LEE: The listener identifies an issue with flood and disaster relief—should that be a federal prerogative or is that a state power? I think a compelling point can be made that’s one thing that states historically have focused on…and I think that’s one area where we ought to focus—one of many areas where we ought to focus — on getting that power back to the states, keeping that money in the states to begin with.
FABRIZIO: But could Louisiana, for example, have dealt with Katrina? That would have absolutely broken the bank. Should the federal government, in an ideal way, should the federal government have been involved in that at all?
LEE: Well, look, they were, and I generally make a practice of not unnecessarily and futility going back a few years and saying we shouldn’t have done that because the fact is that we did. But looking forward…states will prepare differently if they understand that it’s their responsibility rather than that of the federal government.
Yeah, next hurricane or flood or earthquake or mudslide or wildfire...well you're on your own, states. General Welfare Clause? What's that? Never heard of it. I'm sure GOP governors are really happy to hear next time there's a disaster in their state that Mike Lee expects them to pay for it. Rick Perry of Texas, Rick Scott in Florida, Chris Christie in New Jersey...sure they'd be thrilled to know if another Hurricane Katrina hit their state, Mike Lee wouldn't lift a finger to help.
What, you didn't set aside billions at the state level to clean up after a category 5 hurricane? That's your fault. Better cut social programs and set aside that money for the next disaster. Take care of yourselves, you lazy states!
But hey, Lee figures states need to handle food safety and poverty programs too.
QUESTION: Are you saying that if the government would have stayed out of it, the country could have worked out the issues that are being dealt with by these programs, like poverty, like food safety…?
LEE: I’ve never said that isn’t the role of government. What I’ve said is it’s not necessarily the role of the federal government. I think it’s important to ask the question, not just “should government do this? What is the proper role of government?” But “which government are you talking about?”
QUESTION: You said the framers intended state lawmakers deal with that, not the federal law?
LEE: Absolutely.
It should be concerning that as a federal lawmaker, Mike Lee is basically saying the federal government he's a part of is unconstitutional. If he thinks "providing for the general welfare" of Americans means that disaster, poverty and food safety is unconstitutional, what would the actual federal government be allowed to do in Mike Lee's world?
Can't regulate business. Can't protect Americans. Can't help them in times of need. What's left, war?
Don't answer that.
Posts
7 comments:
Lee is right.
If we eliminated as much federal spending as possible and left regulation of the general welfare to the states, and cut taxes accordingly and gave people more of their money back so that they didn't need state services...hey, we'd solve the budget problem.
But I forget you prefer a semi-fascist nanny "liberal" government.
This finger pointing and going in circles is really going to be really helpful when the next disaster does strike.
If I recall you live in the Midwest there Bon The Geek. Do you think it's fair for you to pay taxes for cleaning up California mudslides or Florida hurricanes or Maine blizzards?
If California has a higer risk of natural disasters, shouldn't California taxpayers and California lawmakers set aside the money for it?
Shouldn't states take personal responsibility for things like this?
If you live in one of those states you pay higher insurance. Why are you not paying higher taxes too for cleanup?
Lee seems to have forgotten about the interstate commerce clause.
And ZCP - next time the Mississippi floods ten midwestern states, you're on your own. How's that?
OK. I don't live in a state on the Mississippi. I sure as hell don't think I should be paying extra taxes for them when I don't.
We are the UNITED States of America. States have responsibilities, sure. But further burdening states while they are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy isn't going to help. Sure, all states should have some money set aside for natural disasters. Right now, does it make more sense for them to put their money towards theoretical disasters or ones going on right in front of them? It's hard to budget when you have no money to spare. Every state has the potential for disaster, from floods to earthquakes to tornadoes. The point is to pool our resources as a country to cover the losses. The timing of this sucks, and so does the "logic" behind the idea. If this is truly necessary, then it should be introduced at a time when states are capable of assuming that responsibility.
Instead, this reeks of throwing your problem on the little guy and saying "you deal with it."
Wait, who's paying for our mudslides, etc? Probably not ICP.
Federal spending in each state per dollar of federal taxes paid: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
As a lifelong Californian, maybe I should start griping about how I'm not getting my money's worth on the taxes I paid, since it's going to other (primarily "red") states. But, that would be an unfair sweeping generalization, and I'm sure the trolls will specifically point out things like #1 on the list is a blue state, that federal spending includes more than just disaster spending, etc. etc.
Maybe, just maybe, Bon has a point that we are the UNITED States. Even if I'm not directly benefiting from all the taxes I paid, I reap indirect benefits that I couldn't even begin to fully list.
Post a Comment