Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, Feb. 7, 2013 | 2 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
Look up the word hypocrisy in the dictionary and you will see a picture of 31 GOP senators.
The U.S. Senate recently voted 62-36 to give disaster relief to the Sandy Relief Fund. In 2005, the Senate vote on Katrina relief was 97-0.
The 36 no votes were all Republican. Thirty-one of those no votes came from Republicans who had requested disaster relief in past years. When Joplin, Mo., was hit with that horrific tornado two years ago, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., requested that the federal government pay 100 percent of the cost.
Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Pat Toomey, R-Penn., both requested relief help from the federal government for the damage Sandy had done to their state but voted no on the relief legislation.
Recently, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called the GOP the “stupid party.” He could add that they are also the party of hypocrites.
I don't recall if the Katrina aid legislation contained a bunch of unrelated spending, but I read that the Sandy aid bill did. I suspect both disaster relief bills contained large amounts of unrelated spending.
If both bills did contain unrelated spending, Republicans should be criticized for approving the Katrina aid and saying nothing about the unrelated spending and Democrats should be criticized for approving the Sandy aid and saying nothing about the unrelated spending.
I am often criticized for the 'equivalency' I point to regarding the parties, but the fact that both parties routinely engage in packing specific, targeted legislation with unrelated spending that could probably not be approved if it stood alone is a huge problem and both parties are responsible for it.
Michael
Blanner and the Democrats are the party of let's see how much debt we can pile up on our children and see how much pork we can stuff into a relief bill that has nothing to do with the Sandy disaster.
The Democratic party is totally incapable of saying no to any spending whatsoever.
If they had their way it would not be $1 trillion a year in new debt it would be $100 trillion a year in new debt.
Why is this back is the paper
Could it be because Reid finally just passed the PORK BILL
That right the Sandy PORK BILL IS MORE THEN HALF FULL OF PORK
PORK
PORK
PORK
Get over it
Hypocrisy is no stranger to the GOP. It's their modus operandi.
The House of Representatives could easily have crafted their own bill for Hurricane Sandy relief. What did they do? Exactly nothing! Perhaps they were too busy naming Post Offices to initiate any aid. Even upon receipt of the Senate Bill late in the lame-duck session, they could have removed any offending parts of that bill and returned it to the Senate. Instead, they did nothing. Their apparent priority was preserving income tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans and not those Americans who suffered the effects of Hurricane Sandy.
GOP stands for "Get rid of the pork." It took political courage to vote against the Sandy aid bill both times. It's called guts. It sent the right message to the American people and the political pork specialists in the Senate like Harry Reid. Too bad the letter writer didn't get it. BTW, recall at the same time, Reid and the Senate Democrats caved on the filibuster reform. They gave up ground in the Senate parliamentary procedures to the GOP, despite the Senate Democratic majority.
CarmineD
The original $60.4 billion recovery package passed in the senate was loaded with pork. Only $9 billion of the $60 billion would have been spent in 2013. That means 85% doesn't come until 2014 and beyond. Is that immediate relief? No, it's your sign the bill was chocked full of pork.
Earth to Bob. They were against the amount of pork barrel spending.
Remember, this was right after a fiscal cliff deal which had raised taxes and INCREASED spending by 332 Billion.
Some deal.
Nothing new coming from Robert Blanner. For years now he's written partisan LVS letters backing democratic party positions and candidates with his usual partisan antics of omitting facts. I don't expect him to write a straight up, here are the facts letter, not Robert Blanner. He would rather give a data point then paint a partisan picture with it. Here, Blanner disn't mention a word about the excessive pork in the relief bill. No effort at all at helping the readers with cause and affect. But why would Robert do that? Why would he omit facts and other details? It's because it would ruin his partisan picture he's so intent on painting. Seeing the full accurate picture from a Robert Blanner letter is just not going to happen.
Robert Blanner
What we have here is the continuation of the "The Two Santa Claus Plan".
We all know the republicans care nothing about deficits, pork or spending. They only complain about these things when democrats are in power.
For the last thirty years, republicans have run up massive debt and claimed to be fiscally conservative. You can stop laughing at that oxymoron.
Someone said there was no pork in the Katrina aid package. Sorry buddy, it was loaded with so much pork that hog prices are still high.
