Representatives who voted down disaster relief

[BuckNaked]

I wonder the same thing, PAW (about the end of fiscal year thing). I can't imagine why anyone would vote against the assistance though.

 

[LandscapePro_318]

Anybody think perhaps these guys actually read the Bill and didn't like something stuck in there? Ya never know....

Mike--Louisiana Resident

 

[poohandwendy]

Anybody think perhaps these guys actually read the Bill and didn't like something stuck in there? Ya never know....

Sure, I think that is what we are all wondering...what is it about this bill that they balked from? There are only 11 (?) who voted against it...so what was it?

 

[ZachnElli]

Hmmmmm, I'll be watching my local paper as it listed a representative from Idaho. The name didn't ring a bell with me though. But I'm still pretty new to the state (15 months). I'd really like to know why he/she didn't vote for it. We only have a handful of evacuees here, btw.

 

[wvrevy]

At the risk of turning this slightly political (since we are talking about a political vote), during the last election, how many democrats were beaten to death with votes they had cast against the initial $81 Billion for support of the war ? Then, the devil was also in the details...said detail being that the bill removed the civil service protections from about 50,000 workers. In fact, one particular democrat was painted as a coward and anti-soldier...despite giving both his legs to an American war of choice a few decades back. And we all know how John Kerry had this thrown in his face at every opportunity.

In the case at hand, I'm sure that there is just as "defensible" reason that all of these Republican congressmen voted against the relief funds. But I won't be shedding any tears when it is brought up against them...after all...turnabout is certainly fair play, right ?

Just something to think about...I am NOT trying to turn this into yet another endless debate about the last election or any of that. I, too, would be interested in hearing the reasoning behind these votes.

 

[poohandwendy]

In the case at hand, I'm sure that there is just as "defensible" reason that all of these Republican congressmen voted against the relief funds. But I won't be shedding any tears when it is brought up against them...after all...turnabout is certainly fair play, right ?

I think it is up to the politician to defend their votes and up to the voters to decide if their defense is reasonable. No matter who it is.

 

[Nancy]

Quote from Barbara Bush in a radio interview with the American Public Media program "Marketplace":

"What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underpriviledged anyway, so this is working very well for them."




...reminds me of "Let them eat cake."

Were we discussing Barbara Bush?

 

[JimMIA]

I think it is up to the politician to defend their votes and up to the voters to decide if their defense is reasonable. No matter who it is.

I agree, and I hope and trust OP will follow through and let us know what they say.

I strongly suspect they either wanted more money, a more comprehensive assessment and allocation of funds, OR there are needs in their districts as a result of taking in evacuees that were not included. OR, that there were procedural issues within the House itself -- the way the bill was rammed through -- they didn't like.

The only name I recognize is Sensenbrenner, who I think is a senior guy and possibly a committee chair. Not the kind of guy you'd expect to vote against his leadership without some reason.

Whatever...I'd be interested to know.

*****
I also concur with the above post requesting we stay on topic. There is at least one thread on that topic. Thanks.

 

[Kitty 34]

I'm more interested in which Representatives voted down the funding for suring up the levees and other programs that would have reduced the extent of the damage.

me, too

 

[gina2000]

What else was attached to the bill? That may give you a clue as to why people voted the way they did.

 

[BuckNaked]

The Washington Post had an article on the bill this morning. The article discussed concerns that some people had, but it didn't mention specifics as to why anyone voted against it.

I know that one issue that came up was accountability for the funds. For example, there was a change in the bill that allowed government purchase cards to be used for single purchases up to $250,000 (from the current $2,500). Some reps (no names given) were concerned with the idea of not having competitive bidding and not having to follow the rules about minority/women owned businesses.