You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
First, if you live on or near a coast line and don't have flood insurance, the taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for bailing you out. It may be cold, but we need people to take responsibility for themselves if those options are available. If you can't get flood insurance, then you get help. Second, I can smell the pork from MN. This thing is weighted down with little gifts for a host of areas not impacted by the storm. Just more of the same.
I wonder if the bill will be made available so that law makers can actually read the bill before voting on it? And if it is available to law makers, how many of them will actually read the bill before voting on it?
The reason we the people have to pay for sandy is that the flood insurance bucket is empty so the people that bought insurance the money is already gone.
If we want to get into a debate on the virtues of living away from coastal areas thereby minimizing risk we should also discuss the damage caused to the Duluth area by the floods last summer. The point is that disaster is not a causal/accountable event. We either have an open policy to bail out storm victims or we don't. If we want to arbitrarily limit the types of events that qualify for assistance we will never see the end of the debate.
It's remarkable how the Repubs who scream for smaller government and for allowing the free markets to sort things out are the first to run to the government for assistance. In a utopian, Republican world shouldn't we be letting the private insurance companies and charities deal with this mess. Just sayin.
Ok, so the flood insurance is so incompetently priced that it runs out of cash instantly. So I do understand the need to bail this fund out. The government shouldn't be in this business, but it is, so it needs to step up.
But more importantly, the $51 billion in aid isn't just for Sandy. It is stuffed with pork, mostly republican, and should be stripped out. But more than that, why should taxpayers in South Dakota, MN, and Alabama pay for storm cleanup costs and reconstruction for New Jersey and New York, two states with GDP's that blow other states away, and with credit authority they can use on their own. No one thinks anymore.
"why should taxpayers in South Dakota, MN, and Alabama pay for storm cleanup costs and reconstruction for New Jersey and New York, two states with GDP's that blow other states away, and with credit authority they can use on their own" == For the same reason taxpayers in New York and New Jersey should pay for storm cleanups in Minnesota, South Dakota and Alabama - we're all in this together. Besides, like Minnesotans, taxpayers in New York and New Jersey pay a lot in Federal taxes and get precious little of that money back, now it's their time to get some help.
My house has been totalled twice by tornadoes and I never saw a Fed, State or County employee ever help or even ask if I was still alive.
If the price of $9.7 billion was the end of it, then I would say that is OK. But that will not be the end of it at all. Another $51 billion is expected to pay for everything. Well, I would like to know is where is that money coming from? The Federal government is broke. Flat broke. So are most of the states. That extra money should come from some other source that is cut down. We cannot just keep borrowing money from China or Japan or other nations. We are putting the rope right around our necks and someone else will pull the level. Cannot all of you see this death knell? Stop spending money that we do not have. Stop printing monopoly money. That is it, folks.
Government is not a charity. If people living along a coastline can not obtain private insurance policies for their property they either need to accept the risk or move inland.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks