CLIMATE ADAPTATION

I want to punch climate change in the face. A blog about the interactions between the built environment, people, and nature.


about.me - FAQs - Follow - Face - Ask - Donations - Climate Book Store

Recent Tweets @climatecote

A reporter for Forbes exposes the sheer hypocrisy of Republican double talk when it comes to government spending. On the one hand, Republicans want massive cuts to government spending. On the other, they filled this disaster relief bill with pet projects that have nothing to do with helping Hurricane Sandy victims.

the pork portions of the Senate bill were not earmarked to benefit Democratic members of the upper chamber of Congress. And you may be quite surprised to discover where that money is actually headed once the rich Senate legislation is passed by the House.

A review of the mark-up of the Senate bill reveals that all that extra, non-Sandy related cash is actually set to provide billions for “storm events that occurred in 2012 along the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast within the boundaries of the North Atlantic and Mississippi Valley divisions of the Corps that were affected by Hurricanes Sandy and Isaac.”

Why, you might ask, would the Senate be packing billions of taxpayer dollars for these areas of the country that are nowhere near the devastation brought about by superstorm Sandy into a bill designed to bring relief to those suffering from the storm that ripped the northeastern part of the nation?

The answer can be found in a quick review of the states that are set to benefit from the Senate’s extra-special benevolence—states including Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana.

What, you may ask, do these states far from New York and New Jersey have in common?

Each is not only a red state, but each of these states are represented by two Republican senators—with the exception of Louisiana with its one GOP senator.

And what happens when you buy off seven Republican senators with a package of goodies under the guise of storm relief supposedly meant to benefit two blue states?

You get yourself a filibuster proof piece of legislation.

Great work at Forbes.

  1. theyalwayswantyoutoproveit reblogged this from climateadaptation
  2. casapazzo reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  3. awalt2069 reblogged this from reagan-was-a-horrible-president
  4. oinonio reblogged this from aboriginalnewswire
  5. aboriginalnewswire reblogged this from climateadaptation
  6. politicaldame reblogged this from climateadaptation
  7. bluepeapod reblogged this from reagan-was-a-horrible-president
  8. killerkhaleesi reblogged this from inlovewiththepractice
  9. newsandtrade reblogged this from reagan-was-a-horrible-president
  10. psychedelicmicrobus reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  11. errllybird reblogged this from inlovewiththepractice
  12. newsfeederlive reblogged this from climateadaptation
  13. inlovewiththepractice reblogged this from talesofthestarshipregeneration and added:
    fucking unbelievable, how our government works.
  14. occupyv reblogged this from reagan-was-a-horrible-president
  15. rockycore reblogged this from climateadaptation
  16. triplestandard reblogged this from realworldnews
  17. jessicathemess reblogged this from reagan-was-a-horrible-president
  18. jkruton reblogged this from reagan-was-a-horrible-president
  19. athelstansboner reblogged this from nevecampbell
  20. contentment-of-cats reblogged this from reagan-was-a-horrible-president
  21. bowtomyvagina reblogged this from nevecampbell
  22. themaskedstray reblogged this from realworldnews
  23. realworldnews reblogged this from reagan-was-a-horrible-president
  24. nevecampbell reblogged this from reagan-was-a-horrible-president
  25. jaison96 reblogged this from reagan-was-a-horrible-president
  26. reagan-was-a-horrible-president reblogged this from oinonio
  27. remierk reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias