Trump Signs Disaster Relief Bill, Over Noem’s Objection

Finally, Noem bucks Trump! Unfortunately, she did it on disaster relief.

On Friday, Donald Trump signed the bill Congress passed in four days to fund disaster relief and raise the debt ceiling. Four Texas Republican Congressmen voted yesterday against the $15.25-billion relief package prompted by the massive hurricane in their home state last week.

Kristi Noem
I laugh in the face of hurricane relief….

Also voting no on Harvey relief: South Dakota’s lone Congresswoman, Kristi Noem.

Our Senators Thune and Rounds were fine with pumping $7.4 billion into FEMA, $7.4 billion into HUD, and $450 million into the Small Business Administration to deal with disasters and extending the debt limit through December 8. Rep. Noem sent Texas hurricane victims her thoughts and prayers last week, and she voted aye with 418 other House members Tuesday for the FEMA and SBA funding, but apparently she couldn’t swallow giving Ben Carson’s HUD $7.4 billion and putting another three months between us and her second government shutdown.

I haven’t seen public comment from Noem yet on her vote against disaster relief, but if she followed her naysaying Texas colleagues, we may interpret her nay as telling flooded Houstonians or soon-to-be Irma-whipped Floridians that righting their upended lives is not as important as reducing the national debt. I look forward to Rep. Noem wading through the streets of Miami to make that argument.


16 Responses to Trump Signs Disaster Relief Bill, Over Noem’s Objection

  1. We need some serious reform of disaster relief. It makes no sense for taxpayers to subsidize flood insurance for people whose homes repeatedly flood, and to pay for damages to their homes even if they refuse to buy the subsidized flood insurance. Taxpayers should not subsidize insurance on vacation homes at all. There should be some kind of means testing for subsidized flood insurance on primary residences. And there should be no further subsidization after the first disaster if people rebuild in the same location and get hit again. Covering people for bad decisions over and over again is like giving booze to the alcoholic.

    Speaking of covering people for bad decisions over and over again, Noem is part of the problem of congress not taking any action until after a disaster. We knew in advance that the US would be hit by major hurricanes, folks. It’s no surprise. But it’s so much easier for the government to throw money at people (deserving and not) after a disaster than to establish some sensible ground rules ahead of the disaster.

  2. Porter Lansing

    I predict Trump will spend more taxpayers money than Bush or Obama. He sees no reason not to take the easy road to problem solving especially when it’s not Trump money he’s spending.

  3. She only recognizes cattle losses as reasons to fund disaster relief”. Pulled the same no vote on Sandy.

  4. Donald Pay

    I agree with Rorschach. Whether its floods in a floodplain or hurricanes or fires in a pine forest, most taxpayers should not have subsidize lifestyles of fools who can’t learn the lessons that nature is providing. If any taxpayers should fork over money it ought to be the locals, who allow building in those places. People who build on barrier islands deserve to loose everything with no one paying them a cent.

    Rapid City did the best thing ever after the 1972 flood. They denied every permit to rebuild along Rapid Creek. There would be no more loss of life or property due to stupid land use policies. They took a lot of heat for this, but they were absolutely right.

  5. John Kennedy Claussen, Sr.

    But isn’t crop insurance weather related? I know Rep. Noem supports federal crop insurance, but why not disaster relief designed to address other ails from the weather as well? Oh, that’s right, her “ranch” is not in the Houston area (Although, she did film her initial 2010 campaign ad in Texas) and her husband doesn’t sell “disaster relief”…..Well, unless crop insurance is “disaster relief”….But isn’t it?

  6. I hear she is going to talk about her walk with Jesus at an upcoming event put on by a conservative Christian group. Perhaps she does not think Jesus loves Texans or Floridians.

  7. I also agree with Rorschach. I have always seen insurance as a private, focused option in lieu of taxes: instead of the government getting involved, individuals (through private corporations) can choose to pay premiums (voluntary “taxes”) to create a risk pool and protect from loss. If that private option exists, then I say the government is under no obligation to bail out those who choose not to be covered. If it is the will of the people to have everyone covered, then eliminate the insurance and tax accordingly. Isn’t that central to the GOP slogan if individual responsibility?

  8. Donald, how did property values of creek-front property in Rapid City before the great flood compare to waterfront property values in Florida today? Would I be correct in assuming that local governments in Florida would give up more in property taxes proportionate to their budget if they forbade development along the shore than Rapid City lost by forbidding rebuilding/new building along Rapid Creek?

  9. Mr. Lansing

    USA is involved with selling three types of insurance. These three had failed miserably in the free market. That was because the greed of insurers led to gouging, not selling to high risk applicants and totally unfair business dealings. These three categories are so vital to the well being of USA that federal intervention was and still is, essential for our safety. Flood insurance, crop insurance and healthcare insurance.

  10. Mr, Lansing, I say the US Federal Government did not go far enough with those three. If they are truly in the national interest, and all three abject failures of the private sector, than they should have become government benefits supported through taxation period. The government should not be in the insurance business. That guarantees the widest (and therefore least expensive) risk pool. The government (We the people . . .) then also get to decide who receives benefits and at what rate. then we would have that serious discussion about disaster relief Rorschach originally posted.

  11. Mr. Lansing

    I like the way you think, “o”. The business sector should be removed from crop, flood and healthcare insurance. Things are cheaper when we buy them as a group, without a middle man. I recall “free market” was allowed to remain involved in crop, flood and healthcare government insurance only to get the Republican votes needed to get the programs passed. If you follow Republican campaign contribution money, you’ll soon see why they give away savings to get insurance company donations.

  12. Mr. Lansing, I would love to single out and demonize the GOP for carving out deals for big business inside government insurance, but plenty of Democrats feed from that trough too.

  13. Mr. Lansing

    That’s “what aboutism” which is a suitable argument when used properly but when used to distract from the point of an assertion it’s invalid. i.e. GOP is by far the majority when “feeding from the big business trough”.

  14. Mr L, no not “whataboutism” because I am not denying your premise that the GOP has more of the taint of corruption from catering to big business profit at the expense of the individual; I only point out that that corruption has crept deeper than only the GOP. Of the GOP, “the party of business,” we expect it; of the Democrats, “the party of the people,” it is even more corrosive. That corruption needs to be addressed and eradicated throughout politics. Democrats must be the better option by being the better option and not relying on support from the label only.

  15. Mr. Lansing

    Democrats are already and have long been the better option. Perfect is an ideal. Very good is more attainable and we’re already very good. Bringing up the exception to our very good isn’t very necessary and it caresses “negativity bias”, i.e. always looking for something wrong..

  16. Miranda Gohn

    Trying to keep up with the comments. Is Mr. Lansing and Porter Lansing the same individual but two different personalities or two entirely different individuals posting?