Why the House GOP rejected the disaster relief bill

Have you been wondering why the House Republicans refused to approve the $60 billion disaster relief package for the superstorm that hit the New York area? Have you had the feeling from mainstream news reports that the Republicans were being perversely mean for refusing to help the people and communities that have been devastated by the storm?

The answer to the first question, and the explanation for the second, are simple: (1) the Republicans rejected the bill because about half of it consisted of outrageous pork to feed government programs totally unrelated to the disaster, with much of it directed to states that were not even affected by the storm; and (2) the mainstream media did not report the GOP’s reason, making it appear that the Republicans were simply horrible scrooges.

The American Spectator reports:

If Rep. King and other northeastern legislators had simply wanted disaster relief money, they could have had it. If the bill had focused on disaster relief. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) observed: “They had the opportunity to have a $27-to $30-billion legit relief package, packed it with pork, then dared us not to vote on it.”

- end of initial entry -

Paul K. writes:

I am frequently disappointed by the right-liberal perspective of Fox News, but in situations like this Fox is invaluable. It was the only broadcast news network I am aware of that described the amount of pork in the disaster relief package, pointing out that private insurers put the total hurricane damages at about $20 billion and that the $60 billion in the bill represents twice the annual budget of New Jersey. I listened to National Public Radio the day the story of the House’s rejection of the bill broke and they treated it as nothing but a Republican outrage, featuring the odious Chris Christie railing against his own party.

I believe Krauthammer is correct in his assertion that the president’s foremost objective right now is to break the Republican Party, and the mainstream media is only too happy to assist him in that effort. Meanwhile, Christie seems to be positioning himself as the media’s choice for Republican nominee in 2016.

Daniel F. writes:

Obviously, I agree that the House GOP had good reason to delay the aid bill, and that the mainstream media is serving as a DNC propaganda organ in failing to give the public the full story. But doesn’t it say something rather devastating about the competence of the House Republican leadership that they have utterly failed to articulate and publicize their altogether reasonable objections to the bill? This happens again and again with Republicans—they fail to anticipate completely predictable attacks from the Democrats and their journalistic courtiers, and they fail to respond to those attacks in a timely, forceful and articulate manner. We saw the same patter with the Bush administration and the Romney campaign.

LA replies:

Absolutely. They seem to relish being the dumb bull led to the slaughter. It’s as though they’re so insensible that they’re not aware of the smears the media and the Democrats are launching at them or simply don’t care. This is connected with their pattern of never responding to the left’s arguments, but only repeating their own talking points. It’s so amazing. Despite the extreme partisanship of our politics, the Republicans don’t seem to be cognizant of the fact that they have powerful enemies who are lying about them. Which makes you feel that they are willingly playing the the role of the left’s foil. The liberal American system requires conservative villains, and the Republicans, in their loyalty to the liberal American system, seem all too happy to be cast in that role.

Dan R. writes:

Paul K. wrote:

“Meanwhile, Christie seems to be positioning himself as the media’s choice for Republican nominee in 2016.”

After the past few months I think Christie stands little chance of being the next Republican presidential nominee, and am beginning to think he will be the next major party-switcher, not inconsistent with his being the media’s choice for the GOP.

James P. writes:

Paul K. wrote:

“I believe Krauthammer is correct in his assertion that the president’s foremost objective right now is to break the Republican Party.”

Wait—that would be a bad thing? Personally I have felt since at least 2008 that the Republican Party ought to be destroyed and scattered to the four winds so that a new party can emerge. Yes, the Democrats will run wild until the new party is organized, but they are running wild anyway thanks to the culpable lack of opposition from the GOP.

Why would the President want to break a party of spineless weaklings who did everything they could to facilitate his election and reelection, who surrender to him at every possible opportunity, who are congenitally incapable of responding to Democratic lies, smears, and illogic, and who seem to have neither the brains to devise an effective strategy or the fortitude to carry it out?

If the Democrats break the Republican Party, it will be from sheer hubris or because they are projecting their own relentless determination to win onto their feeble, worthless opponent. If I were them, I would let the cringing beast continue to crawl at my feet rather than slaying it.

JMC in Detroit writes:

James P. is correct. The GOP as it is constituted at this moment cannot properly oppose the Democrats in Congress nor the occupant of the White House. They are no more able to provide proper opposition than were the conservatives under von Papen who attempted an eleventh hour rally against Hitler’s complete consolidation of government, state, police and military under Nazi Party, and ultimately his personal rule. They had no sense of who and what they were up against. We need a true opposition party—if we’re to have one at all. Let the Republicans be crushed and a new party rise in their place, or not at all.

Otherwise we look to our states and counties and prepare a defense.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 07, 2013 08:34 AM | Send