Our Views: A fair vote, but wrong

When U.S. Rep. John Fleming joined the minority of House members opposed to a component of Hurricane Sandy relief spending, he was setting himself up for some unfair criticism.

After all, there is an obvious issue of a Louisiana member of Congress opposing hurricane relief. Other members of the Louisiana delegation voted for the measure, which provided almost $10 billion in emergency funding for the flood insurance program, heavily tapped by Sandy’s ravages in the northeast.

The objection of Fleming, R-Minden, and others who opposed the bill is based on legitimate concerns about the budget. Typically, new federal spending should be “offset” with cuts or revenue increases elsewhere.

But as with every good rule, it’s bad judgment to make it an absolute rule. We think Fleming and other purer-than-thou deficit-cutters are wrong about disaster funding.

The reason is not that concern about the deficit is unwarranted, but that pragmatically there is no way this deeply divided Congress can agree on the offsets in the time frame needed for disaster response. With a full fiscal year, the Congress can’t agree on basic budgetary measures, much less offsets that would need to be found very quickly in cases of major emergencies.

Another reality is that the government, in straitened circumstances, is never going to put enough money in the bank to deal with emergencies like Sandy — or, for that matter, Katrina, Rita, Ike, Gustav, Issac, the recent high-impact storms that have hit the Gulf Coast and particularly Louisiana.

We count on members of Congress exercising good judgment in how the government responds to these measures, but a green-eye-shade approach to nitpicking genuine emergency funding, even one as big as $9.7 billion in this case, isn’t practical. U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., as senior member of the Louisiana delegation, has taken the lead on many of these issues, and she is right to reject the idea of offsets for disaster funding.

In this case, the Sandy aid is still far from a done deal. The situation has produced some biting criticism of House Republican leaders by Gov. Chris Christie, of New Jersey, a potential GOP presidential nominee.

The issue of disaster offsets is particularly concerning, though, because of Louisiana’s vulnerabilities. But it is also a sign that divisions in Congress can be taken past the point of reasonableness.

That’s a continuing, not episodic, disaster.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (16)


1) Comment by billynurse - 12/01/2013

Advocate, why don't you acknowledge the absurd list of PORK SPENDING attached to the senate "sandy relief" bill that, to an item, have NOTHING to do with hurricane relief in the northeast? One small example : $40,000,000 to Alaskan fisheries !!!!! NOW jump on people who are trying to stem the madness !!

2) Comment by Attila - 12/01/2013

I guess all of you who want to tar and feather Fleming believe it is just fine to load up a disaster relief bill with pork, even for states as far away as Alaska. That mindset is a big part of the problem. Thank you Mr. Fleming for doing your job.

3) Comment by jdk944 - 11/01/2013

As expected The Advocate is unwilling to present a balanced opinion in their "slanted" views. And also as expected we have those who post who can hardly do so without name calling. Yep, got that too!!

4) Comment by agagent - 11/01/2013

Congress should have found an offset for the added spending. The biggest deficits have occurred since Democrats took control of Congress in January, 2007. Since they have held a balance of power or complete control and it has been very difficult for anyone to slow the unsustainable and irresponsible spending. the no vote was probably a protest vote. As for the urgency of the funding why wait 2 months before placing it for a vote? The senate rushed the pork through before the public could be made aware.

5) Comment by DMJ - 11/01/2013

"divisions in Congress can be taken past the point of reasonableness." Boy, can they. Talk about an understatement.

6) Comment by crazycajun - 11/01/2013

Easy solution, "STOP ALL RIDERS" attached to any bill period! You want to cut waste then "STOP ALL RIDERS".

7) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 11/01/2013

Sandy victims don't have anything to worry about; Obama has them covered and Bloomberg is saving them right and left.

8) Comment by bourbon-soda - 11/01/2013

And here is the Bloomberg/Business Week article on the more general problem of unfunded liability of government-as-insurer, even when, as in the case of Sandy, Katrina, and various earthquakes, there is no explicit insurance policy, <http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-06-05/uncle-sam-up- to-his-neck-in-the-risk-pool > or google "government unfunded liability insurer of last resort bloomberg".

9) Comment by bourbon-soda - 11/01/2013

A good article about the hurricane/earthquake assertion is at < http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2005/09/no _relief.html > or google "steven landsburg articles hurricane". Bloomberg has had articles about the fact of the government's huge unfunded liability as a presumed or explicit insurer of last (or in this case first) resort. It's not that complicated.

10) Comment by bourbon-soda - 11/01/2013

There's always a catastrophe to justify breaking the budget. Anyone who points out that the shortfall has to made up somewhere, is an SOB or dirtbag. Anyone who wants to break the budget can always come up with a catastrophe to use as a public relations weapon against anyone who wants to balance the budget. Aside from that general principle, a lot of hurricane and earthquake relief amounts to welfare for the affluent or rich, who include in their calculations that government is likely to bail them out, and decide on that basis not to pay the true cost of insuring their property in hurricane or earthquake prone areas.

11) Comment by Scrooge - 11/01/2013

"Once it's not an absolute rule, it is no longer a rule. Catastrophes are inevitable; each is used to compromise budgeting." That makes no sense.

12) Comment by dday198 - 11/01/2013

as they would say in north jersey, flemings a dirt bag

13) Comment by bourbon-soda - 11/01/2013

Once it's not an absolute rule, it is no longer a rule. Catastrophes are inevitable; each is used to compromise budgeting.

14) Comment by postscript56 - 11/01/2013

Fleming once said he opposed taxes going up on wealthy folks like himself because he needed a couple of hundred thousand just to feed his family. I guess they're not eating much bologna at the Fleming home. With this vote he has taken over for Landy as this state's biggest embarrassment.

15) Comment by tradewinns - 11/01/2013

those "clowns" you mentioned were for the most part just reelected. with the diaster, i agree everyone should have pushed the bill through so the people could get relief and fight over where and how to pay for it later. i am glad they stopped the larger bill which useless equine rears in congress stuck all their extra monies on. they should be ashamed of themselves. enriching their area while the hurt area suffers. i also know nothing can shame a member of congress. they are bottom feeders.

16) Comment by chem - 10/01/2013

There is a subgroup in the GOP that flatly refuses to negotiate and compromise This is not governing and is not in the best interest of the country. Hopefully, in 2014, the people will remove these clowns and restore reason and logic to government.