‘Emergency’ Sandy relief bill shows Washington’s fiscal folly
Alternate headline: “This is why we’re screwed.” The Obama administration and Senate Democrats have proposed $60.4 billion in spending, some of which may not have anything to do with helping people recover from the superstorm that hit the Northeast this fall. But the entire lot is being rushed through as part of the “emergency” spending package that has to be passed RIGHT NOW according to Democrats — even though, according to the Congressional Budget Office, only about one-third of the money will be spent in the next 21 months.
What else is the dough going for, if not for immediate relief? Jamie Dupree has the full list of items on his AJC.com blog. ABC News reports that millions of dollars are for federal agency spending that is unrelated, or only tangentially related, to Hurricane Sandy. Another $13 billion of it is tabbed to help mitigate future disasters. Those particular mitigation measures may or may not make sense, and it’s hard to know which are worthwhile and which aren’t when Congress is being asked to allocate the money in such a rushed fashion. For the non-immediate needs, it would be very helpful for Congress to have more time to study them before spending almost three times as much as President Obama’s cherished “Buffett Rule” would generate in new revenue.
And that’s the proper way to look at the bulk of this spending. As ABC News notes, that $60 billion represents almost all the new revenue the federal government would take in next year if Congress also were to pass Obama’s “deficit reduction” bill. We are perhaps days away from going over the so-called fiscal cliff because Obama and congressional Republicans can’t agree about cutting existing spending. So it seems absolutely crazy to rush through a new appropriations bill in the name of “emergency” disaster relief when two-thirds of the money — as much as the annual amount of spending Obama is talking about possibly, maybe, potentially, perhaps being willing to cut in negotiations that just might take place next year if the GOP gives him everything he wants on taxes now — is not going to be spent until sometime in 2014 or after.
Yes, folks, this kind of attitude is exactly why our fiscal condition is so dire. The GOP should insist on funding only what is absolutely necessary now, and discuss the rest next year when said discussion can be more rational.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
414 comments Add your comment
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 16th, 2012
10:05 am
Besides which, once again, “gays in the military” is akin to “my daddy raped me, so I need to murder the baby,” not everyday occurrences in the world most of us live in.
Road Scholar
December 16th, 2012
10:05 am
Tib: No one that I know of, unless it is by chance.
Georgia is not the only state with Yahoos in charge . He!! we can’t even get a restrictive ethics policy and funding for enforcement! But, by God, we can give tax breaks to businesses…and then have the businesses complain our students are dumb and question why our educational system is so bad.!
Road Scholar
December 16th, 2012
10:10 am
LBB: No. With the selfishness of the American public! Where were the calls for a war tax to fund Iraq and Afghanistan…nobody wanted or had to pay. Where was the sacrifice of the American people during those wars…except for those who served died, and were wounded physically and mentally? Except for families DIRECTLY affected. Putting up yellow ribbons….Oh the pain!!! He!! we didn’t even follow the daily real effects of the war. It was on autopilot.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 16th, 2012
10:11 am
The negative trends you cite, Road, can almost all be attributed to the breakdown of the family. There is one political party that enabled that–Democrats–with their various programs to subsidize failure and to define deviancy down.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 16th, 2012
10:12 am
Yeah, educational spending since 1970 has increased by 190% and during the same period test scores have fallen, so, of course, we need to spend more money.
Uh, maybe we could get back to teaching the core subjects instead of propagating lunatic liberal grievance mongering?
Politico
December 16th, 2012
10:17 am
Im sure Tiberius has served in the military and I have served.
CC, Barry and Aesop let’s all discuss our service and each of you can provide first hand knowledge of how you know gays serving is or will be detrimental to the military…
You do have more than Op Eds and your own opinions to cite, correct?
Thought so
Next topic
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 16th, 2012
10:17 am
“The US Constitution says nothing of “equality”
Oh, epic fail, Aesop. Epic.
Meet the 14th Amendment: “AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Meet the 19th Amendment: “AMENDMENT XIX
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
You see, Aesop, you may not pick and choose what is equal or not equal under the law, and the Constitution says that Congress and the various states make the laws. The laws as written by Constitutionally-approved bodies of government have decided, despite your Neanderthalish beliefs, that discrimination using sexual orientation is illegal.
Politico
December 16th, 2012
10:19 am
CC, aesop and barry
Tell us about any service you have done to protect the US.. Gays have served since before the beginning, yet you demean them..
