Ted Cruz supports federal relief for Texas floods; voted against Hurricane Sandy funding

[fredjr82]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) showed his support for federal disaster relief in the wake of devastating floods in Texas last week -- two and a half years after voting against a disaster relief bill for victims of Hurricane Sandy, which devastated the East Coast in 2012.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Cruz said that it appears as though the disaster money will come through due to the magnitude of the floods, which killed 15 people in Texas.

"The governor has entered a disaster declaration, which is the first step in federal emergency relief," Cruz said. "There are a series of federal statutory thresholds that have to be satisfied initially. It appears that those thresholds will be satisfied by the magnitude of the flooding."

Spokesman Rick Tyler said the candidate supports "disaster relief funding that is targeted and timely so the local communities can recover as quickly as possible."

Cruz said in 2013 that he voted against the Sandy bill because it was laden with other spending not related to the hurricane, which decimated the East Coast, dealing the worst blows to New York and New Jersey. The storm killed 117 people in the United States.

"Emergency relief for the families who are suffering from this natural disaster should not be used as a Christmas tree for billions in unrelated spending, including projects such as Smithsonian repairs, upgrades to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration airplanes, and more funding for Head Start," Cruz said at the time.

“This bill is symptomatic of a larger problem in Washington — an addiction to spending money we do not have. The United States Senate should not be in the business of exploiting victims of natural disasters to fund pork projects that further expand our debt.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...floods-voted-against-hurricane-sandy-funding/

 

[Jan Itor]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) showed his support for federal disaster relief in the wake of devastating floods in Texas last week -- two and a half years after voting against a disaster relief bill for victims of Hurricane Sandy, which devastated the East Coast in 2012.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Cruz said that it appears as though the disaster money will come through due to the magnitude of the floods, which killed 15 people in Texas.

"The governor has entered a disaster declaration, which is the first step in federal emergency relief," Cruz said. "There are a series of federal statutory thresholds that have to be satisfied initially. It appears that those thresholds will be satisfied by the magnitude of the flooding."

Spokesman Rick Tyler said the candidate supports "disaster relief funding that is targeted and timely so the local communities can recover as quickly as possible."

Cruz said in 2013 that he voted against the Sandy bill because it was laden with other spending not related to the hurricane, which decimated the East Coast, dealing the worst blows to New York and New Jersey. The storm killed 117 people in the United States.

"Emergency relief for the families who are suffering from this natural disaster should not be used as a Christmas tree for billions in unrelated spending, including projects such as Smithsonian repairs, upgrades to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration airplanes, and more funding for Head Start," Cruz said at the time.

“This bill is symptomatic of a larger problem in Washington — an addiction to spending money we do not have. The United States Senate should not be in the business of exploiting victims of natural disasters to fund pork projects that further expand our debt.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/29/cruz-supports-federal-relief-for-texas-floods-voted-against-hurricane-sandy-funding/

I don't like Cruz, and think he's an embarrassment to the party (which is full of embarrassing people) but the Sandy relief Bill was full of spending completely unrelated to the areas hit with the storm. Why did the Dems put such legislation in that bill?

 

[fredjr82]

I don't like Cruz, and think he's an embarrassment to the party (which is full of embarrassing people) but the Sandy relief Bill was full of spending completely unrelated to the areas hit with the storm. Why did the Dems put such legislation in that bill?

Do you think there won't be any pork in the Texas relief bill? I assume there will like most of the aid bills that get passed. I just thought it was funny that Cruz didn't support Hurricane Sandy because of the pork but will turn a blind eye to his home state's relief bill that will certainly have things in it that don't cover "relief".

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

I've always carried insurance on my home and other property. I guess I shouldn't have because if it rains enough, or a tornado come through, I should expect the government to make it right.

 

[fredjr82]

I've always carried insurance on my home and other property. I guess I shouldn't have because if it rains enough, or a tornado come through, I should expect the government to make it right.

Good point. The problem with your theory though is that insurance companies don't cover flood insurance on your home unless you meet certain requirements. Take CR in 2008 for example. We were close to signing a home that was past the so called "500 year flood plain". I asked the realtor if we would could get flood insurance on the home and she stated we couldn't because it was outside of the "100 year flood plain". We never closed on the house and it ended up flooding in 2008. Those people didn't have insurance to cover their damage from the flood. What other choices did they have other than to allow FEMA to provide any assistance they could?

So why we agree in theory on insurance, that's not an option for some people that are affected by a natural disaster.

 

[TexMichFan]

Well Duh he lives in Texas.

 

[fredjr82]

Well Duh he lives in Texas.

The old "me not thee" stance from a politician. Surprising.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

So we really are gonna get the "FEMA" camps after all?

 

[TexMichFan]

Good point. The problem with your theory though is that insurance companies don't cover flood insurance on your home unless you meet certain requirements. Take CR in 2008 for example. We were close to signing a home that was past the so called "500 year flood plain". I asked the realtor if we would could get flood insurance on the home and she stated we couldn't because it was outside of the "100 year flood plain". We never closed on the house and it ended up flooding in 2008. Those people didn't have insurance to cover their damage from the flood. What other choices did they have other than to allow FEMA to provide any assistance they could?

So why we agree in theory on insurance, that's not an option for some people that are affected by a natural disaster.

When Hurricane Ike hit the Texas coast a lot of houses were lost. If you lived full time on Boliver Peninsula but did not have insurance the government rebuilt your house with an elevator. Insurance was available but some people decide the cost was too high so they skipped it. It a lot of cases the replacement house is worth more than the insured value of the old house would have been. After three years the house can be sold with the home owner keeping the money without having to reimburse the federal government anything.

Insurance is available in flood plain areas it is just in the secondary market and is very expensive. If you want to build in an area where insurance will be too expensive then you should assume the liability is you want to take the gamble.

 

[isufan21]

Good point. The problem with your theory though is that insurance companies don't cover flood insurance on your home unless you meet certain requirements. Take CR in 2008 for example. We were close to signing a home that was past the so called "500 year flood plain". I asked the realtor if we would could get flood insurance on the home and she stated we couldn't because it was outside of the "100 year flood plain". We never closed on the house and it ended up flooding in 2008. Those people didn't have insurance to cover their damage from the flood. What other choices did they have other than to allow FEMA to provide any assistance they could?

So why we agree in theory on insurance, that's not an option for some people that are affected by a natural disaster.

I believed what you typed above before the 2008 Floods in the Cedar Rapids area as well. I had a commercial property located in Palo outside of any flood zones. We did not have flood insurance, and our buildings had about 12"-18" of water in it. Afterwards we looked into getting flood insurance, and found we were able to get it.
My property remains outside of the 500 year flood still even after the new flood maps for Linn County

 

[TexMichFan]

The old "me not thee" stance from a politician. Surprising.

I think the question is would he have supported it if it was just for Sandy relief.

For us that live on the Texas coast we were shocked that houses were not raised along the coast where Sandy hit. The house I just built is 21 feet above sea level to the bottom of house. We are 6 feet above sea level at ground level. The minimum is now 16 feet above sea level but 21 feet got a nice discount on insurance and will pay for the extra cost in 10 years.

 

[fredjr82]

I think the question is would he have supported it if it was just for Sandy relief.

For us that live on the Texas coast we were shocked that houses were not raised along the coast where Sandy hit. The house I just built is 21 feet above sea level to the bottom of house. We are 6 feet above sea level at ground level. The minimum is now 16 feet above sea level but 21 feet got a nice discount on insurance and will pay for the extra cost in 10 years.

OK. I understand why he was against Sandy. I can't answer whether he would have supported it if relief was the only thing in the bill. Do you think the Texas relief bill will only have relief in it? Will Ted Cruz change his stance on the relief bill for Texas if there is pork in it? I don't think he will, he'll probably even profit some off of the pork (my opinion only).