The republicans are mad Obama won re-election in spite of the election and vote rigging they tried to pull off. This is just republicans acting like spoiled children who didn't get their way.
Remember, these guy filibustered 400 bills that would have put millions of people back to work, brought down the budget and trade deficits, and lowered health costs over the next several decades.
They could care less about the standard of living of everyday working Americans. All they care about is power and their elite puppet masters.
Hypocrisy is one weapon in their arsenal in their war against the middle class.
Blanner is merely another leftist who fudges the facts and omits pertinent information that does not jibe with his leftist agenda. The "help" for Sandy Hook victims was loaded with pork. Blanner and his ilk couldn't care less if the horrific waste in the pig sty known as Washington, DC, goes on forever because, once it stops, they might have to become responsible for their own selves and not on government largess or "goodies." Sooner or later, the gravy trail will derail and the parasitic class will have to learn to swim or they will sink. It's Mother Nature's way of thinning the herd where only the fittest will survive and it will be few on pathetically incapable left.
Freeman comments:
"Nothing new coming from Robert Blanner."
I add:
Freeman, Blanner occasionally writes Letters to the Editor which are published. Every time you tell us he hates the republicans and tea partiers. Here is another example of your anti-Blanner comments:
"Robert Blanner has written many LVS letters which are pro-democrat and anti-GOP/tea party. Below are links to other letters he has written. In Robert's book, if you don't compromise then it's bad. Sometimes two philosophies do not have much middle ground for compromise to take place. Compromise requires finding enough common ground to strike a compromise, however, Blanner seems to think that failure to find enough common ground is obstructionism. The fiscal cliff deal is a prime example of finding little common ground on government tax & spend policy between the parties.
This is Blanner's third letter on compromise but disguised this letter as a "divided congress". Did Blanner explain to the readers the pork in the bill and the political giveaways? No, but that doesn't surprise regular LVS readers. A pro-democrat will always try to paint the opposition in a negative light. In Blanner's case, GOP, conservatives, Tea Party and those moderates/independents with differing beliefs on fiscal policy are his obvious target.
Now, would Blanner care to write about the democrats version of the Tea Party, the failed Occupy Wall Street movement in a future "Letter to the Editor"? Surely, he wouldn't."
Then you link to other Blanner letters.
Let me tell you, you have made 2.689 posts, should we all make a post after all of yours reminding people you vote for and favor republican interests? Then send a number of links to prove it?
Nah, that would be sort of a waste of time, most folks can see your true colors. No need to waste the readers time. Unless that is your hope.
Maybe you are writing to Tea Party members? I know they aren't very intelligent. Is this you spoon feeding them?
Are you bored?
Interesting how the Republican?Tea Party types rarely get into the specifics, so I will help you out.
Hey Carmine: The REPUBLICANS in the house stripped out an amendment to the bill providing 1.1 BILLION to our embassies for the beefing up of Security at our Diplomatic outposts like Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. There was a rare bill that was GOING to pass the house and senate, so some level headed folks tried to improve security at our embassies and consular offices. I think the Tea Party republicans thought the money was going to be spent on sex consuling.
From Politico:
"The delay is not without costs. New Jersey's shore economy is just months from its summer season and the vast metropolitan rail system -- which serves 40 percent of the transit riders in the nation -- remains weakened by Sandy's flooding.
The South Ferry subway station in Lower Manhattan was largely destroyed, and even more important, perhaps, is the less visible but corrosive impact of salt-water flooding on switches and signal devices. From Coney Island rail yards to tunnels linking Manhattan and Brooklyn, New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority has had to add crews to crank switches by hand or monitor signal lights. And while trains are up and running, it is a more fragile system than it outwardly appears.
Indeed, the Senate had approved its own Sandy package in the last days of the 112th Congress only to see Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) abruptly pull the bill from the House calendar and let it die. In the ensuing uproar, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie jumped in, chastising the speaker and personally lobbying his fellow Republicans to turn the political situation around. And with solid Democratic support and 49 Republicans, the Northeast prevailed Jan. 15, winning House passage of the bill adopted by the Senate Monday.
Together with a separate $9.7 billion flood insurance bill -- already enacted -- the total federal effort will roughly what the Senate had proposed in December. But there are significant refinements -- and some real casualties.
