This was my (as yet
unpublished) response to an article on our US Representative Tom Reed’s support
of Eric Cantor’s suggestion that disaster relief must be tied to spending cuts:
In his confidence that “the government will ultimately find
the funds necessary to cover the damage done by Irene,” Tom Reed must be
referring to other members of Congress who are more responsible and
compassionate. In the Sept. 4 issue of the Courier,
Reed was quoted as agreeing with Eric Cantor that “additional funds for federal
disaster relief ought to be offset with spending cuts.”
One flaw of this approach is that it ignores the money made
available to stricken areas. Looking at it purely through the lens of
employment, after a disaster, there is plenty of work to be done. Work means
jobs. Added money means added jobs.
“I support spending on disaster recovery,” Reed was quoted,
“but” (here it comes) “we’re living in a day and age where we have to hold DC
accountable. We’re going to have to find money to cover it.”
Our military spending equals the rest of planet Earth
combined. I think we can come up with the money.
If disaster ever strikes
the Finger Lakes, what will Congressman Reed tell us?
No comments:
Post a Comment