Obama Proposes $60.4 Billion Hurricane-Recovery Bill
Source: New York Times
WASHINGTON President Obama proposed a $60.4 billion emergency spending bill on Friday to finance recovery efforts in states pummeled by Hurricane Sandy, a sum White House officials called a robust investment in the region but that was far less than the amount the states had requested.
The spending plan would pay for most but not all of the $82 billion in damage identified by the governors of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, helping homeowners and small-business owners rebuild, repairing subway and other transit systems, replenishing eroded beaches and reimbursing governments for the cost of police, firefighters and other services.
The presidents plan would not cover several big-ticket items sought by state governments. It would not pay for damage already covered by private insurance and would extend aid only to primary residences. While small businesses will be eligible for help, larger private firms like Consolidated Edison will not be. The plan also assumes that states will have to pay about 10 percent of the cost of any repair and mitigation projects that are approved, even though they asked the federal government to foot 100 percent of the bills.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/nyregion/obama-proposes-hurricane-recovery-bill.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus
This is not everything we had hoped for, but it is better than the $50 billion we were hearing about yesterday.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Oh, the carbon we could sequester
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)I know the Republicans will oppose this and do so near-unanimously, but I'm a little surprised at seeing the immediate first reaction here being somebody implying they don't like helping the storm victims recover.
lalalu
(1,663 posts)The irony of Christie and these people asking for federal help after blasting government employees is hilarious. These are the same people who applauded Christie attacking environmental groups trying to protect coastal areas. Let the idiots rebuild. When a 50 foot wave takes them and their homes then maybe they will get the memo finally.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)And those areas are monolithically Republican, with no Democratic adults or nonvoting minors of any potential affiliation.
Got it.
lalalu
(1,663 posts)destroying natural barriers and rebuilding in areas they were warned about. Their hero Christie was backing Romney and no feds in his state until Sandy hit. Hypocrites.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)I get it perfectly well, thanks. I just think "it" is even more despicable than you think one hundred percent of the population of the area is.
lalalu
(1,663 posts)This was just a warning. Go ahead, rebuild, and double dare nature. Let's see who wins in the end.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Despite the intended purpose of that $60 billion, it will undoubtedly increase atmospheric carbon levels and contribute to further environmental destruction (that we will be compelled to pay for because of the people it has hurt). Cannot we show an equal willingness to restore our carbon sinks, as well as shift agriculture to more sustainable models (like horticulture for instance)? FDR planted 3 billion trees to fight the ecological damage evasive agriculture caused...why can't we even think that big, when the situation is even more dire?
When it comes to solving big problems, humans excel at kicking the can down the road. Even our acts of compassion are laced with poison, as if there is any other way anymore. Its an awful situation we have got ourselves in, no doubt.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I am not surprised at one of the immediate responses to my comment being a strawman
wordpix
(18,652 posts)and storm surge zones, do you really want to pay your taxes to have them rebuild? I DON"T and I am angry at having to pay for that. Flame away if you will.
I would rather the feds work with states to restore wetlands with the double benefit of helping bring back fish and wildlife as well as storm protection for residents. People should build well back and elevated from low lying areas. Ditto for businesses, sewage systems, power stations, etc.
And NYC subway system will be subject to this kind of flooding increasingly as global warming continues unabated so that, too, should be rethought long and hard.
lalalu
(1,663 posts)The dolts are rebuilding in the same areas and Christie has suspended long fought for regulations. I hope right after they rebuild a bigger storm will hit and take the whole lot out to sea. I can deal with another two weeks of being without electricity if it will rid the state of these ignorant people.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Moreover, those areas were likely covered by private flood insurance.
I too would oppose rebuilding in the Rockaways, SE Staten Island, etc.
lalalu
(1,663 posts)outside of flood plains was due to the fact that natural barriers were destroyed due to development. There were tidal waves even running down city streets because areas that had never been developed before are now home to overpriced condos touting waterfront views.
Areas that were once left wild or open fields for fishing and hiking were turned over to private developers and destroyed. There are numerous reports showing warnings over this for years. The idiots still don't get it and want to rebuild in the same spots.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)lalalu
(1,663 posts)Christie has already waived regulations.
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/11/06/state-agency-waives-environmental-rules-to-speed-rebuilding-after-storm/
wordpix
(18,652 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)lalalu
(1,663 posts)An inconvenient fact. If people refuse to leave these areas in any state then they should not get a dime to rebuild.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)there. But if you do and you're wiped out from the many storms/hurricanes that hit the area, don't depend on taxpayers to bail you out. Besides, some of these low lying areas and wetlands should just not be built on. Again, if you do, the fed gov should not be the one to bail people out---go to private flood insurance, build on stilts instead.
Igel
(35,173 posts)The propsal to abandon low-lying areas was claimed to be based in reason. The rebuttal was that the only possible reason had to be racism, in a bit of post-hoc ill-will.
Now we have the same argument with the same claim, but it's hard to have a reply that it's all because of racism.
Some people really don't like dear Willem of Ockeghem. Or Occam.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)Tough luck, so you're going to have to walk or ride a bike to the beach instead of looking at the water from your $5 million home at the edge of the high tide mark.
lexw
(804 posts)Mr.Bill
(24,031 posts)Wouldn't want to increase that national debt any more, would we?
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)still, this is a good political move.
obama2terms
(563 posts)Let's hope the idiots in our congress don't filibuster this!
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)dwellings can remain...but nothing new within the 20 mile exclusion using gov't $$$.
You want to build within that parameter, fine...but do not ask for my taxpayer $$$ to subsidize your 'beachfront' view.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)Wouldn't it be awesome if they would tie the aid to "green" building. If all those homes were replaced with new ones that meet the current "green" buiilding guidelines, how awesome would that be? It would probably be too dificult under the circumstances, but it would be an awesome mandate for future disasters.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)As a Con Ed customer I am worried about rates increasing due to the costs the utility has from the hurricane. Not just for me but for people in NYC who are much poorer than I am. It took them a long time (6 days) to get my power back on, and for some it's been a lot longer. But I know their people worked really hard. They have had a lot of labor disputes and I don't want their workers to take a hit either.
That said, we probably won't even get the $60 billion the president asked for, so I guess there have to be priorities. I am just glad they upped the request from the $50 billion I was hearing yesterday.