Better men than all three of you have kept you protected
Road Scholar
December 16th, 2012
10:19 am
LBB: We all allowed it! The same way we allowed the Savings and loans debacle, the housing debacle, the Wall Street debacle…I could go on. Are you saying that only Demos abused those markets???? That only Dems set the rules? That only Dems made money off these abuses? That only dems campaigned against legislative reforms and regulations???
People in this country only care about their singular selves. Just drive your car, go shopping, listen to comments here on these blogs… they now give lip service about the good of the whole when catastrophes occur. I hate to be so negative but this is where we have allowed our society to go.
CC
December 16th, 2012
10:21 am
If there were no guns, some people would use knives. If knives were banned and confiscated, some people would use rocks. If rocks weren’t available, heavy tree limbs could be used. If nothing could be found to be used as a weapon, some people would attempt and accomplish murder with their bare hands.
You can’t defeat evil with the passage of laws or the confiscation of weapons. Anyone who thinks it possible deserves to be called a fool, but then we are discussing a liberal mindset, aren’t we?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 16th, 2012
10:22 am
Politico: barry…Tell us about any service you have done to protect the US.. Gays have served since before the beginning, yet you demean them..
—————————
Right after you show me where I “demeaned them”.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 16th, 2012
10:24 am
Politico – 3 years, Light Infantry. Knew of one gay guy. Maybe it was you, All Knowing One?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 16th, 2012
10:25 am
Road Scholar: The same way we allowed the Savings and loans debacle, the housing debacle, the Wall Street debacle…I could go on. Are you saying that only Demos abused those markets?
———————
That has nothing to do with the breakdown of the family, which can be laid 100% at the feet of the progressives. It is the breakdown of the family, not banking regulations, that lead to the problems you cited earlier.
iggy
December 16th, 2012
10:25 am
Shock and surpise here. All these blue States are so “peace and love” I figured they wouldve all “come together”, rebuilt and retooled by now.
AAAwwwww…
Politico
December 16th, 2012
10:26 am
Barry the big talker….. Many of them have protected you little boy…
Face it…. You talk big, but walk small
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 16th, 2012
10:27 am
So, Politico, you were just making stuff up. Got it.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 16th, 2012
10:27 am
“Tib: No one that I know of, unless it is by chance. ”
EXACTLY!!!
The State is incapable of protecting the average citizen from being killed; only AFTERWARDS do they bring some of the perpetrators to justice.
But that are virtually powerless to stop someone from being killed.
This is why guns are legal in the United States. ANY relatively solid object, used improperly, can be used to kill someone. Guns can provide equality to ensure that the weak are not preyed upon by the strong, but the liberal solution of disarming everybody means that the strong could now impose their will unmolested on the weak.
Because the Sate cannot prevent that imposition of will – only prosecute long after it is done.
It is a trite saying oft-repeated, but it isn’t the guns that kill people – it is the people using them that kill people.
The problem isn’t the gun – a 7-iron, a hammer or a crowbar can just as effectively kill someone – it is the person behind the gun.
Address the PROBLEM, not the method.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 16th, 2012
10:27 am
Tibs – Nice try, but those are Amendments. Who knows, especially with the libs in charge of so much, one day we could have Amendments defining the rights of cattle.
Let’s stick with the original document.
CC
December 16th, 2012
10:27 am
Aesop:
I wouldn’t respond to an idiot: it only encourages them to keep posting . . .
carlosgvv
December 16th, 2012
10:27 am
Barry – 9:05
It’s clear that, as long as the Republicans are the majority in the House, no meaningful gun legislation will occur.
So, who cares if I live and who cares only for Big Business profits and campaign money is pretty clear.
iggy
December 16th, 2012
10:28 am
Breakdown of the family? Absolutely.
Fatherhood.gov <—Oh brother. Round up these dead beat dads and put there rear-ends in jail.
Politico
December 16th, 2012
10:29 am
Aesop
Thanks for your service.
Did you ask each person you met what their sexual orientation was?
Do you do that as a regular thing when you meet folks since you been out of the military as well?
Just being a “reporter” and asking questions
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 16th, 2012
10:30 am
carlosgvv, you wouldn’t want to live in a country that had no “Big Business profits”. You are aware it’s been tried, right?
Politico
December 16th, 2012
10:32 am
Cc’s translation of his post to aesop….. I was scared and never served.. I just talk big on a blog…. But I do know the Pledge of Allegiance
Hahahahahahahah
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 16th, 2012
10:33 am
Did you ask each person you met what their sexual orientation was?
