A Second Chance for Sandy Victims
Maybe Now We Will Get an “Aid” Bill That is All Aid?
By Irwin M. Fletcher | The Save Jersey Blog
99.99% of New Jersey politicians are hopping mad at the GOP controlled House of Representatives for adjourning without voting on the Sandy Relief bill passed in a bi-partisan effort by the Democrat controlled Senate.
The fact that the House adjourned before voting on this bill WITH NO EXPLANATION is wrong.
I think I know why John Boehner did it. It was his way of saying to Chris Christie “I think you cost the GOP the White House by hugging Obama and crying cause you got to talk to Bruce Springsteen, so I’m gonna make you twist in the wind for a few weeks.”
And that’s wrong. And Chris Christie was in the right on Wednesday when he called out Washington for treating victims as pawns in a political chess game. This is a time for our leaders to be, well, leaders.
And Boehner should have let there be a vote. If it passes it passes, if it loses, it loses. But do your job and vote on it.
But it also seems that 0.0% of New Jersey politicians are angry over the fact that 22% of the Sandy Aid bill wasn’t for Sandy Aid.
You read that right. Of the $60.4 billion the Sandy Aid bill would spend, only $47.4 billion of it would go to Sandy aid. The remaining $13 billion is to be spent on pet pork projects that have nothing to do with Sandy damage.
The fact that Obama’s Aid bill is only 78% for victims is wrong.
To reiterate, Christie was right, victims should not be treated as pawns. And this bill treats victims as pawns.
People need this aid because their homes, their businesses, their towns have been completely destroyed. And when these people ask for help, their plea should not be answered with “We will only help if a big chunk of your ‘aid’ goes to pet projects that help us get re-elected.”
It should be answered with “Here, you get the whole $60.4 billion. How else can we help?”
Too bad it wasn’t. Instead, we had politicians using victims as pawns to get funding for projects to help line donor pockets. That is just sickening.
One good thing, maybe the only good thing, about the House not voting is that it gave the public, who had been focusing on the fiscal cliff, a chance to look at how the Sandy Aid bill treated aiding Sandy victims as a secondary concern.
And as a result, maybe now we will get a Sandy Aid bill that is 100% about Sandy Aid.