Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn doesn't want tornado relief money
http://news.yahoo.com ^ | 05/21/2013 | By Keith Wagstaff

Posted on 05/21/2013 3:36:16 PM PDT by redreno

Coburn is sticking to his fiscally conservative principles, even after a twister killed at least 24 of his constituents On Tuesday morning, emergency responders began dealing with the aftermath of a tornado that killed at least 24 people in Moore, Okla., and injured at least 140 more. The White House has announced that "the administration and FEMA stand ready to provide all available assistance in response to the severe weather."

However, one of the state's two Republican senators, Tom Coburn, wants to put a stipulation on that offer: No federal aid without corresponding federal budget cuts.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: 113th; allaboutthemoney; budget; fema; globalwarming; govtabuse; helpisnotcoming; nofederalaid; nothanks; oklahoma; sourcetitlenoturl; teaparty; tomcoburn; tomcoburnisanass

1 posted on 05/21/2013 3:36:16 PM PDT by redreno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: redreno
Why We Can't Forget That Oklahoma's Senators Voted Against Sandy Relief
2 posted on 05/21/2013 3:37:01 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

             

3 posted on 05/21/2013 3:38:53 PM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: redreno

Why is Senator Coburn acting like a fiscal conservative now, when he went full-on socialist in 2008? He decided that any stimulus/bail out/pork was good?


4 posted on 05/21/2013 3:39:03 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Its how lesser evil works.


5 posted on 05/21/2013 3:39:49 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: redreno

Budget cuts are great. Using budget negotiations to delay assistance to people that genuinely need help isn’t going win any converts, though.

This isn’t the hill to die on.

SnakeDoc


6 posted on 05/21/2013 3:40:36 PM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
The federal government has NO power or authority under the Constitution to provide disaster assistance to anyone.

That is the function of the State or the People.

/johnny

7 posted on 05/21/2013 3:43:11 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: redreno

Just say NO to Uncle Sugar and the strings attached.


8 posted on 05/21/2013 3:46:03 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redreno

He has always been a man of integrity....I am glad he is consistent


9 posted on 05/21/2013 3:46:36 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redreno; All

With all due respect to everybody who was in any way affected by the hurricane, the states have never amended the much-neglected Constitution to authorize Congress to tax and spend for relief purposes associated with natural disasters. But I think that such an amendment would be appropriate.


10 posted on 05/21/2013 3:47:45 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

I am aware. But that’s not the way the system is set up at the moment.

The stand isn’t wrong. The feds shouldn’t be involved. But, the system is set up for fed involvement, and Oklahomans can’t really wait around for the ship to be righted.

This is not the hill to die on. Constitutionally, we’re not wrong. But, in public opinion ... we will lose. If we choose to stand and fight aide to people flattened by a tornado ... we will die on this hill. This isn’t a fight we can win right now.

Save the FEMA fight for another day.

SnakeDoc


11 posted on 05/21/2013 3:49:37 PM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Wasn’t Sandy’s relief full of unrelated spending?


12 posted on 05/21/2013 3:49:54 PM PDT by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: redreno

Just heard the Mayor of Moore on NBC say that most of the people who live there in Moore work for the government, FEMA, FAA,....


13 posted on 05/21/2013 3:52:10 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

In other words

Socialize acts of God.


14 posted on 05/21/2013 3:53:36 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: redreno
Responsible budget cuts are desperately needed. But sometimes guys like Cohbern don't realize the damage they do by advocating for cuts that are not needed.

This not only hurts his constituents but it gives canon fodder to the left to bash conservatives as uncaring and allows them to blame us every time a disaster like this strikes. And believe me they are out in force blaming conservatives and Republicans for the mess in Oklahoma.

Of course if the idiots in Washington would just address the waste, fraud, and abuse alone...we wouldn't need cuts of any kind. Much less cuts to our disaster relief programs.

15 posted on 05/21/2013 3:54:03 PM PDT by Carbonsteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
I don't prefer to go along to get along. That's what got us in this mess to begin with.

/johnny

16 posted on 05/21/2013 3:55:59 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Too many conservatives melt like butter in the Texas sun at the first sign of trouble.

All this government “help” is the reason people can’t take care of themselves.


17 posted on 05/21/2013 3:59:21 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I think it's simple cowardice, and unwillingness to do the right thing, even though there may be a cost.

/johnny

18 posted on 05/21/2013 4:06:26 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

I explained it over here. I’m left vulnerable because I can’t take precautionary measures due to the paralyzing effect of government.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3022209/posts?page=26#26

Look at Haiti where government “cares” for everyone and everyone is impoverished because of it. Haitian farmers long ago gave up farming because they couldn’t compete with the free food coming in from abroad.