 

[TexMichFan]

OK. I understand why he was against Sandy. I can't answer whether he would have supported it if relief was the only thing in the bill. Do you think the Texas relief bill will only have relief in it? Will Ted Cruz change his stance on the relief bill for Texas if there is pork in it? I don't think he will, he'll probably even profit some off of the pork (my opinion only).

I doubt it will be about relief because that is not how our government seems to work. I could see him trying to take all the pork out and then having fail to do so voting for it with the "I try to get just relief but in the end this is the best I could do" reason. Hypocritical but then we are hard pressed to find a politician who is not on some level.

 

[fredjr82]

I believed what you typed above before the 2008 Floods in the Cedar Rapids area as well. I had a commercial property located in Palo outside of any flood zones. We did not have flood insurance, and our buildings had about 12"-18" of water in it. Afterwards we looked into getting flood insurance, and found we were able to get it.
My property remains outside of the 500 year flood still even after the new flood maps for Linn County

That's a fair statement. I believe CR/Palo joined the NFIP program that helps give people flood insurance that don't live within the 100 year flood plain. That is direct government (federal/state) flood insurance. Do any private insurance companies take part in providing assistance?

 

[Smalls4IA]

OK. I understand why he was against Sandy. I can't answer whether he would have supported it if relief was the only thing in the bill. Do you think the Texas relief bill will only have relief in it? Will Ted Cruz change his stance on the relief bill for Texas if there is pork in it? I don't think he will, he'll probably even profit some off of the pork (my opinion only).

I realize that every instance may be different but when I lost my house in a tornado the area was declared a federal disaster. I met with FEMA like everyone said to do. The max i could get from them was $30,000 on a $400,000 home. I did this not knowing that if i had insurance i didn't qualify anyway. I obviously had insurance so it's a mute point but it gave me some insight. I have a hard time believing people are getting all this money others talk about.

 

[isufan21]

That's a fair statement. I believe CR/Palo joined the NFIP program that helps give people flood insurance that don't live within the 100 year flood plain. That is direct government (federal/state) flood insurance. Do any private insurance companies take part in providing assistance?

My policy is serviced by Auto Owners Insurance, but I believe they only sell the policies and it is a federal program

 

[fredjr82]

My policy is serviced by Auto Owners Insurance, but I believe they only sell the policies and it is a federal program

Yep. It's because of NFIP. If Palo didn't take some proactive steps to help avoid flooding disasters, Auto Owners wouldn't give you flood insurance outside of the 100 year flood plain. Because Palo is a part of the NFIP Auto Owners will provide flood insurance to anyone that wants it. Even if you live miles from the nearest body of water.

From the Auto Owners website
As long as a local community participates in the National Flood Insurance Program, which essentially means to prudently control new development in the areas identified as at higher risk for flooding, anyone in that community can purchase flood insurance.

 

[TexMichFan]

I realize that every instance may be different but when I lost my house in a tornado the area was declared a federal disaster. I met with FEMA like everyone said to do. The max i could get from them was $30,000 on a $400,000 home. I did this not knowing that if i had insurance i didn't qualify anyway. I obviously had insurance so it's a mute point but it gave me some insight. I have a hard time believing people are getting all this money others talk about.

I can't speak for the others but I know for certain that the government built the houses to replace houses lost for people who did not have insurance at government expense even thou insurance was available. It was only done for owners that were permanent residences.

 

[3 and Out on D]

How can anyone be surprised that Cruz is an asshole?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Cruz said in 2013 that he voted against the Sandy bill because it was laden with other spending not related to the hurricane, which decimated the East Coast, dealing the worst blows to New York and New Jersey. The storm killed 117 people in the United States.

"Emergency relief for the families who are suffering from this natural disaster should not be used as a Christmas tree for billions in unrelated spending, including projects such as Smithsonian repairs, upgrades to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration airplanes, and more funding for Head Start," Cruz said at the time.

