Despite threats to carry on with a one-week recess, Congress stayed in session, with still no agreement on funding the government past this Friday. That means the threat of a government shutdown is still there.
The Senate will vote this afternoon on a continuing resolution to fund the government that includes $3.65 billion in disaster relief funding for FEMA; that’s down from an earlier Senate request for $6.9 billion. There are no spending offsets to the disaster funding. That’s basically the only change from the House bill that the Senate rejected on Friday. Senate Republicans will likely attempt to block the bill through the filibuster.
Meanwhile, FEMA could run out of money for its ongoing relief operations in disaster-stricken states tomorrow. There were talks over the weekend that yielded little progress. The Wall Street Journal decided to portray this as an example of both sides squabbling.
Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.), speaking Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” program, blamed the House, calling the showdown embarrassing. “There is a group, and I do believe it is mostly centered in the House in terms of these tea-party Republicans, who say, ‘On every issue, we’re going to make this a make-or-break,’ ” Mr. Warner said.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) criticized Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) for failing to pass a measure to keep the government funded into the new fiscal year. “I’ll give the Senate Democratic leader most of the credit—he manufactured a crisis all week when there was no crisis,” Mr. Alexander said, also on CNN.
That misses the point. This is about setting a precedent of offsetting disaster relief funding, and nothing else. Republicans want to design a system where, every time there’s a natural disaster, some unrelated program has to pay the price. Democrats what the system as it has worked for the history of the Republic: the federal government pays for the needs of those hit by a natural disaster without smacking unrelated budgets, because it’s the right thing to do. Republicans see this purely as a matter of spending more or spending less. Democrats see it as an issue of basic morality and fairness. Should the next Katrina be offset?
And it’s also about keeping promises. In fact, the debt limit deal allowed for disaster relief funding above the spending cap on discretionary spending. You can see this right on page 13 of the Budget Control Act. It’s in Congress-ese, but it basically says that Congress can go up to $11 billion beyond the spending cap on disaster relief funding.
Republicans might say that the deal allowed for FEMA funding above the cap, but it didn’t mandate it, and nothing says you CAN’T offset disaster relief, although the Act explicitly says you don’t have to. That’s pretty weak tea. Clearly the legislative intent was to allow a safety valve in the event of big natural disasters that required immediate relief. Republicans want to pretend that safety valve doesn’t exist.
Ezra Klein is right to say that this is as good a moment as any to call Republicans’ bluff on their hostage taking. He’s wrong to say that this is the first moment. This sets up exactly like the FAA authorization bill. There, Democrats rebelled when Republicans tried to violate another norm, adding policy riders to routine authorization extensions.
Eventually, that was a fight Democrats won: they got two clean FAA authorization extensions. But it took a two-week shutdown, one that made Republicans look so bad that they prepped a bill for back pay for FAA workers taken off the job involuntarily. Democrats want to replicate the model.




25 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I don’t doubt this for a minute.
Interesting how our “lawmakers” (so-called) seem not to have the vaguest perception of just exactly how stupid they appear in the eyes of the rest of the world. How can they not be embarrassed? Mindless dunderheads…
I think we should “offset” the costs of disaster with an early sunset of the bush/obama tax cuts for the wealthy
let them bring that into the frigging discussion already and you watch those republicans run for the hills!
Why weren’t the “wars” offset?
Because wars are patriotic, you Communist. /s
That’s just the point, they (that is the GOP) don’t care what the world thinks. Remember we’re America and we’re exceptional, like in exceptionally stupid. It’s a pity that the sainted George Carlin is not around to pick apart these cretins and buffoons.
same reason bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy (and now obama’s) weren’t offset
And exceptionally greedy.
Why shouldn’t the Tea Partiers obstruct and threaten? That strategy was worked very well for them: time and time again, the White House and Capitol Hill Democrats have caved in.