19 posted on 05/21/2013 4:11:26 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Carbonsteel
it gives canon fodder to the left to bash conservatives as uncaring and allows them to blame us every time a disaster like this strikes

LOL! Regardless of what conservatives do, liberals are going to bash conservatives.

So we may as well do what is right and Constitutional.

/johnny

20 posted on 05/21/2013 4:25:10 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Yep. Too many so-called conservatives are happy to feed big government so that it grows.

/johnny

21 posted on 05/21/2013 4:27:15 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
With all due respect to everybody who was in any way affected by the hurricane, the states have never amended the much-neglected Constitution to authorize Congress to tax and spend for relief purposes associated with natural disasters. But I think that such an amendment would be appropriate.

The Constitutional question is a close call, I think. I just did some quick Google research on the history of Federal disaster relief bills, and it appears that the first one was passed in 1803, to provide relief to Portsmouth, NH following a massive fire. Certainly an argument can be made that if Congress in 1803 (which, I believe, included at least a few people who signed the Constitution) thought that such a bill was Constitutional (perhaps because it was "necessary and proper" to help rebuild Portsmouth in order to carry out some other power of the Federal government) implies that similar bills today are likewise Constitutional.

The thing people often forget about the Constitution is that it was the product of significant compromises between opposing factions, and that even at the time it was ratified, there was significant debate as to what the powers Federal government did and did not have. Look at McCulloch v. Maryland and the debate over the creation of a national bank, for just one example.

22 posted on 05/21/2013 4:35:31 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Free Republic stands for God and Country!!
Stand with Free Republic.
Donate today! Git R Done!!
Day 51

23 posted on 05/21/2013 4:40:53 PM PDT by RedMDer (May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: redreno
>> Sen. Tom Coburn doesn't want tornado relief money <<


I'll take it! Doesn't matter if South Dakota hasn't had any tornados lately. ANY federal pork for SD is good pork

24 posted on 05/21/2013 4:45:12 PM PDT by BillyBoy ( Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

At this point the only thing left is for government to take all my money and an allowance.


25 posted on 05/21/2013 5:10:28 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

It isn’t about getting along.

And, that’s not what got us into this mess.

SnakeDoc


26 posted on 05/21/2013 5:24:05 PM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
Then conservatives should do the right thing and fight for the Constitution, regardless of the cost.

/johnny

27 posted on 05/21/2013 5:30:44 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

In this case, the right thing Constitutionally could end up being a major PR loss. Don’t fight just to fight. Fight to win.

We won’t win a fight started today about whether its best to deny federal assistance to tornado victims. Fighting dumb and losing pisses me off ... and I find little consolation in ‘well, at least we fought’. We’re smarter than this.

SnakeDoc


28 posted on 05/21/2013 5:38:53 PM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
Sorry, I don't compromise on the Constitution for a little PR advantage that conservatives are not going get from liberals anyway.

/johnny

29 posted on 05/21/2013 5:41:13 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

It isn’t about getting anything from liberals. Its about not becoming a goddam caricature. Fighting against aide for tornado victims within 24-hours of the storm is walking into a trap. And, it won’t make a bit of difference toward your goal anyway.

Leave meaningless, and stupid, symbolic gestures for the left. Lets aim for EFFECTIVE fights ... not symbolic fights that are unwinnable.

100% downside on this. All symbolism, no substance ... all defeat, no chance of victory.

SnakeDoc


30 posted on 05/21/2013 5:47:33 PM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
It's wrong. Period. Who cares what anyone thinks? You either do the right thing, or you don't.

And Coburn isn't just today fighting against this kind of crap. He caught heck for it on Sandy.

/johnny

31 posted on 05/21/2013 5:51:09 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Correct. FEMA is a cluster****. I say this as someone who used to work with them extensively.


32 posted on 05/21/2013 5:52:38 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
Not that I care much about PR crap, but in this case, since Coburn is so popular in the State, and it's his state that he doesn't want getting federal aid without corresponding cuts elsewhere, conservatives have a chance to make a great PR point that it's not about pork, except for liberals.

Standing on principle is good PR in the long run.

/johnny

33 posted on 05/21/2013 5:53:35 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
The Constitutional question is a close call, I think. I just did some quick Google research on the history of Federal disaster relief bills, and it appears that the first one was passed in 1803, ...

After doing some scratching, there appear to be major constitutional differences between places like Portsmouth, Maine, and New York versus Moore, Oklahoma where federal versus state jurisdictions are concerned, differences which would likely have constitutionally justified the Relief Act of 1803 for Portsmouth imo, as opposed to Moore. From Wikipedia, please consider the following.

Prior to 1930s

A series of devastating fires struck the port city of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, early in the 19th century. The 7th U.S. Congress passed a measure in 1803 that provided relief for Portsmouth merchants by extending the time they had for remitting tariffs on imported goods. This is widely considered the first piece of legislation passed by the federal government that provided relief after a disaster.