So he's against helping those needing disaster relieve on the east coast AND he's against the Smithsonian, NOAA, and Head Start.

I'll give you good odds that if we comb through Cruz's voting record we'll see he voted for bills that included funding for those programs in the past.

I hope someone will do that.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Good point. The problem with your theory though is that insurance companies don't cover flood insurance on your home unless you meet certain requirements. Take CR in 2008 for example. We were close to signing a home that was past the so called "500 year flood plain". I asked the realtor if we would could get flood insurance on the home and she stated we couldn't because it was outside of the "100 year flood plain". We never closed on the house and it ended up flooding in 2008. Those people didn't have insurance to cover their damage from the flood. What other choices did they have other than to allow FEMA to provide any assistance they could?

So why we agree in theory on insurance, that's not an option for some people that are affected by a natural disaster.

Which raises the question why people live in those places. Or, perhaps more to the point, do those jurisdictions permit new construction in those areas - either at all or without meeting standards that make them secure against the known dangers. Like building in earthquake areas need to meet certain standards.

That wouldn't apply to the current Texas problem, I assume. But if they go on with future building as if nothing has happened, then that sounds like a problem.

If a jurisdiction doesn't acknowledge that global warming is real then suffers disasters due to global warming, should smarter taxpayers have to bail them out?

 

[Arbitr8]

I am so proud of him for doing this!

 

[joelbc1]

I don't like Cruz, and think he's an embarrassment to the party (which is full of embarrassing people) but the Sandy relief Bill was full of spending completely unrelated to the areas hit with the storm. Why did the Dems put such legislation in that bill?

and there won't be any "pork" in this one? really??

 

[LuteHawk]

Ted Cruz has one claim to fame:

He won a Fonzie look-alike contest in high school.
His hair has more oil in it than a Texas oil well.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

So he's against helping those needing disaster relieve on the east coast AND he's against the Smithsonian, NOAA, and Head Start.

I'll give you good odds that if we comb through Cruz's voting record we'll see he voted for bills that included funding for those programs in the past.

I hope someone will do that.

Nice logic.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Nice logic.

How would you explain it?

 

[Lone Clone]

I don't like Cruz, and think he's an embarrassment to the party (which is full of embarrassing people) but the Sandy relief Bill was full of spending completely unrelated to the areas hit with the storm. Why did the Dems put such legislation in that bill?

Agree on every point. The Dems wanted an issue they could lie about in perpetuity, and they got what they wanted.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Agree on every point. The Dems wanted an issue they could lie about in perpetuity, and they got what they wanted.

Again, if you look at the "pork" he mentioned as reasons why he voted against the Sandy bill, this excuse rings crassly hollow.

NIH, NOAA, Head Start. Funding for THESE deserving programs sound like a good reasons to deny people in serious trouble the help they need?

Please explain how that makes sense.

In fact, explain how this doesn't automatically and irrevocably disqualify Cruz from ANY public office.

Look, I'm as pleased as anyone when sociopaths out themselves. Which is why I don't understand why you and Jan are patting Cruz on the back instead of condemning him.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

How would you explain it?

You don't really need me to because it wasn't meant as a serious point by you but rather a juvenile slogan for the left.

How much money is being requested for NIH, NOAA, Head Start, etc? Where specifically is the money going for? Is this an additional request from what they asked for last year. Why? Explain the need of the increase. Have they received other appropriations this fiscal year?

Is it possible for someone to support the funding for these programs .in one year and not in the next? If you support it once must you support it forever, and at the same dollar value or higher the previous years?

If I'm for disaster relieved, why isn't money only for disaster reliever. Why are the hiding other spending? Why the lack of transparency? Is this a good thing. Do Congressperson's include other pork projects (not listed above) into the disaster relief bill? Why is that a good thing. Common sense tells us they are sneaking money in the disaster relief bill that can't get funded going through normals channels and this is an end around because who to vote against disaster aid.

The bottom from the evidenced thus far provided us, Ted Cruz is not be hypocritical.

 

[*33*]

Again, if you look at the "pork" he mentioned as reasons why he voted against the Sandy bill, this excuse rings crassly hollow.

NIH, NOAA, Head Start. Funding for THESE deserving programs sound like a good reasons to deny people in serious trouble the help they need?

Please explain how that makes sense.

In fact, explain how this doesn't automatically and irrevocably disqualify Cruz from ANY public office.

Look, I'm as pleased as anyone when sociopaths out themselves. Which is why I don't understand why you and Jan are patting Cruz on the back instead of condemning him.

If these programs were/are deserving why can't they get funding on their own merits?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

If these programs were/are deserving why can't they get funding on their own merits?

Hello? Are you new to America and the anti-science Kool-Aid ladled out by the conservative media and many Republicans?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You don't really need me to because it wasn't meant as a serious point by you but rather a juvenile slogan for the left.

You're wrong.

Sure, I'll agree that everybody plays the game of voting against a bill for reasons they don't want to admit, and justifying their vote by pointing to something else packaged in that bill. Occasionally, that's even the real reason.

But is it believably the real reason here? Or are we seeing an anti-fed hypocrite slurping at the federal trough when it suits him and trying to pretend he isn't a hypocrite with transparent CYA BS?

If he hadn't opposed the Sandy relief, he might still be called a hypocrite because of his aggressive anti-federal-government approach. But maybe not - because he could always say this is one of those things he thinks the feds should do. But since he didn't think it was something the feds should do for Sandy victims, he has to cover his ass another way.

It's also interesting that he did NOT say that this is the kind of thing the feds should do. Instead he said he just wanted the feds to live up to their legal obligation. Think about that difference.

He makes Slick Willie look rather crude.

 

[BubsFinn]

Barack Obama "evolved" his position on gay marriage. Politicians say shit to get elected. Nothing new here.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Barack Obama "evolved" his position on gay marriage. Politicians say shit to get elected. Nothing new here.

And we get to point out when they are being hypocrites, or lying, or taking bribes, or whatever.

Saying it's BAU doesn't excuse bad behavior, bad votes, or dishonesty.

 

[Lone Clone]

Again, if you look at the "pork" he mentioned as reasons why he voted against the Sandy bill, this excuse rings crassly hollow.

NIH, NOAA, Head Start. Funding for THESE deserving programs sound like a good reasons to deny people in serious trouble the help they need?

Please explain how that makes sense.

In fact, explain how this doesn't automatically and irrevocably disqualify Cruz from ANY public office.

Look, I'm as pleased as anyone when sociopaths out themselves. Which is why I don't understand why you and Jan are patting Cruz on the back instead of condemning him.

Q: WTF is funding for Head Start doing in a bill intended to give emergency relief to hurricane victims?
A: It's put in there by some sleazebag who wants money for a pet project and doesn't think he can do it if people actually have to debate and vote on it. So he attaches it to an irrelevant bill that has great support, knowing he will be able to slander anyone who votes against it and the dim-witted members of the electorate won't catch him at it.

IIRC, there was no delay of funds for any storm-related function that needed immediate funding.

 

[Jan Itor]

Again, if you look at the "pork" he mentioned as reasons why he voted against the Sandy bill, this excuse rings crassly hollow.

NIH, NOAA, Head Start. Funding for THESE deserving programs sound like a good reasons to deny people in serious trouble the help they need?

Please explain how that makes sense.

In fact, explain how this doesn't automatically and irrevocably disqualify Cruz from ANY public office.

Look, I'm as pleased as anyone when sociopaths out themselves. Which is why I don't understand why you and Jan are patting Cruz on the back instead of condemning him.

Who the F*** is patting Cruz on the back? I specifically said I do not like him. Time to renew those bifocals?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Who the F*** is patting Cruz on the back? I specifically said I do not like him. Time to renew those bifocals?

You say you don't like him but you back his position. I didn't say you liked him.

But I do need new glasses, so there's that.