Sow the Wind, Reap the Worldwind: Okla. Senators Oppose Disaster Relief for OTHER States

[Evil_Captor]

In the wake of the tragic Moore, Oklahoma tornado comes another story of stupid Republican hypocrisy: the state’s two senators, Jim Imhofe and Tom Coburn. Says the Huffington Post in an article on the topic:

Sens. Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn, both Republicans, are fiscal hawks who have repeatedly voted against funding disaster aid for other parts of the country. They also have opposed increased funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which administers federal disaster relief.

They voted against Sandy relief, of course. And guess which state ranks third in the nation in terms of receiving disaster relief funding? Oklahoma!

Do Oklahomans DESERVE disaster relief after voting these two clowns into office? Sounds like the Republican voters of Oklahoma are on the hook for extreme hypocrisy, too.

[Human_Action]

What’s the hypocrisy, exactly?

[Evil_Captor]

@Human_Action

What’s the hypocrisy, exactly?

They vote to deny disaster relief funds to other states, but will come begging the federal relief funds to Oklahoma because, y’know, that’s DIFFERENT.

[Evil_Captor]

Oh, forgot to link to the Huffington Post article. Sorry about that.

[Human_Action]

@Evil_Captor

They vote to deny disaster relief funds to other states, but will come begging the federal relief funds to Oklahoma because, y’know, that’s DIFFERENT.

‘Will’ come begging, or ‘have’ come begging?

[Human_Action]

Ok, read the article. I see what you’re getting at, but neither Senator appears to be opposed to the concept of federal disaster relief, they’ve objected to specific outlays of specific relief efforts in the past. From the article:

Late last year, Inhofe and Coburn both backed a plan to slash disaster relief to victims of Hurricane Sandy. In a December press release, Coburn complained that the Sandy Relief bill contained “wasteful spending,” and identified a series of items he objected to, including “$12.9 billion for future disaster mitigation activities and studies.”

Again, opposed to wasteful relief spending (how accurate that characterization is is unclear based on the article), not all spending. If they support an OK relief bill that contains the same sorts of spending that they previously called “wasteful”, fair enough, that’s hypocritical.

As for the FEMA funding bill, from the linked article in your article:

But most Senate Republicans and the GOP-controlled House of Representatives balked at the price tag of the Democratic bill, arguing that any infusion of extra FEMA funds should be paid for by cuts elsewhere. On Sept. 13, the Senate advanced a stand-alone bill by a mostly party-line 61 to 38 vote.

So, not opposition to FEMA existing, but rather quarreling over where the funding should come from. That article also points out:

The top two states, Texas and Oklahoma, combined for more than a quarter of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s declared disasters since Jan. 1, 2009. Still, the four Republicans from those states most frequently aided by FEMA opposed legislation to increase the fund without offsets.

So, the Senators’ own states were the ones most likely to be adversely affected by funding problems with FEMA.

[John_Mace]

@Evil_Captor

They vote to deny disaster relief funds to other states, but will come begging the federal relief funds to Oklahoma because, y’know, that’s DIFFERENT.

I’m not seeing in your articles where they begged for specific bills to be passed to increase funds for their states. They’ve asked for FEMA to expedite funds that were already approved and were part of FEMA’s budget.

Not seeing hypocrisy here.

[Evil_Captor]

@Human_Action

Ok, read the article. I see what you’re getting at, but neither Senator appears to be opposed to the concept of federal disaster relief, they’ve objected to specific outlays of specific relief efforts in the past. From the article:

Again, opposed to wasteful relief spending (how accurate that characterization is is unclear based on the article), not all spending. If they support an OK relief bill that contains the same sorts of spending that they previously called “wasteful”, fair enough, that’s hypocritical.

They CLAIM that other states’ spending is “wasteful” but let me give you an idea how shallow and insubstantive their claims are: in a television interview, Imhofe said the Sandy relief was wasteful because it included things like putting roofs back on houses in the US Virgin Islands. Well the fact is, Sandy came through the Virgin Islands on it’s way to New Jersey. So that spending is legitimately part of Sandy relief. But Imhofe is either too ignorant an asshole to have bothered to learn that fact before he opened his ignorant mouth, or he figured his constituents are that ignorant. I opt for the second theory, because he kinda tried to make it sound like some New Jersey scammers were getting money for renovations on their vacation homes while they were at it.

Imhofe’s claims of wasteful spending are clearly a cover-up for his actual lack of concern for the welfare of OTHER states.

[Bricker]

@Evil_Captor

They CLAIM that other states’ spending is “wasteful” but let me give you an idea how shallow and insubstantive their claims are: in a television interview, Imhofe said the Sandy relief was wasteful because it included things like putting roofs back on houses in the US Virgin Islands.

Cite?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

Cite?

I am guessing it is this:

That was a “totally different” situation, Inhofe told MSNBC, arguing that the Sandy aid was filled with pork. There were “things in the Virgin Islands. They were fixing roads there and putting roofs on houses in Washington, D.C.”

“Everyone was getting in and exploiting the tragedy that took place,” he said. “That won’t happen in Oklahoma.”

SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/21/inhofe-tornado-totally-different-from-hurricane-sandy/

Here’s the thing though about all that pork:

A review of the mark-up of the Senate bill reveals that all that extra, non-Sandy related cash is actually set to provide billions for “storm events that occurred in 2012 along the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast within the boundaries of the North Atlantic and Mississippi Valley divisions of the Corps that were affected by Hurricanes Sandy and Isaac.”