Again, I do not live on Planet Moonbat where every soldier is just itching to throw off their rucksack and have at it. You have been swallowed up by your own hysterical propaganda. Your problem not mine.
How many men you know that have raped their own daughters?
Politico
December 16th, 2012
10:38 am
Aesop
Plant moonbat is you with your rape comment
Just don’t say anything about Jews…. Remember what happened last time
iggy
December 16th, 2012
10:45 am
I noitice The Hildabeast fainted, fell, “suffered” a concussion and will be unable to testify before Congress. What timing, eh?
Politico
December 16th, 2012
10:47 am
Aesop
See you the next time you “report” in…
Peace
MarkV
December 16th, 2012
10:50 am
Hypocrisy, double standard, flip flopping, speaking from both side of mouth – features of political debate that many people pay little attention anymore – as evidenced by the millions of voting for Romney.
But one of the most disgusting methods of some people, including some commenting on this blog, is “Selective Constitutionalism,” shown here in the debate on guns.
Mention anything about the need for more gun control, and there is the outcry: Second Amendment! The Constitution! Mention the ambiguity of the wording of the Second Amendment (why is militia mentioned, if it has nothing to do with the rights to bear arms), and the answer is the same: It is in the Constitution!
But then, when it comes to the question of what, if anything, should be subject to gun control, some of the same people show their true color:
“… the logic that predicts the disarming of ONLY LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS could ever be accomplished here leaving the citizenry to the mercy of both criminals and the government escapes them…”
“Folks that demand freedom, if there are enough of them, can defeat military might.”
We are “at the mercy of the government. We need the guns which can “defeat military might.” And who has that military might – our government. Second Amendment remedies?
Suddenly, it does not matter that the same government is the product of the Constitution. These people will take it upon themselves to decide what is constitutional and what is not. Never mind that those who have written and approved the Constitution have decided who is to make that decision. If they will not like what the government, chosen according to the Constitution, is doing – they need guns to “defeat its military might.”
Disgusting.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 16th, 2012
10:52 am
“Tibs – Nice try, but those are Amendments.”
Really, Aesop? You’re going to stick to THAT nonsense?
They are amendments to THE CONSTITUTION.
Where is Brosephus’ face palm when you need it?
mike
December 16th, 2012
10:55 am
Hi guys! Been away for a while. Looks the vitriol levels are just a high as always. I’ll just go ahead and confess that I did not serve. I’m not ashamed of it. I drew a high number and was never called. And, believe me, there’s no way I’m going to enlist.
As far as the Conn shooting is concerned, I can’t think of any way that someone like this could have been stopped with the exception of trigger locks on those guns. But, even that probably would not have prevented this deranged person from acting out whatever perverse fantasies he had in his head.
As far as the topic is concerned: like I always say, never waste an opportunity to squander the taxpayers’ money. After all, it falls from the sky and you don’t really have to work for it. A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 16th, 2012
11:01 am
Tibs – What are the dates of the Amendments that you referenced and the date the Constitution was written?
Should we swear an oath to the Eighteenth Amendment?
Politico
December 16th, 2012
11:01 am
Mike
Not as much the service itself, but some on here who talk big about military issues in regards to who should be able to serve, calling others cowards, etc….
Yet are scared of their own shadow….
Hypocrites they are
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 16th, 2012
11:04 am
MarkV, whatever you do, please don’t try to interpret the U.S.Constitution; you’re not qualified to speak for the Founding Fathers in that regard. Your education didn’t allow for it.
However, if you were to peruse any of the writings of the Founding Fathers regarding the right to bear arms, it had it’s roots in protecting property rights, as well as protecting lives. It was also to ensure that an oppressive government could not take by force without some potential pushback. What you fail to understand was that there were no large police forces, no standing army, no myriad of laws and governmental processes designed to protect eery aspect of life when the Constitution was written. People were largely in charge of taking care of themselves.
The right to keep and bear arms allowed them to accomplish that without government help.
As I pointed out earlier to Rad Scholar, the State is largely incapable of preventing people from being killed; all they can do is provide some uncertain justice after the fact.
Therefore, the 2nd amendment is still operative in it’s role to protect an individual’s right to life, liberty and property, and should not be abridged in most circumstances.
