PDA

View Full Version : 11 Repubs vote against aid to LA


JustRalph
09-09-2005, 11:31 AM
Interesting votes...........knowing that their objections would be largely ignored.....and not hold up the bill....or the funding.

The House and Senate passed a bill to aid victims
of Hurricane Katrina. The Senate bill passed by 97 to 0,
and the House by 410 to 11.

R-AZ ...... Jeff Flake
R-CO ..... Tom Tancredo
R-GA ...... Lynn Westmoreland
R-IA ....... Steve King
R-ID ....... Butch Otter
R-IN ....... John Hostettler
R-NC ...... Virginia Foxx
R-NJ ....... Scott Garrett
R-TX ....... Joe Barton
R-TX ....... Ron Paul
R-WI ...... James Sensenbrenner
Now read why...............

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) wrote a letter to Speaker Hastert, urging him to direct federal hurricane relief aid through channels other than Louisiana public officials. Citing incompetence and a history of corruption, Tancredo said a bipartisan select committee of the House should administer the aid and provide accountability for the $52 billion requested. The letter is reprinted below:

Dear Mr. Speaker,
Given the abysmal failure of state and local officials in Louisiana to plan adequately for or respond to the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the city of New Orleans, and given the long history of public corruption in Louisiana, I hope the House will refrain from directly appropriating any funds from the public treasury to either the state of Louisiana or the city of New Orleans. Instead, reconstruction and relief funds dedicated to the people of New Orleans should be administered by a private organization or a select committee similar to the historic Truman Commission.

Public corruption is a well known problem in Louisiana. The head of the FBI in New Orleans just this past year described the state’s public corruption as “epidemic, endemic, and entrenched. No branch of government is exempt.” Over the last thirty years, a long list of Louisiana politicians have been convicted of crimes; the list includes a governor, an attorney general, an elections commissioner, an agriculture commissioner, three successive insurance commissioners, a congressman, a federal judge, a State Senate president, six other state legislators, and a host of appointed officials, local sheriffs, city councilmen, and parish police jurors. Given the documented public corruption in the state, I am not confident that Louisiana officials can be trusted to administer federal relief aid.

Clearly the federal response from FEMA in the aftermath of the hurricane was hampered by bureaucratic ineptitude. Making matters worse, the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana have demonstrated mind-boggling incompetence in their lack of planning for and response to this disaster. According to one recent media report, “A year ago, as Hurricane Ivan approached, New Orleans ordered an evacuation but did not use city or school buses to help people evacuate. As a result many of the poorest citizens were unable to evacuate. Fortunately, the hurricane changed course and did not hit New Orleans, but both Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin acknowledged the need for a better evacuation plan...[but] did not take corrective actions. In 1998, during a threat by Hurricane George, 14,000 people were sent to the Superdome and theft and vandalism were rampant due to inadequate security. Again, these problems were not corrected.”

The city of New York, by comparison, had no advance warning of 9/11. Yet Mayor Giuliani and Governor Pataki displayed tremendous leadership in managing a chaotic situation in the city. Their leadership inspired confidence in their ability to manage the emergency and coordinate federal aid. In contrast, despite knowing days in advance about the coming hurricane, Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin seem to have done little beyond encouraging residents to leave the city or gather at the Superdome. City school and transit buses could have carried 12,000 persons per run out of the city, yet they sat idle in parking lots under water – while both the Mayor and Governor criticized the federal response.

In the coming days, tens of billions of dollars will likely flood Louisiana to address the costs of rescue, clean up, and rebuilding. The question is not whether Congress should provide for those in need, but whether state and local officials who have been derelict in their duty should be trusted with that money. Their record during Hurricane Katrina and the long history of public corruption in Louisiana convinces me that that they should not.
Sincerely,

Tom Tancredo, M.C.

ljb
09-09-2005, 03:22 PM
He failed to mention that la has been run by republicans for about 18 out of the last 25 years and the mayor was a republican until just before the election.

lsbets
09-09-2005, 03:37 PM
Was Edwards a Dem or Rep?

andicap
09-09-2005, 05:50 PM
I just wanted to say that "Otter" (see Butch) was my college nickname -- and that was before Animal House.

I don't think there's any debate that La. is the most corrupt state (or among) in the country, Republican OR Democrat. I think we have to put some partisanship aside for one instant -- Edwards was a Democrat, a notorious gambler who often jetted off the Vegas. And a real ladies man.
They loved him in the state.

As for our 11 Republicans, I just wonder why a group of people who are always screaming about what a bunch of lying scum politicans are tend to take at face value what many of them say. If anyone really thinks those 11 voted against the aid bill because of the La. corruption, well, I'd like to run for Congress in your district and promise you a new bridge.

For the record, Dems are just as big a bunch of politicos as Reps.
I mean, does anyone truly know what Hillary Clinton really believes? I'm not even sure she does anymore. Say what you want about how crazy Howard Dean is -- at least you really know where he stands.

As for the aid, -- well there are all kinds of safeguards and monitors the feds can put on La. officials to make sure the money doesn't get diverted to the mayor's re-election campaign. (He'll need it -- of course he doesn't have a city to govern so maybe Cox Cable will take him back.)

I think its laughable that a bunch of right-wingers trust the way the federal gov't spends its money the way Yankee fans trust George Steinbrunner are saying to put the aid in the hands of the bureaucrats!
As my hero, Sgt Schultz once famously said, "In wartime, you have to be flexible!" I guess the right feels the same way about national disasters.

This is a cameo boys...I'm outta here-------------

Secretariat
09-09-2005, 06:31 PM
I mean, does anyone truly know what Hillary Clinton really believes? I'm not even sure she does anymore. Say what you want about how crazy Howard Dean is -- at least you really know where he stands.



