U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and several Republican congressmen from Texas--like our own conservative zealot, Tom Cotton--voted consistently in 2013 against funding for Hurricane Sandy relief mostly to New York and New Jersey.
Today, naturally, Cruz and Texas Republicans call for quick and unimpeded congressional action to appropriate supplemental money for Hurricane Harvey relief.
One hopes and expects that Texas will get that quick, unimpeded relief.
One hopes and expects that members of Congress from other parts of the country will not behave as the petty political grandstanders and geographic bigots the Texas delegates--and Our Boy Tom--were.
It took six days after the storm's strike to pass Hurricane Katrina relief. It took two months to pass Sandy relief. Here's guessing Harvey's relief bill will pass more at Katrina's than Sandy's pace. It's a simple red-blue proposition.
Geographic bigots? Am I pitting one region of the country against another?
I most certainly am not. They--Cotton, Cruz and dozens of other Republicans--did that already.
They voted "no" on Sandy relief for northeast states because of supposed "pork" spending in the bill and because, in devotion to the Tea Party revolt that elected them, they insisted on corresponding budget cuts so that the deficit would not be expanded.
But they haven't mentioned corresponding spending cuts in the prompt and unimpeded relief they demand for their state.
And if someone manages to slip something into their relief bill that they deem "pork," will they vote against their own relief?
If so, they will prove me wrong. They will not be geographic bigots. They'll merely stand guilty of political malpractice and inhumanity--again, as they were on the Sandy money.
This time they will vote a hasty "yes," of course, on whatever record-sized relief bill the Trump administration will find it necessary eventually to propose. The situation is urgent. The need is dire. The breadth and scope of the loss and suffering are unprecedented.
The cost of rebuilding the deep southeastern portion of Texas will be an imprecisely massive calculation. The best way to start would be to pick a big number and double it.
Will some of the money get spent inefficiently, owing to the vastness and urgency of need? I can't imagine otherwise. Will Harvey victims end up asking for more, even after inefficiencies? I can't imagine not.
So, let's revisit the specific conservative Republicans objections that delayed Sandy relief and kept dozens of Cruz-grade and Cotton-grade extremists from ever voting for it.
The first was that the bill contained "pork," meaning money for projects not related to Sandy.
Like what, for example?
There was money for roof repair to Smithsonian facilities in Washington, a considerable distance from New York and New Jersey. There was money for Amtrak, the publicly subsidized rail system that conservatives object to in the first place. There was money to restore sand on the beaches at Cape Canaveral in Florida.
But there's this thing about hurricanes: They travel long distances and can do wide perimeter damage along their way.
They can come up the Atlantic coastline and mess up sand dunes in Florida, then stir up enough wind in D.C. to damage a Smithsonian roof shielding precious national treasures.
Let's say, for sake of argument, that the Cape Canaveral beach erosion was more a gradual effect of climate change than specific Sandy damage. Is that reason enough to vote against all of disaster relief for two ravaged states?
The money for Amtrak was reimbursement for pumping Sandy's floodwater out of terminals and tunnels.
The second conservative Republican objection was that not all the Sandy money was for urgent relief, but long-term structural improvement. As if there was anything wrong with that. It's human evolution. You live. You learn.
Here's a quick example: Amtrak indeed got a little Sandy money to reimburse it for pumping water. But it got more Sandy money for longer-term work to fortify terminals and tunnels against flooding. If that's "pork," then it's a smart pig.
The third objection was that the Sandy money was not offset by symmetrical spending cuts in discretionary federal accounts.
Cruz, Cotton and that ilk were insisting that a federal government that has compiled nearly $20 trillion in debt suddenly draw the line at human assistance after a devastating hurricane.
Sorry, Tex. We're not going to be able to rebuild that bridge that is vital to your getting to work unless we can first get Congress to agree to cut spending elsewhere by the amount the bridge will cost.
Tex would be apt to feed you to the alligator now living in his backyard.
Why don't Cruz, Cotton and the rest hold out on voting for human assistance for Harvey victims until and unless their party gives up its obsession with cutting taxes?
Tax cuts would run up the deficit and debt more than a Smithsonian roof, flooded Amtrak terminal or Cape Canaveral sand dune ever would. That's if you go by arithmetic.
------------v------------
John Brummett, whose column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, was inducted into the Arkansas Writers' Hall of Fame in 2014. Email him at [email protected]. Read his @johnbrummett Twitter feed.
Editorial on 09/03/2017