MarkV
December 16th, 2012
11:09 am
Tiberius @ 11:04 am
Since you failed to comprehend my post, there would be no point in my answering you.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 16th, 2012
11:09 am
“What are the dates of the Amendments that you referenced and the date the Constitution was written?”
Doesn’t matter, Aesop.
Should we swear an oath to the Eighteenth Amendment?”
Obviously, you have never taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, Aesop, or you would never ask this question. Since the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment, the 18th no longer applies.
However, the rest of the document remains what anybody taking an oath should defend.
You may not pick and choose which laws and which parts of the Constitution you will defend.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 16th, 2012
11:16 am
“Since you failed to comprehend my post, there would be no point in my answering you.”
Since you failed to make any case whatsoever, MarkV, some schooling was needed for you.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 16th, 2012
11:17 am
I am not the one confusing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with Amendments that were written long after our founding fathers were dead.
Should we take an oath to signing statements, too? How about to unconstitutional decrees by the Executive Branch? Should we go to off to war to defend Roe V Wade?
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 16th, 2012
11:27 am
MarkV
Nice long post. I can see that you took your time, but whatever you were trying to say didn’t come through. What I got was,probably not what you intended, that people pick and choose what they believe the Constitution says, but in the end we should believe whatever the government tells us it says.
Government has an obligation to stick with the Constitution as well, not try and bend, twist, redefine, and reword it. It is the Courts duty to hold the Gov to the wording of the Constitution and if that fails ultimately up to the people to ensure that the government adheres to the sacred document. If we can’t achieve that end with peaceful efforts like voting, then we have the responsibility to protect the rights we are given in that document. That is one of the purposes for the second Amendment, that our forefathers so rightfully saw a need for. It is not disgusting, to expect the government to follow the Constitution, it is disgusting, to think that we should put our faith in the Gov and follow there every decree. King George, be damned, we said, and we didn’t intend to live under decrees ever again.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 16th, 2012
11:39 am
It is just a random thought, but it seems to me, most of the left on this blog, would have been Tories in a former life. They would have thought the King, knew best, protected them from the rabble, and only did what was necessary for their well being, and that they should be thankful for his benevolence.
More taxes and regulations, all hail King George, for it is for our own good!
MarkV
December 16th, 2012
11:55 am
Rafe Hollister @ 11:27 am
“What I got was, probably not what you intended, that people pick and choose what they believe the Constitution says, but in the end we should believe whatever the government tells us it says.”
You are right, Rafe, you got it wrong. Apparently, you are also one of those I wrote about.
We have a Constitution, which I believe in, but which some people pay only a lip service, when it suits them.
“ It is the Courts duty to hold the Gov to the wording of the Constitution and if that fails …”
And who decides, that it has failed? You? By what authority? Certainly not by the authority of the Constitution.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 16th, 2012
11:56 am
“I am not the one confusing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with Amendments that were written long after our founding fathers were dead.”
No confusion at all, Aesop.
The Founding Fathers put into the Constitution the ability to amend, therefore, any oaths to the Constitution are to the ENTIRETY of the current document.
But then, I guess taking an oath to protect something that important is something you’ve never done, have you?
So, what part of “equal protection under THE LAW” do you NOT get, Aesop?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 16th, 2012
11:57 am
“We have a Constitution, which I believe in”
Not intended to be a factual statement . . . .
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 16th, 2012
12:12 pm
So any act by any Constitutional authority must be adhered to unquestionably, eh?
carlosgvv
December 16th, 2012
12:19 pm
Barry – 10:30
Do you think that’s what I said? If so, you’re even dummber than I thought.
What I SAID was that Republicans only care about Business profits and little or nothing about our lives.
carlosgvv
December 16th, 2012
12:20 pm
Tiberius – 11:57
So, you read minds and know what is “intended” and what isn’t?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 16th, 2012
12:33 pm
you’re even dummber than I thought
——————
Your post pretty much says all we need to hear on the subject of our relative intelligence!
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 16th, 2012
12:35 pm
carlosgvv: What I SAID was that Republicans only care about Business profits and little or nothing about our lives.
——————–
And yet it is the Republicans who stand in defense of the traditional family, which was so vital in America becoming the strongest, most prosperous nation on earth, until the progs came along to “deconstruct” it all.
carlosgvv
December 16th, 2012
12:37 pm
Barry – 12:33
And that and other posts confirm our worst fears about your intelligence.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 16th, 2012
12:37 pm
By what authority?
The first three words, WE THE PEOPLE