More waste, fraud and abuse.
Cut the pork and I'll support it.
Boo hoo hoo.
Bad ole Repugs. Ignoring the needy.
"I am not a Republican."
I'm fed up with money being thrown around that does nothing to address the problem.
If we had the time maybe we could research that, but its not our job, it is our rep's job to be informed on such points before casting the vote-- seems Harris was informed and cast a good vote.
from the Sun article:
The flood legislation does not authorize direct spending; rather, it gives the flood insurance program authority to borrow money to pay claims during times of heavy flooding. In the past, those loans have been repaid with premiums property owners pay to carry the insurance.
For decades, the program has repaid the loans, but the fund went deeply into debt following Hurricane Katrina and now is nearly $18 billion in the red, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
Are some in this thread suggesting that property owners who paid their insurance premiums should be treated as though they had no flood insurance?
If you pay your insurance premiums, do you expect to be cheated by your insurer?
Of course as stated before there would be little reason to oppose the bill if the was no pork attached in the first place.
Sounds like we need to proactively fix the flood insurance program to avoid these type if fights happening during other ha times. The only way to do that is to eliminate other wasteful or less important spending.
|Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278