Texas and Louisiana will need billions from congress after Hurricane Harvey - Bob Bryan, Business Insider, August 31
(link:http://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-harvey-congress-relief-fund-bill-options-2017-8)
(link:http://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-harvey-congress-relief-fund-bill-options-2017-8)
Congress in Natural Disaster Relief
In the coming weeks, Congress must decide how it will address the crisis of Texas, Louisiana, and now Florida. Conflict between Texan republicans who had voted against relief/aid for those affected by Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and northeast lawmakers has arisen. Congress now has three general options. The first is to pass multiple bills that each target specific issues with specific funds, much like a categorical grant. The second is more akin to a block grant, where congress passes a standalone relief package as they did for Hurricane Katerina ($52M) and Hurricane Sandy. This approach has been widely criticized by republicans as it gives the states too much discretion allowing them to fund unrelated projects with funds intended for disaster relief. The third is to add a non-germane rider to the bill to use the urgency of hurricane to the advantage of an unrelated intrest. These speculations are based on what congress has done in the past to alleviate crises and send aid during times of disaster.
1. Which one of the three approaches do you see to be most fit? Does the widespread scale of Hurricane Harvey change how you think Congress should approach the issue?
2. Which congressional group (the house or senate) would actually be able to carry out approach 3 and what side effects do the rules that make this possible have in terms of defining the roles of the House and Senate?
3. Historically, what has made it the federal government's responsibility (as opposed to the states') to address the issues associated with natural disaster?
I believe that the suggestion to pass specifically targeted bills is the best strategy for dealing with hurricane relief. The other two options appear to leave too much room for the possibility of spending of funding on less pressing or unrelated matters where there seems to be fewer possible failed outcomes with the categorical grant style proposal. I don’t think it likely that those affected by the hurricane would misuse funding but the possibility alone seems an unnecessary risk to take. It is important to note however that it is very likely that passing many of these proposed specific bills would take a very long time (if they weren’t already dead on arrival) because the process of passing bills is anything but efficient.
ReplyDelete1. I think the easiest way to do this is to take multiple relief bills and fund the effort that way. This way, we can have accountability and specificity as to the purpose of the money. It is dangerous to give a federal relief agency a lump sum as there can be attrition through kickbacks, corruption and other factors. Instead, bills targeting specific needs will most likely be passed and be most efficient. On the other hand, passing it as a rider bill isn't a good idea as it could set a precedent that makes relief a political issue instead of a human one.
ReplyDelete1. I believe the best course of action would be to pass the specific laws similar to categorical grants. In order to restore order and help rebuild as efficiently as possible, the money that goes to the relief of the states must be controlled and appropriated by the federal government. This is to avoid unnecessary spending by the states and to be able to target the areas that need help the most. By having the money be controlled by the federal government, the people in need will be put first and the crisis will be able to be resolved as quickly and efficiently as possible.
ReplyDeleteI believe the best solution to this problem is to pass multiple bills that each target specific issues with specific funds. This way, the money is going directly to the people in need and the issues caused by the hurricanes that demand money for their solution. I think the money for the relief should be controlled by the government so that the states can't spend it on unrelated projects, it should go solely to the catastrophe caused by the hurricane.
ReplyDeleteI like the question about the role of the federal government. I found a good perspective (albeit somewhat biased) on why the feds are the ones with the resources to deal with such massive endeavors. In fact, you can see evidence of this in the fact that Puerto Rico is not requiring the US Armed Forces to step in because the needs of the people and island are so great. As usual, you only realize what you need when you don't have it...
ReplyDeleteOftentimes natural disasters like Katrina and Sandy render state and local governments practically powerless in terms of providing relief and recovering. No matter what, the federal government should always be ready to address the issues associated with natural disaster. A hurricane hitting Texas may affect Texans most immediately, but in reality, a state disaster is a national disaster, and there is no excuse for the feds not to be concerned about well being of all Americans. Federalism aside, all governments state and national should adopt a humanitarian perspective when people are in need. After all, people are people, and Congress should treat them as such.
ReplyDeleteI think that congress needs to work effectively and fast in order to create categorical grants that will guarantee hurricane relief for the Countries that are suffering. Also, if congress is able to set specific bills then sate governments will be compelled to spend towards the damages caused by the hurricane. The federal governments control over grants given during natural disasters is vital in order to prevent the states from spending the money in something else other then the people who are effected.
ReplyDelete3. The nation government provides aid to states following natural disasters because states can't muster the resources that the federal government can (especially after they've suffered such large-scale destruction). For example, Hurricane Maria recently left Puerto Rico without basic necessities (food, water, power etc) for its inhabitants. The island was clearly unable to sustain itself without outside assistance. The feds have recently begun providing aid.
ReplyDelete1. I believe categorical grants would be the most effective in dealing with these disasters because not only will it provide more organization to rebuilding the damaged cities and the lives these hurricanes impacted, but also because it ensures that all the money will be used for relief efforts instead of random state expenses.
ReplyDelete1. I think that the most effective option in providing aid to the areas that have been struck by disaster would be to give a block grant to the states. Because the issue only directly impacts certain states, it would be more efficient to allow the states that the issue primarily concerns to take care of it. Obviously, the federal government should not ignore the problem after giving the grants to the states, but it is inevitable that their focus would be less concentrated due to their responsibility for the entire country, and a larger more focused effort would be done with the block grants given to the states.
ReplyDelete1. Though all three proposals have their flaws, I still think that the second option of block grants would be the most beneficial. Although states may use the money for unintended usage, the matter of the fact is that these states are in much need of relief and support, so we should be willing to provide some sort of financial help in order to aid them back to safety, security and even prevention for the next hurricane that strikes, especially because we can.
ReplyDelete1. I see the struggles with the second option but still feel a block grant would be the best. If the government gives them lots of money for something the states dont need it for, it doesnt do much good. Allowing the states to judge what they need it for the most will be most effective in creating the quickest and more beneficial disaster relief.
ReplyDelete1.) I believe that the second option with the block grant would be ideal because while I do think the government should cut spending(as our debt is still rising), hurricane relief is not the place to do so. When families well beings and lives are at risk, the government should protect its citizens and support them. This is one of the most fundamental purposes of the national government, to "promote the general welfare" of our nation.
ReplyDelete1. I think that the smartest option would be the second one in giving block grants. Relief and Recovery, to me, are the most essential and important ways in which our own government can help us. Helping those in danger comes first in importance and the second option supports this idea most.
ReplyDelete