-sandy-relief-bill-and-bloated-deficit-spending

    “Taking time to thoroughly evaluate emergency spending requests, especially when the treasury is broke, is an obligation of office that taxpayers expect lawmakers to take seriously. One must ask why Congress should rapidly appropriate funds for New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut when none of those states has had a special legislative session to appropriate state funds for the response and recovery efforts involved in Hurricane Sandy. Federalism should be an enduring principle, not one that states claim only when it is convenient.”

    So does anyone know if it’s SOP for the Senate to take up this type of bill instead of the House going first? Seems Christie shouldv’e vented at Reid and Bam, not Boehner….or himself.