New England lost in its bid to add millions in aid for the region's depleted fishing industry. And despite the uproar over American casualties in Benghazi, Libya, the House chose to drop a Senate-passed provision allowing the Senate Department to transfer up to $1.1 billion to improve security at U.S. embassies around the world.
The money -- originally budgeted for Iraq -- is now sitting idle, and the administration had hoped to move it to higher priority projects in Lebanon and Zimbabwe, for example. The request had bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, but the language was dropped nonetheless because of fears in the House that it would invite criticism for straying too far from the mandate of helping only Sandy's victims."
From The Maddow Blog:
"In the House, 78 percent of Republicans voted against emergency aid. In the Senate, those 36 votes represent 80 percent of Republicans.
The overwhelming majority of Republicans, well more than three-quarters, now approach natural disasters as political fodder, another opportunity to push deficit hysteria and to force massive cuts to other domestic spending. Tax cuts to the wealthy? Those pay for themselves.
Rebuilding destroyed communities populated by millions of Americans? Only if you cut other government programs. In other words, the vast majority of Republicans are @@@@@@@@.
What we're seeing, in other words, is a fundamental shift in how GOP policymakers respond to communities struggling after a natural disaster.
For generations, these votes were not politicized or considered particularly controversial -- Americans could count on their elected representatives to step up if a natural disaster struck. It wasn't partisan and it wasn't ideological; this is just what the country did. It was a reflection of who we are.
And those days are over. As the Sandy votes demonstrate, it is now effectively the standard position of congressional Republicans to reject disaster relief unless the funding is offset by other spending cuts. So long, compassionate conservatism, we hardly knew you."
Mr. Blanner, you sir, are right. Thanks for the letter.
Here in Easter Washington several of our conservative reps voted against the Sandy.....stewards of the public purse voting against pork. Unfortunately that "pork" included funds for both wildland fire suppression and remediation, reconstruction from the regional windstorm, mitigation of fire risk from lodgepole pine beetle infestation and flood control/riparian area re/construction from past floods. Needless to say that there is some community backlash against these reps and their staff have been making the rounds assuring all and sundry that these votes were "procedural" to keep the President in line and that our loot would be forthcoming. All disaster relief bills contain funds for collateral and other disasters. The President does not declare every wildfire as disaster even though it is to the affected parties, their communities and states. Congress does not provide funding for each and every disaster but does so in toto. maybe we should take the approach that individuals are responsible for their living choices. If you want to live in Tornado Alley then suffer the consequences without help from the rest of us.
Mr Blanner,
Bobby Jindal was 100% correct with his remark. It is possible to be both a hypocrite and stupid at the same time. Case in point, watch Fox News.
Jerry Fink,
Go back to bed. The letter is about hurricane Sandy, not Sandy Hook Elementary School and if you hate the US government so much why don't you move to Costa Rica,
JeffFromVegas,
If you paid any attention at all to my posts you would see I'm a fiscal conservative and social moderate. Obama has flunked out on getting our fiscal house in order. So he's got an extra $40-$60 billion dollars from the top 1% of wage earners. Okay. Can a political party that is overtly obsessed with $40-$60 billion in tax revenue from the top 1% of wage earners really put our country back on a sound fiscal path and improve our prospects for prosperity and job growth for the unemployed?
A political strategy of "taxing the rich more" now must pass the test of getting results. We'll see how the strategy works out.
So Carmine sez the Republicans voted against the Hurricane Sandy aid bill because of pork. Well, why didn't they take the pork out? They're in the majority. It was their bill that they passed, not the Senate bill.
It doesn't take guts for 180 Republicans to vote against their own House Bill. It takes stubborness and an indifference to helping the people that need their help.
Freeman
You don't have the high ground to criticize anyone for partisanship. Mr. Blanner's letter was about hypocrisy, wasn't it? Thanks for providing the demo.
Not only do the liberal blood suckers want all the federal aid that they can get they want it yesterday. When the great earthquake hit San Francisco not a penny was forthcoming from the Federal Guvmint. People did for themselves. It is only recently (past 50 years) that the Fed got involved in wiping our noses whan we fell down. Ask yourself why the Fed gets heavily involved in all these so called disasters. They can't steal any money until they spend it. They appoint their friends to administer the funds and there is always a kickback or two involved. How did Harry Reid get to be a multi millionaire? Stealing is the answer. Same with LBJ and just about all the thieves we elect.
This message is aimed at the Moderator. Why doesn't the Sun contact me? I've applied for a "trusted" place on these pages for a long time. If they have a problem with me they should call me a tell me what it is.
Comment removed by moderator. Inappropriate
"You don't have the high ground to criticize anyone for partisanship."
I've got nothing but high ground Jim Weber. You keep measuring Obama by getting an extra $40-$60 billion annually from top wage earners and I'll continue to measure Obama's performance by getting our economy up to speed, unemployment under 5.5% and the deficit within $50 billion of balancing the budget. Did I mention that so far Obama has a failing grade in my view on all three of my performance measures?
"The REPUBLICANS in the house stripped out an amendment to the bill providing 1.1 BILLION to our embassies for the beefing up of Security at our Diplomatic outposts like Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi." @ Jeff
"Well, why didn't they take the pork out? They're in the majority. It was their bill that they passed, not the Senate bill." @ Jim Weber
Jeff:
State Dept budgets typically request exorbitant amounts for Embassy, Consulate, and outposts worldwide. Congress customarily approves a lesser amount. This is true for all recent security budgets by State Dept. When the State Dept officials were questioned by Congress in September right after the sacking of the Benghazi consulate and CIA annex, and the 4 murders of Americans including Amb Chris Stevens, all confirmed that the budget was not an issue. All confirmed that budget was not the issue in their Congressional testimonies. The ARB report said that the problem was that the security messages sent by Ambassador Stevens to the highest levels of the State dept about the hot spots and terrorists activities in Libya DID not get read and acted on for 9 months. That's not a budget matter. That's a failure of performance matter.
Jim:
House did take the pork out of its bill. The Senate didn't. Before a bill can become law Committees in the House and Senate have to reconcile the differences, then pass in joint Committee, then pass on the floors of the full House and Senate. After that, the proposed law goes to the President to sign. That's what happened in the Sandy aid bill.
CarmineD
Carmine,
Even if what you claim about the past was true, which it's not in total true, a way and means to close new or existing gaps in security was killed by republicans because they were cowards.
Go ahead, say it again: "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi"
Feel better now?
Comment removed by moderator. - -
As usual a lib doesn't tell the whole truth. The Sandy bill was packed with special interest $$ that had nothing to do with Sandy relief. The GOP voted against it because they are against earmarks.
Carmine -
The Senate passed H.R. 152: Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 as passed by the House and sent it to the President for signature. I know that gets in the way of your story, but too bad.
JeffFromVegas: You write " A pro-democrat will always try to paint the opposition in a negative light."
Your bias is obvious. The correct statement is "An avid member of either party will always try to paint the opposition in a negative light."
RenoRobert:
Not my quote, it was me quoting Freeman badmouthing Blanner, the author of this letter we are currently commenting on.
Freeman proclaims - on top of Mt. Charleston;
"If you paid any attention at all to my posts you would see I'm a fiscal conservative and social moderate."
I say:
So you put on your cub scout badges and reamed the republicans for their new strategy on disater aid?
Ler's look...
"Obama has flunked out on getting our fiscal house in order. So he's got an extra $40-$60 billion dollars from the top 1% of wage earners. Okay. Can a political party that is overtly obsessed with $40-$60 billion in tax revenue from the top 1% of wage earners really put our country back on a sound fiscal path and improve our prospects for prosperity and job growth for the unemployed?
A political strategy of "taxing the rich more" now must pass the test of getting results. We'll see how the strategy works out."
Sure Freeman, and Mother Theresa was your Aunt...
...and pigs inhabit mars, jupiter, and uranus.
"Carmine -
The Senate passed H.R. 152: Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 as passed by the House and sent it to the President for signature. I know that gets in the way of your story, but too bad." @ Jim Weber
Just the opposite, Jim. It is exactly as I said. The Senate version was scrubbed for the House bill [that's the reconciliation process]. Both Houses of Congress passed the bill; the final bill went to the President for his signature; he signed it and the bill became law.
Keep in mind before the Senate approved the House bill for Sandy aid, the Senate UNDER HARRY REID caved on filibuster reform and NOW GUARANTEES the GOP have more input into the bills/amendments on the floor. This is the first time since 2007, that Reid has done so. In the past, Reid locked out the GOP from adding any amendments to bills on the Senate floor. It's called "filling the tree." Reid preempted the GOP from doing so over 69 times as Senate Leader.
