Ted Cruz: Hurricane Sandy aid? Pfft. Texas flooding? Money, pls

[Merc]

Ted Cruz — who voted against Hurricane Sandy aid — calls for federal relief following Texas floods

Texas Sen. and Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz — who voted against aid in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy — called for federal relief Wednesday in the wake of devastating floods and storms that have ravaged his home state.

The Tea Party darling said he supports “the federal government fulfilling its statutory obligations, and stepping in to respond to this natural disaster,” in regards to the barrage of storms that have left at least 21 people dead and 11 others missing.

Cruz, 44, voted against a federal disaster relief bill after Sandy ravaged the East Coast in October 2012 calling the measure “symptomatic of a larger problem in Washington – an addiction to spending money we do not have.”

Interesting. So it's only a problem if it's in your backyard? Typical political flip-flopping. Why shouldn't both areas be entitled to some sort of aid? Or are we going to play that weathered 'dependence' card again?

Thoughts?

 

[CaptainObvious]

I think a little perspective should be added here. Cruz didn't object to funds because of Hurricane Sandy, Cruz objected to the original bill for $60 billion of dollars in relief because, as he called it, it was a "Christmas tree" for Senator's pet projects that had NOTHING to do with relief. Out of that $60 billion, only about $15 billion went towards actual relief. So it's unfair to make the claim he is against disaster relief and "it's only a problem if it's in your backyard" and it's not "typical political flip-flopping".

 

[Stego]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...denas-says-60b-congress-approved-after-hurri/

I will agree that there are some billions that you can classify as not immediately needed, and yes NJ in particular is known for some intense corruption, but Cruz can still suck a pine cone as far as I'm concerned. When a disaster hits, you approve the money, check to see what is getting accomplished in the short term, and then pull back any approved funds that you deem aren't being properly utilized. Why not, they do a million other dumb things. It's hilarious that he didn't even want to give it to another fiscal Conservative like Christie.

Christie screwed us over so badly that they're still investigating his use of Sandy relief money (the very little he actually used, as people are still refugees from the storm these years later and we still haven't had some beaches storm-protected). You better watch every single cent that gets used in Texas. And both Cruz and Christie want to be a GOP hopeful. Unbelievable.

 

[CaptainObvious]

That's much easier said than done. The same thing happened when Katrina hit, billions were horrible misspent, and Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin were never held accountable for anything. I say spend money immediately AT THE PROBLEM and nothing else. Letting Congressmen take advantage of a disaster for funding for their pet projects is one of the reasons we owe as much as we do.

 

[Hilander]

It should be illegal to spend aid money on anything but the disaster it is for.

I think its really rich of Cruz to vote against aid for one disaster but want it for another. I guess he won't be asking for as much on this one since he thought 60 billion was too much for Sandy.

Do you have a link to your article Merc?

 

[CaptainObvious]

It should be illegal to spend aid money on anything but the disaster it is for.

I think its really rich of Cruz to vote against aid for one disaster but want it for another. I guess he won't be asking for as much on this one since he thought 60 billion was too much for Sandy.

Do you have a link to your article Merc?

Your first paragraph is what Cruz objected to. He didn't object to the $60 billion, he objected to some of that used for other things.

Maybe it's just me, but I find it unethical to say "I want to attach a $x billion dollar project for my state" to a disaster relief bill. If you want money appropriated for something present it on its own.

If, for THIS disaster, Cruz wanted to attach money for funds unrelated to the relief THEN you could argue he's being hypocritical.

By the way, isn't this exactly what Obama said he was going to do? Go line by line and cut out unnecessary pork and have everything transparent? Isn't that exactly what Cruz was doing?

 

[Hilander]

Your first paragraph is what Cruz objected to. He didn't object to the $60 billion, he objected to some of that used for other things.

Maybe it's just me, but I find it unethical to say "I want to attach a $x billion dollar project for my state" to a disaster relief bill. If you want money appropriated for something present it on its own.

If, for THIS disaster, Cruz wanted to attach money for funds unrelated to the relief THEN you could argue he's being hypocritical.

By the way, isn't this exactly what Obama said he was going to do? Go line by line and cut out unnecessary pork and have everything transparent? Isn't that exactly what Cruz was doing?

Right now I'm not sure what Cruz has in mind all I know is he wants disaster relief. If he makes sure any money received is only spent on, transparently so, what it was meant for then I will be impressed.

I agree if you want money appropriated for something else then apply for it separately. Not doing so is how you get these stupid studies like why a frog hits his butt on the ground while hopping.

 

[Major]

I can't stand Ted Cruz, but I have to agree with CO here. If he supports a disaster relief bill for the Texas flooding that is loaded with pork, then that's another story. But until that happens, I think this is being blown out of proportion by the left.

 

[MenInTights]

Since the original article is sort of anti-TeaParty, its important to note that the original Tea-Partist Jim Demint, pushed for years and eventually passed a 2 year ban on earmarks such as the ones in the Sandy bill: http://www.taxpayer.net/media-center/article/jim-demint-prevails-in-opposition-to-earmarks-wltx
I have no idea what was in the Sandy bill, but if anyone should be shamed it should be the Senators that loaded it with earmarks assuming that Cruz was right of course.

The best Demint could do was a 2 year ban. Its almost hilarious that Sandy hit 2 years after the earmark ban. The Senate must have had 2 years of pent up earmark frustration.

 

[Hilander]

That's sounds like a addict that finally gets their drugs after coming out of rehab MIT. Which would be funny if not so serious.