Well said. Couldn't agree more.

schweitz
09-09-2005, 06:44 PM
If anyone really thinks those 11 voted against the aid bill because of the La. corruption, well, I'd like to run for Congress in your district and promise you a new bridge.


Just curious, what is the reason that you think they voted against it?

kingfin66
09-10-2005, 03:39 AM
Was Edwards a Dem or Rep?

Democrat. He ran against David Duke. That was after his previous run as gov when he had, shall we say, some legal problems...

andicap
09-10-2005, 04:44 PM
Just curious, what is the reason that you think they voted against it?

OK, I lied, I will respond to this one question.

To tell you the truth I really don't know -- but these are all people who are pretty much against almost any type of domestic federal spending.

As far as the feds vs. Louisiana spending the money, anyone see the stories this week about how some of the 9/11 money earmarked for businesses went to those who were NOT affected by the tragedy?

And there are reports federal money for the N.O. situation is not going to those who need it either.

Don't see how the state could do any worse than the feds in dispensing the money though I hope someone from the feds is overseeing it -- like the monitor NYRA had.
Touble with saying that of course is I dont want to set a precedent for allowing the states to ALWAYS decide how to spend federal money. States will not always follow federal dictates in terms of the need and instead dispense with patronage in mind, or insert their own ideology into where the money is spent.
Example, money to enforce voting rights. Would a Republican state really spend a lot of money to make sure minority Democrats get to vote?
In the 60s, would the southern states have spent federal money to improve conditions for black people? Yes, times have changed but insert another minority in there.
So it's all a slippery slope --
---------------------
(As long as I'm on this site probably for the last time until the Patriots lose a playoff game, I'll respond to Ralph's immigration note as we're talking about minorities.
Yes, illegal immigrants commit crimes. Do do legal immigrants. So do legal citizens. You would think illegal immigrants would be LESS likely to committ a crime because they don't want to call attentio to themselves. Right-wing likes to take isolated anecdotes -- like Willie Horton in 1988 presidential election - and hold it up as emblematic of the entire situation.

I don't think making emotional appeals based on a single news story without any context adds to the discussion -- but of course that's what red meat cable news shows and talk radio are all about these days.

Am I in favor of illegal immigration? Of course not. I'm probably more conversative than most liberals on this issue. I think we need to gain control of our borders although it seems well nigh impossible to do so by patrolling the borders. (Doesn't mean we shouldn't or even spend a bit more money -- too bad all that money is going to Iraq).

But the issue is more complicated than the far right makes it out to be (typical of far left and right ideologists on any issue.)
Immigrants do the jobs Americans don't want to do at a much cheaper price.

Who do you think you'd get to work on the backstretch at those puny rates? Or wash dishes at restaurants for $5.25 an hour. Even unemployed people won't do that because the minium wage isn't enough to keep your family fed never mind housed and in good health.

Without immigrants, there would be a labor shortage and employers would have to pay more to get people to do them. Well I'm all for that and one reason I want to restrict the number of people enterting the country -- getting too crowded in a lot of parts, don't have the resources to help those already here.

But many of you would object if there was a labor shortage because wages would rise significantly and so might inflation and then interest rates unless the government and business managed to increase productivity at the same time. I think there are ways the government can manage that growth, but those solutions would be anathama to conservatives.

My point is not what to do about illegal immigrants, but that the issue is far too complicated and nuanced to discuss in the context of one isolated, sensational tragedy. Same goes for New Orleans with reports of looters shotting at people.

Do we actually know how many people are being shot at? How many, if any, have been hurt or killed? Was it one or two instances that the media blew up into a huge crisis situation? Kind of what some of you say they say with horse racing when they find a single race fixed or a few major drugging violations.

There is always a double-standard with arch-conservatives. They hate the media when they report things unfriendly to them -- liberal bias -- but love to cite them when the media shows its true colors. That is, the mainstream media is neither liberal nor conservative, but just folks that are largely lazy, prone to sensationalism and who unconsciously skew their reporting to what they think the public wants to hear.


end of rant.....

Tom
09-10-2005, 05:22 PM
Andy said"
Without immigrants, there would be a labor shortage and employers would have to pay more to get people to do them. Well I'm all for that and one reason I want to restrict the number of people enterting the country -- getting too crowded in a lot of parts, don't have the resources to help those already here.

Immigrant are the backbone of our country. Peolpe who illegally cross the borders are not immigrants- they are felons.
I welcome legal immigrants who are willing to adopt our society and become contributing members, learn our language, and put thier cultures behind them. If they do not want to "assimilate" for lack of a better word, why should we allow them to come here?
To come here illegally, and then tell me that I have to pay extra taxes to adopt YOUR language is a slap in the face, and I say "Go to Hell."

Consrvatives have a time with the press, and liberals have a time with legal vs illegal. ;)

Where do you draw the line at selective obeince of the law? It's OK to hire illegal dishwashers because you couldn't afford to pay what citizens will demand. What's next, those nasty taxes sure cut into the profits - better not pay them. Those silly fire regulations can cut into the bottom line, ignore them.
So maybe we have to pay $5 for a tomato, $5 for lettuce.....the market will adjust. And if quit paying people to be failures and NOT work, they will take those jobs....or not eat.
If a man cnanot afford to feed his family, maybe he should never have had one. Harsh, yes, but why should I pay to feed his kids. I didn't get to sleep with his wife, now did ? :rolleyes:

schweitz
09-10-2005, 06:01 PM
Andy, thanks for responding. I agree with some of your statements and disagree on others, but since it sounds like you don't really want to debate anything, I'll leave it at that.

andicap
09-11-2005, 12:31 PM
Andy, thanks for responding. I agree with some of your statements and disagree on others, but since it sounds like you don't really want to debate anything, I'll leave it at that.

Nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree....
;)