Sadly, the mainstream media reported on the Senate Dems, Leader Reid, and filibuster reform ad infinitum. But when the final deal was done, the media barely covered the story about the GOP victory. By all accounts, it was a huge win for the Senate republcians and a defeat for the Dems and Harry Reid.
CarmineD
"Carmine,
Even if what you claim about the past was true, which it's not in total true, a way and means to close new or existing gaps in security was killed by republicans because they were cowards.
Go ahead, say it again: "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi"
Feel better now?" @ Jeff
Your budget facts are just wrong. While the House passed a fiscal year 2012 budget, the Senate and President never did. Consequently, there was no budget for fiscal year 2012. The Federal Government used a stop gap measure called Continuing Resolutions that allowed spending in 2012 at fiscal year 2011 levels and rates. Think budget deal in August 2011 negotiations [Sequestrations] to approve funding through the end of the fiscal year 2011 on September 30, 2011. And since there was no approved fiscal year 2012 budget, we operated under a CR for all fiscal year 2012, ended September 30, 2012. That was extended for fiscal year 2013 on October 1, 2012. It expires on March 27, 2013. And if not extended, and/or another budget deal struck, the US government shuts down and automatic spending cuts go into effect.
All the myths about the GOP cutting security budgets is just that.
CarmineD
PS: Jeff if you compare security spending budgets for the Embassies, Consulates and foreign service outposts for the last 4 fiscal years [09, 10, 11, 12] you'll note they fairly level with no increases. Why? Because with little exception, the spending levels of the Federal budgets have been constant since fiscal year 2009. Why? In the absence of approved budgets for 4 years, thanks to the Senate and President, the US has been operating under Continuing Resolutions [CR's]. CR's limit current spending to previous fiscal year levels. 4 years and counting. No approved US fiscal year budgets. Incomprehensible and unbelievable.
CarmineD
Robert.....Great letter.
Hypocricy is the hallmark of the horrible
republican party.
Also greed, lying and cheating.
republicans destroyed our entire economy and
middle class.
Lying republicans fool no one.
Never trust republicans.
AND NEVER, EVER VOTE REPUBLICAN.
Is hypocrited nature stopping tornadoes. I assume not. When tornadoes could spill money out of clouds all started praising for third sky, your goddess has answered.
"Hypocricy is the hallmark of the horrible
republican party." @ Teamster
I have one Senator's name for you to remember and follow here: Menendez, Dem NJ.
And while you are at it, Harry Reid too and his commentary and positions on Menendez and his evil doings. Both are hypocrites to the Nth degree.
CarmineD
Carmine -
You do realize that when a new Congress takes office, all bills not enacted die. The House of Representatives had no Sandy Senate bill to consider after January 3rd. They enacted H.R.152 (the"H" stands for HOUSE) on January 15th. It was a HOUSE bill! The Senate concurred and passed H. R. 152 without amendment later in January.
That is what REALLY happened.
"Carmine -
You do realize that when a new Congress takes office, all bills not enacted die. The House of Representatives had no Sandy Senate bill to consider after January 3rd. They enacted H.R.152 (the"H" stands for HOUSE) on January 15th. It was a HOUSE bill! The Senate concurred and passed H. R. 152 without amendment later in January.
That is what REALLY happened." Jim Weber
Jim:
The unpassed bills are alive for the full term of the House and Senate. After a new term begins, the bills, if dead, can be reintroduced by actions of the House and Senate members.
CarmineD
"They enacted H.R.152 (the"H" stands for HOUSE) on January 15th. It was a HOUSE bill! The Senate concurred and passed H. R. 152 without amendment later in January." Jim Weber
Agree. Without the Senate pork! Thanks to the GOP in the House and Senate.
CarmineD
FYI Jim et al:
"Legislatures give bills numbers as they progress.
In the United States, all bills originating in the House of Representatives begin with "H.R." and all bills originating from the Senate begin with an "S.". Every two years, at the start of odd-numbered years, the United States Congress recommences numbering from 1. This means that two different bills can have the same number. Each two-year span is called a congress, and each congress is divided into year-long periods called sessions."
CarmineD
JeffFromVegas: You were indeed quoting Freeman. I stand (sit??) corrected. I've already identified, to my satisfaction, Freeman's point of view. . .