Skip to main content

Flood Relief: Is Mike Lee Talking Out of Both Sides of His Mouth? No, His Detractors Are.

Recently Utah Senator Mike Lee stated that the federal government should not issue flood relief funding, because it is not a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Yet he also asked that constituents in his state receive federal flood relief. This was met by howls of laughter from Mike Lee detractors. It was the kind of laughter that is not mixed with much thought. Mike Lee's two statements can easily be reconciled.

Tea Party haters claim that the Tea Party has introduced great incivility into the political debate. Ironically, the exact opposite is true.  The most common and most damaging incivility imputes to someone something they did not say and do not believe.  The anti-Tea Party crowd excels above all other groups in its practice of such incivility.  A favorite target of this hatred recently has been freshman Utah Senator Mike Lee. As usual, truth has once again been the innocent victim.

In response to a caller's question about federal flood relief in a recent interview, Mike Lee said this:
The listener identifies an issue with flood and disaster relief, should that be a federal prerogative or a state power?  I think a compelling point can be made that that‘s one thing states historically focused on and an area where we ought to focus, one of many areas where we ought to focus on getting that power back to the states, keeping that money back to the states in the states to begin with.  
Yet during the same time period, in regard to receiving federal flood assistance for recent flooding in Southern Utah Senator Lee said this:
"That money is there. It's been appropriated for disaster relief, and I see no reason why Utah ought not be entitled to receive such federal funds."
Only the willfully inane cannot reconcile those two concepts.  The Deseret News didn't have a hard time doing it.  DesNews reported in the very first paragraphs of a story that Utahns could have easily read if they wanted to understand the truth, that

Utah's newest U.S. senator has long championed state's rights and continues to campaign for shrinking the federal government's size and role in state affairs — including natural disasters.

But until those changes happen, Republican Sen. Mike Lee backs the state's request for millions in federal disaster relief funds to help Utah's Dixie rebuild from major flooding. (Emphasis added.)
First there's the principle: flood relief is an unconstitutional usurpation of power from the States by the federal government. Then there's the reality: because of this unconstitutional usurpation of power, Americans have been taxed for and become accustomed to receiving flood assistance from the federal government.  Which brings up another principle: it takes time and careful effort to be fair to the American people while extricating the federal government from powers that it has unconstitutionally usurped from the States.

Who are the greatest fear mongers in America today?  Those who hate the Tea Party--and they do it with a purely visceral reaction. This small but vocal group of people appear to have a hard time formulating a mental idea of why they disagree with federal elected officials who identify with the Tea Party. Filtered through the lens of their irrational fear and hate, they will tell you such things as:
  • Mike Lee supposedly wants to abolish child labor laws. 
  • Mike Lee supposedly wants to end the Social Security program posthaste.
  • Mike Lee supposedly supports gun violence, and
  • Mike Lee supposedly wants to abolish flood relief
None of these things are true. What is true is that Mike Lee understands and appreciates the United States Constitution and would like to do his small part to help get America back on the track of appreciating it as a nation.

It's time to take the debate to a higher level--one where both sides represent accurately the position of their opponents, even when it hurts. I suggest that raising the level of debate could begin with several apologies to Utah Senator Mike Lee for completely misrepresenting what he stands for.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.
2 comments
Read more

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...
66 comments
Read more

American Energy Independence: I Support "All of the Above"

Of course it will take several years to develop new domestic petroleum production. But it will take a lot longer to develop a lot of other alternative energy sources. I would LOVE to not have to rely on oil for anything, but that's a ways off. That's why I support the latest legislation in Congress that supports "All of the Above"--developing all energy sources, including oil, so that we can be energy independent. It really drives me nuts when people say we shouldn't develop domestic oil production because it won't be productive for 7-10 years. That would be a workable argument if we could have enough alternative energy by that time that we wouldn't need oil. I don't think, though, that anybody believes that. In congress recently, legislation was introduced to do encourage the development of all forms of energy. HR 6656, also known as " All of the Above ", will solve that problem, but apparently Nancy Pelosi thinks that at least two ...
54 comments
Read more