Between 1803 and 1930, ad hoc legislation was passed more than 100 times for relief or compensation after a disaster. Examples include the waiving of duties and tariffs to the merchants of New York City after the Great Fire of New York (1835). After President Abraham Lincoln's assassination at John T. Ford's Theatre, the 54th Congress passed legislation compensating those who were injured in the theater. --Federal Emergency Management Agency, Wikipedia

First, and I stand to be possibly corrected on this assertion, but note that the "relief" that Congress provided in these cities was evidently tax relief on deadlines for tariffs on imported goods, as opposed to providing food and shelter for victims of natural or manmade disasters.

As a side note, I'm going to call the relief that Congress provided for people injured in the theater where Lincoln was assinated as constitutionally unjustifiable, although not surprising with respect to that period.

Getting back to Portsmouth, given the tax relief that Congress provided, the Necessary and Proper Clause, Clause 18 of Section 8, may not have been the constitutional justification for the Relief Act. This is because Clause 17 of that section gives Congress jurisdiction over dock-yards which both Portsmouth and New York have, the previously mentioned relief on deadlines for taxes unsurprisingly being for federal taxes.

As I mentioned in previous post, I think that it would be great if feds provided relief for natural disasters like the one in Moore, Oklahoma. But let's work within the framework of the Constitution for such relief by properly amending the Constitution to grant Congress the specific power to tax and spend for such a purpose.

34 posted on 05/21/2013 6:52:22 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
The Constitutional question is a close call, I think. I just did some quick Google research on the history of Federal disaster relief bills, and it appears that the first one was passed in 1803, ...

After doing some scratching, there appear to be major constitutional differences between places like Portsmouth, Maine, and New York versus Moore, Oklahoma where federal versus state jurisdictions are concerned, differences which would likely have constitutionally justified the Relief Act of 1803 for Portsmouth imo, as opposed to Moore. From Wikipedia, please consider the following.

Prior to 1930s

A series of devastating fires struck the port city of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, early in the 19th century. The 7th U.S. Congress passed a measure in 1803 that provided relief for Portsmouth merchants by extending the time they had for remitting tariffs on imported goods. This is widely considered the first piece of legislation passed by the federal government that provided relief after a disaster.

Between 1803 and 1930, ad hoc legislation was passed more than 100 times for relief or compensation after a disaster. Examples include the waiving of duties and tariffs to the merchants of New York City after the Great Fire of New York (1835). After President Abraham Lincoln's assassination at John T. Ford's Theatre, the 54th Congress passed legislation compensating those who were injured in the theater. --Federal Emergency Management Agency, Wikipedia

First, and I stand to be possibly corrected on this assertion, but note that the "relief" that Congress provided in these cities was evidently tax relief on deadlines for tariffs on imported goods, as opposed to providing food and shelter for victims of natural or manmade disasters.

As a side note, I'm going to call the relief that Congress provided for people injured in the theater where Lincoln was assinated as constitutionally unjustifiable, although not surprising with respect to that period.

Getting back to Portsmouth, given the tax relief that Congress provided, the Necessary and Proper Clause, Clause 18 of Section 8, may not have been the constitutional justification for the Relief Act. This is because Clause 17 of that section gives Congress jurisdiction over dock-yards which both Portsmouth and New York have, the previously mentioned relief on deadlines for taxes unsurprisingly being for federal taxes.

As I mentioned in previous post, I think that it would be great if feds provided relief for natural disasters like the one in Moore, Oklahoma. But let's work within the framework of the Constitution for such relief by properly amending the Constitution to grant Congress the specific power to tax and spend for such a purpose.

35 posted on 05/21/2013 6:58:27 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Thanks for doing the additional digging I didn’t have time to do. I agree that disaster relief expenditures would be more Constitutionally defensible with an amendment that explicitly allowed for such expenditures. Unfortunately, I also think that’s an awfully tough bell to un-ring at this point.

Also, re: the Lincoln assassination relief bill - I actually think that was the most Constitutionally justifiable bill of the examples in the Wikipedia article - Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over [the District of Columbia].”


36 posted on 05/21/2013 6:59:38 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Sorry for double post.


37 posted on 05/21/2013 7:00:00 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative; All
Also, re: the Lincoln assassination relief bill - I actually think that was the most Constitutionally justifiable bill of the examples in the Wikipedia article - Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over [the District of Columbia].”

Thank you for that correction about Ford Theater. I overlooked that it is in DC and covered under Clause 17 of Section 8 for any excuse that Congress wants to spend money, as opposed to being justified as federal relief.

38 posted on 05/21/2013 8:32:48 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
All this government “help” is the reason people can’t take care of themselves.

All the Federal Government "Help" is why State and Local governments have become fiscally irresponsible -- i.e. "can't take care of themselves."

39 posted on 05/21/2013 8:41:55 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson