An Irresponsible Vote

I know it's still a bit of a live issue to really draw too many lessons from the aftermath of Katrina, but there are a few that the world of conventional wisdom seems settled on. The biggest, of course, is that Mike Brown's time as the head of FEMA ought to be concluded. Another, albeit smaller one, is that Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has cast the single most irresponsible vote in recent memory of the House of Representatives.

To the uninitiated, I think a simple, straightforward map of Paul's district offers most of the explanation:

Notice all that blue stuff to the southeast? Yep, that's the Gulf of Mexico. The same Gulf that brought us Katrina. The same Gulf that levelled Galveston in 1900 (a town that is among the many coastal cities in Paul's district). The same Gulf that offers numerous Texans a majestic beauty in peaceful times, but the neverending risk during hurricane season.

Congress recently passed a bill offering relief for victims of Hurricane Katrina. It was but a portion of what will ultimately be spent on the process. $58 billion for now ... possibly double that when it's all said and done. In the House, 11 members voted against it. Now, out of 435 members, it's not outside the realm of possibility that there will be a few odd ducks in the bunch. Paul certainly fits the bill for that. He's a Republican, but he's run for President on the Liberterian ticket in 1988. He sticks truer to his liberterian roots than his current party designation, which, in a sense, is very admirable. As a result, he wins a few converts to his side for things like opposing the war in Iraq and opposing the war on drugs. Yet, even within Paul's complex worldview, libertarianism is sometimes insufficient in the abstract. So it is that Paul, an obstetrician by trade, is pro-life (a stance that caused quite a rift in lib circles in 1988 as well as the 1992 convention to succeed Paul). He's also quite non-liberterian on matters of immigration policy.

But when it comes to an issue that any coastal resident can clearly look at the television and say "There, but for the grace of God go I," Paul cannot dare depart from a liberterian position that stands athwart aid, comfort, and rebuilding in the aftermath of natural disaster and says "I'll have none of that." So it is that Paul joined the other 10 in voting down relief for Katrina victims. Had a hurricane of that magnitude once more hit Galveston, or Freeport, or Matagorda, one suspects that Paul would similarly take a disinterested view of the role of the federal government in times of distress.

The congressman gave a rationale in the Galveston County Daily News (via Rob) that, sadly, doesn't help him any:

Congress allocated $58.1 billion for hurricane relief efforts Thursday. Paul was one of 11 House members who voted against it.

?That?s more than 100 percent of the total budget of the three states combined,? he said. ?And they don?t know how they?re going to spend it.?

Paul also objected to provisions of the measure granting additional authority to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

?There have been a lot of complaints in the past about FEMA excluding the Red Cross,? Paul said. ?That doesn?t appear to be the case here, but if you don?t watch the power of FEMA, it can get out of hand.?

Paul said he did not reject the idea of federal aid entirely.

?There were several pieces of legislation I did support,? he said.

He also signed a letter calling for the federal government to reimburse states such as Texas for the additional costs produced by the storm.

?Even as generous as people have been, they shouldn?t have to bear the entire cost,? he said.

Paul also contended that the federal government had its priorities out of line when it sent billions overseas and failed to spend the money it should have spent for projects at home.

To fully demonstrate why this vote is as appalling as it is, let's go back to a similar vote in regards to Iraq ... the infamous $87 billion that Kerry "voted for before he voted against." In that vote, there's a bit of history that gets overlooked: the fact that a few Dems offered an alternative to the GOP plan that was fully paid for. Since a good part of that act of fiscal responsibility involved undoing a tax cut on the wealthiest of Americans, you can guess how much love the bill got from the GOP. But the point is that, at least there was an alternative.

In Ron Paul's case, there was no alternative. Just an 11 person philosophy department intent to make a sad, mistaken point about a bill they couldn't understand. Had there been an alternative (to date, I've seen nothing on the Congressional Record to indicate such), I might be less harsh on a Congressman who represents on of the biggest coastal districts of the entire House voting against a bill that, again - but for the grace of God, could have helped thousands of Texans instead of Louisianans.

Paul says he's not against federal aid in general ... just this bill. With that said, there ought to be a record to point to that indicates how Paul sees federal aid helping those in need, as there certainly are now. But since there's no alternative for those 11 other than to carp and vote no, it serves as an act of trite irresponsibility. Remember, if Dems don't vote for the GOP plan (even if there is a Dem alternative), they're taken to task ("I don't know how you lead a nation ..." anyone?). If they offer no less than a dozen alternative ideas on Social Security reform, they're taken to task as not having a plan (to the point where even the MSM accepts it as gospel). But here we are with what appears to be a crystal clear case of irresponsibility with a Congressional vote. And it must be known. It must be a point for voters in Paul's 14th Congressional district to reflect on. And ultimately, it must be another dangerous idea that deserves defeat.

Sometimes, it's easy to fade into the woodwork of the back benches in a House of 435. But it would seem to me, that if you were as intent to make as many purely philosophical points as Paul desires to make in Washington, you'd have an alternative response to the biggest natural disaster (we hope) in our lifetimes. Voters in Galveston, Victoria, Clute, and Port Aransas (and elsewhere) deserve better.

Fortunately, on the matter of who to vote for in 2006 ... there is an alternative.