05 October 2011

no disaster, please

This was my (as yet unpublished) response to an article on our US Representative Tom Reed’s support of Eric Cantor’s suggestion that disaster relief must be tied to spending cuts: 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: