• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Amendment Cuts Pork from Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill

    The East River crests the promenade between the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges. (Photo: ZUMA Press)

    An example of fiscal responsibility turned up yesterday in an unexpected place: the U.S. Senate. Senator Dan Coats (R–IN) offered an amendment to President Obama’s $60.4 billion Hurricane Sandy relief bill that would be far less costly and much better focused on the storm’s victims.

    Maybe common sense in budgeting still has a pulse.

    Senator Coats noted that about two-thirds of Obama’s proposal, as packaged by the Appropriations Committee, is extraneous to the immediate needs of hurricane victims. The Senator’s $23.8 billion measure would strip out $13 billion in funding to mitigate the next potential storm, and also strikes all but $2 billion of an outrageous $17 billion Community Development Block Grant slush fund.

    The amendment also eliminates funding for fisheries in Alaska, museum roof repairs in Washington, D.C., tree planting, and other non-Sandy “investments” in the Obama bill. These items can be considered in the regular budget process. That assumes, of course, that the Senate—which has not passed a budget resolution in more than three-and-a-half years—can remember how the “regular budget process” works.

    The Obama bill is excessive in many ways. What is equally frustrating is how it employs the all-too-typical practice of disregarding budget discipline. The President and his Senate allies are exploiting the “disaster” and “emergency” loopholes they placed in the Budget Control Act (BCA) to slide their deficit-increasing bill through.

    The timing is curious, too. Sandy struck in late October; the President’s request came on December 7, more than a month later. The “emergency” designation is supposed to be for urgently needed assistance. (Remember New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s early November pleas to the President?) With the year quickly drawing to a close, and the fiscal cliff still unresolved, rushing the Sandy relief bill now only ensures inadequate deliberation.

    It is regrettable that even Senator Coats does not offset his $23.8 billion with reductions elsewhere. The federal government is still drowning in trillion-dollar deficits, and every dollar spent adds to the government’s growing debt. Nevertheless, his attempt to trim down Obama’s extravagant request points in a sensible direction—a refreshing change from the flagrant spend-as-you-go practices that have flourished in Washington for far too long.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    One Response to Amendment Cuts Pork from Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill

    1. Bobbie says:

      How sad are the people that are in wrongful positions to take advantage of the tragedy of others. It's only proper to see the main focus and spending on the recovery of a natural disaster that honorable leadership would already have the budget for and respect for the cause doesn't add pork to cause time and trouble. This storm didn't come at an economic advantage as the overreach of poor governance proves the economy will always be at a disadvantage and struggling and therefore criminal to seek money but heinous to expect more money for added services that weren't included in the damage. Just a step that leads to further government expansion in the name of a natural disaster. Pathetic and pure deviance!

      What process did the concert donation go through to ensure all donations are going to the cause and not to any government special interest?

      What's wrong with Nancy Pelosi? Why doesn't she know it's her unconstitutional governing that took the man's responsibility to provide for his children's food and health away? Now over regulating businesses so men don't have a job to provide without lowering himself to look at her bags of dependency while her stash of thieving cash piles up. Is this how Nancy Pelosii and all the rich down trodden Americans like minded, grew up? Exploited by government? Why aren't they encouraging Americans the freedom they had that gave them their upbringing? Nancy is shameful to take away the quality of man's dignity to provide for his own. How dare this awful government mindset and what they're doing to people's minds. There's so many resources that without government would be even more beneficial in culture, family, church, charity, friends. It's so egregious of Nancy to think of America so low to mention something as horrible as children not able to eat or able to have health care when she and the democratic density and their obsession to remove abilities and the liberty to carry them out to replace with government dependency is the reason! Please reform the duties of the federal government so people know when there's unlawful government intrusion. oh that's right, first time in history America is run by people who don't stand accountable to follow the laws and the first time in history men come to have no shame!!! Why would man put man's humanity in regression? In the 21st century of all times!!!!
      what a disappointment in this sort of mankind.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×