This question is prompted because of a discussion of the current hurricane on another board. I’ve tried to find the details of what actually went down in 2012 but my searches just seem to lead me to overtly partisan sites.
Anyway, someone made a post accusing DeSantis, McConnell (after the recent flooding in KY) and Republicans in general of hypocrisy for seeking aid when their states suffer a disaster but voting against it for northern states in 2012.
One of the replies stated:
Hurricane Sandy hit NYC and did billions in damage. Obama immediately signed $4.2B in aid for NY. The same hurricane hit New Jersey and also did billions in damage in that state. *Obama only signed $300M because the NJ governor was Chris Christie, his political opponent.
Obviously Republicans opposed this straight up political favoritism and government handouts disguised as aid.
Is there any truth to what this person is suggesting? That Obama was initially going to screw over NJ because their Governor was Republican? I find that difficult to believe but am having trouble finding good facts.
Just going on what you said and quoted here, the President can only sign a bill that Congress presents to him (so far only him), so I suppose Pubs might have a complaint against Congress. But also do you have any idea what the relevant damages and needed spending were?
The person’s claim is that damage in NY was approx $19B to which Obama initially signed $4.2B in aid. The damage estimate for NJ was approx $65B but Obama only signed $300M in aid due to overt political favoritism.
The statement doesn’t pass the smell test to me. I don’t have any issue accepting that certain members of congress would be so petty, but I can’t imagine Obama or any other President (except for 1) writing off an entire state because the governor is a political opponent.
But i’m trying to find out what really happened.
Perhaps the initial package to NJ WAS $300M but for rational reasons and this guy is building it up in his head as just being political.
His entire statement screams nonsense to me, but I don’t have very many actual facts to back up my hunch.
That could be attributed to political considerations (S.I. has long been, relatively speaking, much more Republican-friendly than other boroughs) or more likely to having fewer people and long being viewed as out of the loop/home to country bumpkins.
Yeah, really. It’s not as if the POTUS can just give or not give at will.
BTW the reduction of the state’s share of the FEMA obligation to 10% for permanent work, and to 0% for immediate emergency work, has been part of the Stafford act since even before Sandy. They did not have to “lobby” very much, just show magnitude of damages.
In PR we get some chatter along similar lines re: Hurricane Maria funding and in the end it all boils down to the same thing. Neither Obama nor Trump can just say “here, give them whatever it takes to become whole, just drive trucks of cash to the governor’s office” nor “f—k 'em, give them nothing”. Once there is an Emergency or Major Disaster declaration, the law provides for what happens. If it takes more than the standard allocation share under the FEMA Disaster Fund, Congress will appropriate supplemental amounts with their terms and conditions and the POTUS signs or doesn’t sign. No amount of us thrashing on the floor saying “But I’m POOR!! I don’t have two quarters to do anything with!!!” is going to make them give us more than what that bill says.
After that then it does become a matter of administrative competence vulnerable to small-ball politics as to how fast the cash flows and through/to whom.