It’s immoral and unfair to spend more on disaster relief today, but spend less on welfare to GM or Solyndra later.
first of all, the gm “loan” was not a gift, it was an investment, it was not some kind of “bail out” the right wing likes to make believe, and it is demonstrating POSITIVE return both in jobs and american industry and we would be LOSING money if we didn’t make that investment
second, you KEEP tying in disaster relief to things that are not related alan
again, which I asked you before yet you seem to continue trying disaster to things unrelated, why aren’t you tying in disaster relief to the bush (and now obama) redistribution of middle class assets to the wealthy? (marketed as some kind of rediculous “tax cuts
give us our FRIGGING money back and none of these problems EXIST
got it?
you can stop making believe disaster relief comes from anywhere anytime you like, but what you are doing is make believe and you are loosing your credibility with me
We have a winner!
good point, and “cave” is not exactly the word, it goes the way obama wants it to go, he can solve his “debt ceiling” issue anytime he wants and do not forget, he brought the supposed “problem” on and he knew he was doing it when he extended bush’s redistrubution of middle class asset scheme (marketed as the bush tax cuts, now they are entirely obama’s)
Exactly. Why didn’t Obama make the debt ceiling part of the negotiations last December, when the Bush tax cuts were set to expire and his party still controlled both houses of Congress?
why did obama even bring up the frigging set to expire redistribution of middle class assets scheme”
certainly NOT to extend unemployment benefits for a few weeks, those “tax cuts” would more then enough pay for whatever those extensions might cost
the man is playing for their team, we realize it, they haven’t figured out yet he is the very best thing that could have possibly happened for them
I mention gm because they’re expected to get loan guarantees for the Volt from the same pot of money that Solyndra got. You may be talking about other GM loans or investments or something else.
The reason I KEEP tying in disaster relief to GM and Solyndra, is because that’s what it’s tied to (politically).
I’m willing to agree that there’s no reason it has to be tied to alternative energy, it could be offset by Bush/Obama tax cuts or the war effort or food stamps or whatever the government spends money on, but the continuing resolution we’re talking about is tied to energy loans.
I’m not making believe disaster relief comes from anywhere in particular. I know where it comes from, from people and companies paying taxes. Now we have to decide where to spend the money. If the current US budget is X-dollars and a disaster happens, then we fund the disaster, but at some point we should cut back on something in order to try and stay within budget.
I don’t see how that’s immoral or unfair.
Does this explanation help my credibility?
“Democrats see it as an issue of basic morality and fairness.”
Has anybody told the president about the morality and fairness bit?
Maybe I’m missing something, but with what you wrote it sounds like the Democrats have already set the precedent they claim to not want to set now. By what you wrote it sounds like the first $11B doesn’t have to be offset, but there is already an agreement to offset over that amount so the precedent has already been set – just it is matter of if that $11B is fixed or variable before the offsets kick in, but offsets for disasters are already existing law voted for by Democrats and signed by a Democratic President. Amongst many other reasons, this is why Democrats shouldn’t play the austerity game.
The issue was deliberately postponed until the new Congress in the hope it could be a tool to cause a split between Rep leadership and the Tea Party.
Hohoho. It was a gift to the UAW, pure and simple. BTW, bankruptcy does not require the plants and machines destroyed and the workers all shot. Most of those plants would be producing after bankruptcy but with a new name and a new labor agreement.
but at some point we should cut back on something in order to try and stay within budget.
That’s fine, except for two points:
1. The GOP always, always refuses to cut a single penny from the Pentagon budget, citing that we will all be murdered in our beds if this happens.
2. No Congress has EVER done this with disaster funding, so it is an obvious political ploy on the part of the far right to move the goalposts (yet again).
Also, the fact is that cutting back on government spending isn’t the only way to balance the budget. There is also the issue of raising taxes. Which the GOP also refuses to do, even on people who make millions or billions of dollars and enjoy 15% tax rates. Because they’re “the producers” or something.
That was a response to 16.
I don’t disagree, but I go back to the point at hand.
The decision to spend money on disaster relief and offset that by not spending on some future expense is like paying for the fixed transmission, and then cutting back on vacation plans next year.
As the article states:
Which I would say says more about Democrats view of morality and fairness than anything.
ho ho ho
even though your point is dead wrong, you seem to think the uaw is some kind of bad thing?
for your information, unions are what created the middle class and they are what will save it
and no, plants were closed and those plants were NOT re-opened, people were put out of jobs which makes it harder for other people to get a job, AND it makes it harder to get a raise
do some research before you ho ho ho wit REDICULOUS right wing points
yes, very nicely
and we agree they should be tied to the bush/obama redistribution of middle class assets
so do me a favor, include that in the future when your bring up the investments we’re making in middle class projects and our future.
I think you will also agree, we should get our money back from thate redistribution scheme before we need to even approach investments into our future
we do NOT have to cut back on investments and CERTAINLY not if we reclaim the funds that were stolen from the middle class in their “cut the wealthy taxes” scheme
and again, you must understand, disaster does NOT get off set before we begin our investment back into the economy where disaster struck, the very conversation is obsurd