Hypocrite Roy Blount gives speeches against big government spending, but when his state is in need, he's all for it....
From CBS-ST. LOUIS -- ST. LOUIS (KMOX) - Missouri Senator Roy Blunt says he’s asking the federal government to reimburse 100 percent of the cost to local governments dealing with the Joplin tornado aftermath.
Isn't this what insurance is for? Why should taxpayers in other states be on the hook for 100% of Missouri's losses? Emergency aid and relief in these situations is great and I don't mind the feds providing that, but 100% reimbursement? Is Roy Blount aware that the federal government is broke? In a sane world, tornado insurance in Missouri would go up so that losses could be covered when this happens again.
US taxpayers shouldn't be paying for this any more than we should pay for hurricane damage in Gulf states, fire and mudslide losses in California, or flood damage around the Mississippi. If hypocritical politicians want to place all taxpayers on the hook for the predictable losses of a few, then perhaps they should spend federal dollars a little more wisely so there will be some for emergencies. Start by deleting from the budget, foreign aid to hostile Muslim countries. Or better yet, shouldn't Missouri have saved up some money for tornado season?
4 comments:
Is it really fair to pick on Blunt? It's a pretty well established principle that losses such as this incurred by local governments are federalized. You may object to that and may have very valid arguments against it, but it goes back a long way. For a small city such as Joplin (or Tuscaloosa) to be destroyed by natural disaster and left to die is not to anyone's long term benefit. We're not talking about building parts of New Orleans below sea level here, but a basically random thing.
Local governments rarely have insurance against this sort of thing, due to costs. Most are self insured.
Still, to demand 100% reimbursement? Should we reimburse Floridians whenever a hurricane destroys property, as it does every 5 years or so? Should we reimburse Californians at 100% for damage caused by wild fires and mudslides? I mean Missouri sits dead in the middle of tornado alley, it's not like this was completely out of the realm of possibility?
If Missouri gets 100% federal reimbursement, we have to reimburse all victims, private and municipal, for damage caused by natural disasters, no?
Regarding insured structures: shouldn't every structure whether private or municipal that functions as a business or residence have by law, some sort of insurance policy against weather, fire, or accidental damage? What does Joplin self-insure? Schools, courthouses, and jails? How many can there be in a town of 50,000? So the rest of us pick up the tab for a new school, courthouse, water treatment plant, and jail for Joplin. I'd be OK with that, but the whole town restored to 100% on somebody elses dime?
Spending FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS ON THIS OR ANY DISASTER IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I spent over 40-years in the Federal, state, and local government at the upper levels in the fire and emergency service. I found out a considerable amount about how government works by managing fire department all over the nation and even in South Korea.
It is simple, the fire chief cultivates supporters that believe the sun rises and sets in the fire and emergency service and they can do no wrong, thus, they get adequately funded. This is a local problem only; it is not a FEDERAL problem. So why is our federal government funding fire departments, disasters in Joplin, MO (Sen. Blunt wants ALL the cost to reconstruct Joplin to be funded by FEMA and the FEDERAL government. Will they? We are back to the,“You scratch my back and I will scratch yours” OR AS I LIKE TO SAY, “You open your wallet to fund my pet projects/organizations and I will do the same to you.”
AMERICA IS BEYOND BROKE AND NEITHER PARTY IS TRYING TO STOP THE SPENDING.
FEMA is UNCONSTITUTIO0NAL however, they “BRING HOME THE BACON” thus politicians use it to get reelected. Name any program that is not listed in the Constitution, Article 1 Section 8 and it is illegal but try to get this discussed in the House or Senate.
Right you are, Smokey! Virtually everything the federal government does these days is not authorized by the Constitution, but the politicians hide underneath the "promote the general welfare" umbrella.
Post a Comment