Congresswoman Miller-Meeks could outline her proposed cuts before any DOGE meeting and address why she hasn’t previously suggested such reductions. In response to Senator Ernst’s comments on DOGE and cuts, I wrote this piece.
As for Nunn, who may be positioning himself for a U.S. Senate run, he should clarify his stance by contrasting how Democratic presidents and Congresses have consistently funded disaster relief efforts in Republican-leaning areas.
Everyone has the right to say what they please. They also have the right to not listen. Sen. Grassley got it right and I'm sure the Federal Gov't will help California as it's the right thing to do.
As an aside, I'm a little perplexed as to why when NC and surrounding areas had their hurricane issues this same article wasn't written with the focus on the VP's comments regarding helping based on "equity" or the defensive statement that, "we are sending $750..."
With catastrophe comes the armchair quarterback to call the play retrospectively.
I watched the video. I also looked at the transcript of their conversation, which I have linked below.
I don’t think any fair reading of the conversation could lead to the conclusion that Harris was advocating setting conditions on disaster aid to Florida.
She certainly didn’t say, as Nunn did, that “we will certainly help … but we also expect you to change bad behavior.”
In fact, Harris’s questioner asks about the administration’s relief response to Hurricane Ian, but also about climate change and the administration's “long-term goals."
Harris talks about building communities back up in a way that they can be resilient and adapt to extreme weather events in the future. And she says that equity should be a part of that effort. Not unreasonable. But again, she didn't advocate setting conditions on disaster aid. Zach Nunn clearly is. Mike Johnson clearly is.
Listening to the soon-to-be former VP Harris attempt to muster the right words in a coherent message has been interesting to say the least. That said, she did say that the response would be based on "equity" and went further to explain why that would be the case. The White House staff in the Biden Administration has had a full employment act sanitizing, cleaning, washing, and explaining what they "really meant to say" and/or "really were saying" on a daily basis. Arguably, KJP is the happiest person in Washington DC. After all, what job could be harder than fixing what presumably looks unfixable. She's the one that deserves the gold star.
Oh, the "transcript" isn't of the interview. It's the, "wish she had said this vs. that" message.
Congresswoman Miller-Meeks could outline her proposed cuts before any DOGE meeting and address why she hasn’t previously suggested such reductions. In response to Senator Ernst’s comments on DOGE and cuts, I wrote this piece.
As for Nunn, who may be positioning himself for a U.S. Senate run, he should clarify his stance by contrasting how Democratic presidents and Congresses have consistently funded disaster relief efforts in Republican-leaning areas.
Everyone has the right to say what they please. They also have the right to not listen. Sen. Grassley got it right and I'm sure the Federal Gov't will help California as it's the right thing to do.
As an aside, I'm a little perplexed as to why when NC and surrounding areas had their hurricane issues this same article wasn't written with the focus on the VP's comments regarding helping based on "equity" or the defensive statement that, "we are sending $750..."
With catastrophe comes the armchair quarterback to call the play retrospectively.
What “equity” comments are you talking about?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHOzjjpGK-U
Go to the 1:19 and onward point.
Thanks, Mike.
I watched the video. I also looked at the transcript of their conversation, which I have linked below.
I don’t think any fair reading of the conversation could lead to the conclusion that Harris was advocating setting conditions on disaster aid to Florida.
She certainly didn’t say, as Nunn did, that “we will certainly help … but we also expect you to change bad behavior.”
In fact, Harris’s questioner asks about the administration’s relief response to Hurricane Ian, but also about climate change and the administration's “long-term goals."
Harris talks about building communities back up in a way that they can be resilient and adapt to extreme weather events in the future. And she says that equity should be a part of that effort. Not unreasonable. But again, she didn't advocate setting conditions on disaster aid. Zach Nunn clearly is. Mike Johnson clearly is.
Here's the link to the transcript.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/09/30/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-during-fireside-chat-with-priyanka-chopra-jonas/
Listening to the soon-to-be former VP Harris attempt to muster the right words in a coherent message has been interesting to say the least. That said, she did say that the response would be based on "equity" and went further to explain why that would be the case. The White House staff in the Biden Administration has had a full employment act sanitizing, cleaning, washing, and explaining what they "really meant to say" and/or "really were saying" on a daily basis. Arguably, KJP is the happiest person in Washington DC. After all, what job could be harder than fixing what presumably looks unfixable. She's the one that deserves the gold star.
Oh, the "transcript" isn't of the interview. It's the, "wish she had said this vs. that" message.
She didn't say the disaster relief would be conditional. The video you presented does not show that. Nor does the transcript.
Please watch the video. The VP's comments start in earnest at the 1:19 marker. I'm not sure what else I can tell you.
Thanks, Mike