Okla. Senator wants to dictate the terms of the relief for his state

[perdedor]

The existence of natural disasters that will need to be responded to isn't really an unforeseen expense.  

We can not predict the occurrence of natural disasters, and their financial impact, with any significant amount of foresight. Are you suggesting that we set a fixed budget for disaster relief?

[Ban my account ffs!]

The existence of natural disasters that will need to be responded to isn't really an unforeseen expense. 

It's both always an unforeseen expense and one we can prepare for.  Obviously "smaller" natural disasters can be handled easily by our local, state, and federal emergency management officials... but some disasters are truly larger than we can prudently plan for... so special legislation will always be necessary for the worst events.

And I totally disagree about "offsets".  There should be no offset to a large natural disaster.  That's basically saying "sorry lady.. you don't get medicaid anymore because we had to rebuild a town a Oklahoma"...

If natural disasters are so expensive that we can't afford to 'eat' the added expense... then taxes need to go up.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The existence of natural disasters that will need to be responded to isn't really an unforeseen expense.  

We can not predict the occurrence of natural disasters, and their financial impact, with any significant amount of foresight. Are you suggesting that we set a fixed budget for disaster relief?

Yes, that would at least give a baseline that could be added to without having as much of it unfunded.  (FEMA has a fund for disaster relief, but the kind of disaster response being discussed is far beyond both their budget and their role.) In this case, any unused funds might be rolled over into the next year and/or invested in infrastructure improvements to withstand future disasters.  Not a perfect solution, but I think it'd be an improvement.

[perdedor]

The existence of natural disasters that will need to be responded to isn't really an unforeseen expense.  

We can not predict the occurrence of natural disasters, and their financial impact, with any significant amount of foresight. Are you suggesting that we set a fixed budget for disaster relief?

Yes, that would at least give a baseline that could be added to without having as much of it unfunded.  (FEMA has a fund for disaster relief, but the kind of disaster response being discussed is far beyond both their budget and their role.) In this case, any unused funds might be rolled over into the next year and/or invested in infrastructure improvements to withstand future disasters.  Not a perfect solution, but I think it'd be an improvement.

In the event that additional funding be needed, wouldn't a fixed budget still put a potentially difficult hurdle between victims and relief by placing the impetus on an ideologically polarized congress?

The Coburns of the world aren't going to approve of this level of flexibility when, even today, they are wanting cost offsets. Why wouldn't they ask for offsets when additional funding is requested? That puts us in roughly the same position as today.

The best solution, I feel, would be to reform FEMA into a semi-autonomous entity that doesn't require authorization from congress to provide relief. The size of a theoretical relief package can be determined by a qualified, independent commission. This would probably control costs as well if not better than a congress with political motivations.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The existence of natural disasters that will need to be responded to isn't really an unforeseen expense.  

We can not predict the occurrence of natural disasters, and their financial impact, with any significant amount of foresight. Are you suggesting that we set a fixed budget for disaster relief?

Yes, that would at least give a baseline that could be added to without having as much of it unfunded.  (FEMA has a fund for disaster relief, but the kind of disaster response being discussed is far beyond both their budget and their role.) In this case, any unused funds might be rolled over into the next year and/or invested in infrastructure improvements to withstand future disasters.  Not a perfect solution, but I think it'd be an improvement.

In the event that additional funding be needed, wouldn't a fixed budget still put a potentially difficult hurdle between victims and relief by placing the impetus on an ideologically polarized congress?

The Coburns of the world aren't going to approve of this level of flexibility when, even today, they are wanting cost offsets. Why wouldn't they ask for offsets when additional funding is requested? That puts us in roughly the same position as today.

The best solution, I feel, would be to reform FEMA into a semi-autonomous entity that doesn't require authorization from congress to provide relief. The size of a theoretical relief package can be determined by a qualified, independent commission. This would probably control costs as well if not better than a congress with political motivations.

The controversial part of the Sandy relief bill wasn't the $11 billion additional to FEMA for emergency relief, it was the other $50 billion for Army Corps of Engineers, other Federal agencies and states. FEMA is semi-autonomous to the extent it has its own funds that it controls, but for it to decide to spend money that it doesn't have without congressional approval would be an unconstitutional executive spending power.   The independent commission on federal aid would be a good idea to take away the grab-bag and crony possibilities of a large unpaid-for spending bill, though Congress would still have the final say.

[perdedor]

The existence of natural disasters that will need to be responded to isn't really an unforeseen expense.  

We can not predict the occurrence of natural disasters, and their financial impact, with any significant amount of foresight. Are you suggesting that we set a fixed budget for disaster relief?

Yes, that would at least give a baseline that could be added to without having as much of it unfunded.  (FEMA has a fund for disaster relief, but the kind of disaster response being discussed is far beyond both their budget and their role.) In this case, any unused funds might be rolled over into the next year and/or invested in infrastructure improvements to withstand future disasters.  Not a perfect solution, but I think it'd be an improvement.

In the event that additional funding be needed, wouldn't a fixed budget still put a potentially difficult hurdle between victims and relief by placing the impetus on an ideologically polarized congress?

The Coburns of the world aren't going to approve of this level of flexibility when, even today, they are wanting cost offsets. Why wouldn't they ask for offsets when additional funding is requested? That puts us in roughly the same position as today.

The best solution, I feel, would be to reform FEMA into a semi-autonomous entity that doesn't require authorization from congress to provide relief. The size of a theoretical relief package can be determined by a qualified, independent commission. This would probably control costs as well if not better than a congress with political motivations.

The controversial part of the Sandy relief bill wasn't the $11 billion additional to FEMA for emergency relief, it was the other $50 billion for Army Corps of Engineers, other Federal agencies and states. FEMA is semi-autonomous to the extent it has its own funds that it controls, but for it to decide to spend money that it doesn't have without congressional approval would be an unconstitutional executive spending power.   The independent commission on federal aid would be a good idea to take away the grab-bag and crony possibilities of a large unpaid-for spending bill, though Congress would still have the final say.

Could it work as an off-budget government program, authorized by Congress, that bills the federal government based on the findings of the independent committee?