FEMA disaster relief may be further delayed

[alp227]

Source: The Washington Post

States and cities affected by recent natural disasters might not be able to get federal relief starting Tuesday if Congress doesn’t act to shore up funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

As of Friday morning, FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund had only $175 million, and it probably will be empty next week for the first time in its history, the agency said. It is consulting with White House lawyers to determine what to do if funds evaporate.

“The administration is committed to doing all it can under current legal authorities to continue vital operations, including assistance to individuals,” FEMA spokeswoman Rachel Racusen said in an e-mail. “But there is no question this is a critical situation and one we are watching closely.”

The disaster fund pays for all costs associated with presidentially declared disasters, including individual and public assistance payments and operational costs. Agency officials, who prefer to keep the fund flush with about $1 billion, quickly drained the account in late September after Hurricane Irene caused significant damage across 12 states and Puerto Rico.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fema-disaster-relief-may-be-further-delayed/2011/09/23/gIQAEopTrK_story.html

---

How come shutdown threats only occur during DEMOCRATIC administrations with Republican congresses, like how they actually happened during the Clinton administration butting heads with Speaker Gingrich, and now possibly with President Obama vs. Speaker Boehner? Yet under the George W. Bush administration, Speaker Pelosi never delayed any budgets and threatened any government shutdowns. Nor under the Reagan administration with Speaker O'Neill.

[SkyDaddy7]

1. I have not kept up with this FEMA battle...

But considering most of the states in desperate need of FEMA funds are Red States have any of the Republican Governors expressed any dislike for what the Congressional Republicans are doing? My guess is probably not as they tend to not go after their own & if they do it is very mild...Unlike us Democrats we eat our own regardless of the ramifications.

Would love to be surprised & hear that some Republican Governors are expressing their dislike for what the Congressional Republicans are doing.

[Cool Logic]

2. "Federal assistance for the victims of storms and floods should be beyond politics,..."

said a letter from Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, both Republicans, and Democrats Andrew Cuomo of New York and Bev Perdue of North Carolina.

Indeed, let the private sector risk their $$$ on the Solyndras of the world. Re-direct the People's $$$ to things that help the People.

[SkyDaddy7]

4. Like I said then...MILD...And it was actually...

less than mild as they did not place blame instead they make it sound like it is both sides that are keeping funds from those who need it.

I disagree when it comes to public/private partnerships as they are what built this country! And sometimes it takes government carrying the risk in order to get things done that need to be done now...Getting our solar industry up & running is a must along with other green tech industries as they are the industries of the future 7 ones we need to help lessen the disgusting things we are doing to the environment.

Having said that, there should have been better research into Solyndras before the loan was given.

[eggplant]

6. Wait, when did NY and VT become red states? n/t

[SkyDaddy7]

7. They are Blue...

Who said they were Red?

[eggplant]

8. See post #1. n/t

[SkyDaddy7]

9. Maybe you should read post #1 again...

Slowly.

[Possumpoint]

3. Take The Salaries

Of Congress and its staff till the issue is resolved. Use that money.

[Igel]

5. They don't happen just during (D) administrations.

Reagan faced a few shutdowns, one of which was a big loss for him. When Clinton faced his, it was a win for him (although he promptly realized he was in the minority on the issues at hand and changed course to stay the course).

The situation from 2006-2008 needs more detail to point out the problems.

* had a funny habit of signing spending measures that he disliked for the first 6 or so years of his administration--*, the (R) in Congress, and the (D) all got the spending that they wanted (some subgroups of (D) and (R) didn't get what they wanted, but don't confuse a minority with the majority). In his last year or two * altered this approach slightly so there were just continuing resolutions for most of the federal discretionary budget because he threatened to veto any spending bill that exceeded his spending limits. He had few set goals for spending reductions, however, so he didn't veto the CRs. (However a large chunk of the 2008/09 budget as amended by Congress was subject to a substantive veto threat by *: The (D) congress wouldn't compromise on the matter and didn't want to risk a shutdown any more than * did, so that portion of the * budget, with a significant budget increase over 2008 spending levels, was passed after Obama's inauguration and signed by Obama.)

The CRs were a huge cop out. It let the status quo go on in a rather irresponsible way. In 2008 passing actual budgets was a big deal in some campaigning. (We don't have a budget. The Senate can't bring itself to actually pass one. Instead we get even more CRs and things like budget resolutions that are deemed passed and sufficient to authorize spending.)