<snip>

What, you may ask, do these states far from New York and New Jersey have in common?

Each is not only a red state, but each of these states are represented by two Republican senators—with the exception of Louisiana with its one GOP senator.
And what happens when you buy off seven Republican senators with a package of goodies under the guise of storm relief supposedly meant to benefit two blue states?

You get yourself a filibuster proof piece of legislation.

SOURCE: Pork Holding Up Senate Sandy Relief Bill Funneled Into The Troughs Of GOP Deficit Hawks? You Betcha.

So, basically, republicans put pork in the bill for Sandy Aid and then complain that there was pork in the bill for Sandy Aid.

[Human_Action]

@Evil_Captor

They CLAIM that other states’ spending is “wasteful” but let me give you an idea how shallow and insubstantive their claims are: in a television interview, Imhofe said the Sandy relief was wasteful because it included things like putting roofs back on houses in the US Virgin Islands. Well the fact is, Sandy came through the Virgin Islands on it’s way to New Jersey. So that spending is legitimately part of Sandy relief. But Imhofe is either too ignorant an asshole to have bothered to learn that fact before he opened his ignorant mouth, or he figured his constituents are that ignorant. I opt for the second theory, because he kinda tried to make it sound like some New Jersey scammers were getting money for renovations on their vacation homes while they were at it.

Imhofe’s claims of wasteful spending are clearly a cover-up for his actual lack of concern for the welfare of OTHER states.

That’s an overly simplistic reading. Inhofe was part of a group that wanted to budget $23.8 billion for immediate relief, and assess longer-term needs in future bills, as opposed to budgeting $60.4 billion that was a mix of immediate and long-term projects.

“We don’t have time right now to get all the way through and analyze the actual losses that were attributable to Sandy,” said Republican senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, adding that the full $60.4 billion looked like a “slush fund.”

Inhofe didn’t want there to be no Sandy relief, he objecting to allocating all the funds in one go, but was part of a group that was proposing an immediate relief fund of $23.8 billion. You can reasonably disagree with that position, but it’s not ‘opposing disaster relief’.

Here is Coburn and John McCain’s joint statement on spending in the Sandy bill they considered wasteful.

[Human_Action]

@Whack-a-Mole

So, basically, republicans put pork in the bill for Sandy Aid and then complain that there was pork in the bill for Sandy Aid.

Different Republicans. The Coats amendment that Inhofe supported was deliberately anti-pork.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

Its pretty hard to reconcile Inhofe’s position on relief for Sandy versus relief for Oklahoma.

Just as it is hard to reconcile Ted Cruz’s position onrelief for Sandy versus federal aid for West, Texas.

The Republicans don’t think anything is an issue until it affects them (see Portman’s and Cheney’s position on gay marriage). Its a general lack of empathy.

[Evil_Captor]

@Bricker

Cite?

Here ya go. It’s a video, Imhofe’s quote can be heard at 5:48. Stay for Cenk Uygar’s rant, it’s fun! Or you may be ok with the link Whack-A-Mole provides.

[Human_Action]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Its pretty hard to reconcile Inhofe’s position on relief for Sandy versus relief for Oklahoma.

Why is that? He wasn’t opposed to Sandy relief, he wanted an initial authorization of $23.8 billion for immediate relief, with longer-term relief being dealt with after it had been analyzed.

The articles on this are pretty awful, most are reporting that Inhofe “opposed the Sandy relief bill” or that he “opposed using federal money to help the victims of Superstorm Sandy” without noting that he backed a rival relief bill.

This is partisan dishonesty at full tilt, and it’s wrong no matter who does it.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Human_Action

Different Republicans. The Coats amendment that Inhofe supported was deliberately anti-pork.

So, when Inhofe says (about the pork), "That won’t happen in Oklahoma,” why is that?

Sounds to me like Inhofe does not expect a need to “buy off” (so to speak) red states with pork in order to obtain relief funds.

That does not make Inhofe principled in my eyes.

[Human_Action]

@Whack-a-Mole

So, when Inhofe says (about the pork), "That won’t happen in Oklahoma,” why is that?

Because he’s opposed to pork of this kind, I assume, now as he was with the Sandy bill.

@Whack-a-Mole

Sounds to me like Inhofe does not expect a need to “buy off” (so to speak) red states with pork in order to obtain relief funds.

That does not make Inhofe principled in my eyes.

He voted against what he saw as a pork-fest, so he’s principled on that level if nothing else. It’s unclear whether Congress will need to act in this case, FEMA has something like $11 billion in their relief fund already. Inhofe may or may not get the chance to vote on a relief bill for Oklahoma, which may or may not contain the same sort of pork spending he was opposed to in the Sandy bill. Until then, calling him a hypocrit is unsupported by the facts in hand.

[ITR_champion]

@Evil_Captor

They voted against Sandy relief, of course. And guess which state ranks third in the nation in terms of receiving disaster relief funding? Oklahoma!

Cite, please.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Evil_Captor

Well the fact is, Sandy came through the Virgin Islands on it’s way to New Jersey.

Not the best vacation itinerary I’ve ever heard.

[Evil_Captor]

@ITR_champion

Cite, please.

From the HuffPo article I already cited:

Oklahoma currently ranks third in the nation after Texas and California in terms of total federal disaster and fire declarations, which kickstart the federal emergency relief funding process. Just last month, President Barack Obama signed a disaster declaration for the state following severe snowstorms.