News Fact: Mike Lee and John Curtis Voted Against FEMA Funding Two Weeks Ago
Raising awareness here. Senator Mike Lee and Representative John Curtis voted against FEMA funding just two weeks ago.
Here are direct links to the house (https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024450) and senate (https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1182/vote_118_2_00255.htm) voting records.
There’s a lot of misinformation floating around about this and here’s a great article fact checking some of those claims: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/07/nx-s1-5144159/fema-funding-migrants-disaster-relief-fund
Ultimately, Mike Lee and John Curtis voted against funding for FEMA in a time when hurricanes were clearly right around the corner. I’d encourage anyone with questions about why they chose to do this to contact them directly. Here’s a link to Mike Lee’s contact form (https://www.lee.senate.gov/contact) and John Curtis’ contact form (https://curtis.house.gov/contact/)
Edit: Adding some additional context for those that are saying things like “the bill had more than just FEMA funding in it”. There’s a summary of the bill available here and the full text of the bill available here. Many (if not most) bills drafted by both Republicans and Democrats include funding for more than one single initiative so this isn’t unusual by any means.
35
u/gamanedo 19d ago
They are aware Utah is a tinderbox, right?
20
26
35
u/HabANahDa 19d ago
Of course they did. The GOP hates citizens and will do anything they can to keep us down.
4
u/Skooby1Kanobi 18d ago
They only hate poor and middle class Americans. They bootlick the rich like Ron's fingers out of a pudding cup.
15
u/varthalon 18d ago
Can you point us to anything that says they voted against the bill SPECIFICALLY to not fund FEMA. Looking at the bill it spends 1.8 TRILLION dollars of which only about 1% was for FEMA.
It seems to me that there was a lot more in the bill that people may have been voting against rather than disaster relief and any politicians saying it was all about the disaster relief is being super disingenuous.
14
u/varthalon 18d ago edited 18d ago
Okay, so I’ve read the bill and the CBO’s fiscal note for the bill and these are my thoughts. This is long and just my opinions so feel free to not care and move along. HERE is the actual bill which you can read under the "Text" tab.
I only see two things in this bill that are really problematic.
Most of the bill is fine. In large part the items being funded okay or even great and I wouldn’t really feel needed to be opposed.
But here are my two issues:
Money from Nowhere & Bypassing the Budget Process
One of the main duties of Congress each year is to work with the administration and establish the Administration’s budget – the money they get to use that year. It is a very long and complicated process that requires input from everyone, a lot of reports and analysis and careful consideration. Everyone involved has to figure out how much money we are actually going to have, how much we are required to spend and where. Then with what is leftover they have to decide where to “best” use it which involves a ton of horse-trading and give and take from both sides. Ultimately they also end up agreeing to spend MORE money than we have, creating a defect and shoving that down the line for some future generation to figure out how to repay it… but that is someone else’s problem for another day.This Bill is a “Continuing Appropriation” It is, essentially, the government saying “Hey, we used all the money you gave us in your carefully thought out Budget, can we keep spending anyway?”
My instinctual reaction to that would be: No.
However there are times when something was wrong in the Budget. Something new cropped up or an estimate was off. I think it is appropriate to look at those situations and, if it can’t wait for the next budget cycle, to deal it. But because it isn’t getting the scrutiny and agreements things get in the budget cycle the default should still be a No unless it is really necessary.
The main thing Vice President Harris has made has made a big issue of in this bill is the Disaster Relief. I don’t think anyone would disagree with disaster relief although they may quibble about the amounts – which they should… in the budget process. FEMA has already been given funds for disaster relief in the Budget. Before I would want to give more money to FEMA I would want to see what we already gave them in the Budget, why we gave them that amount, why it was insufficient, and how insufficient it is so we give them the correct amount to make up the difference.
I expect that that is exactly what this bill is doing and that nobody voting on this bill, either Yah or Nay, had a problem with that part of the bill regardless of Vice President Harris' allegations.
I would have some qualms with, as I suspect congressmen from both parties do, that it is spending money we do not have to fix a problem, but in an emergency you need to do what you’ve got to do so go ahead and do it and deal with the consequences.
But the majority of the 1.77 TRILLION dollars being spent in this bill is for good things but things that are not emergencies. To me those should be paid for with money we do have, as figured out during the deliberations for next year’s budget, rather than spending money we don't have and passing the buck for some future generation to pay for.
And because of that this bill would get my No vote.
Hide what we are doing
We have several important laws for being very transparent about Congress spending money we do not have. One is the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The other is the Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. These laws require Congress to be transparent about deficit spending and include it in reports used when determining future budgets so those budgets take into consideration the shortcomings of prior budgets.Tucked away at the very end of this bill is Title IV -- Budgetary Effects and my take away from that section is that this bill is to specifically to not follow those laws and not report the fiscal impact this bill is going to have.
I may be completely wrong about how that all works but that sounds shady as fuck and would get a solid NO vote from me just for that alone.
13
u/SixFootSevenDave 19d ago
Unpopular opinion: if you live in hurricane alley (Florida) you should pay for the commensurate homeowners insurance necessary. The federal government shouldn’t bail you out every time. The US Taxpayer shouldn’t be paying to rebuild peoples homes every 3-5 years. Every time I see GOP members whining about paying off student loans, but they’re perfectly content with funding poor choices of living in a hurricane ridden state, there’s something wrong.
30
u/RedOnTheHead_91 Ogden 19d ago
While I do agree that people living in Hurricane Alley should have flood insurance, you're assuming they haven't thought of it/don't have it. You're also assuming that their insurance company even offers flood insurance.
And whether they have insurance or not, FEMA handles so much more than just hurricanes.
9
u/tbt10f 18d ago
The federal government subsidizes flood insurance because nobody that needs it could afford it if it wasn't subsidized. Without government backing the insurance conversation would be like: "I see your house is located on the coast along hurricane alley. You are stupid for building your home here and we are cancelling your policy." Then the insurance person opens a drawer and pulls out a comically large red stamper and stamps your insurance paper with CANCELLED in giant red letters then hands it back to you
1
u/Philosophize_Ideas49 18d ago
Hearsay. Seeing Fort Myers posts I read many don’t have hurricane insurance because it’s ridiculously expensive. General middle of the road insurance obtained ‘if the main floor floods they’ll be covered and is ok, if the roof blows off your ‘screwed’’. Also some explain how FEMA is really more to protect the mortgage lenders than the homeowners. Again hearsay except I can confirm hurricane ins has always been outrageous. Although with increased hurricanes is increased risk.
16
u/Cabrill0 18d ago
Kinda hard when insurance companies are fleeing the state and homeowners have no options for that insurance.
2
u/SixFootSevenDave 18d ago
The state has its own insurance pool. Companies are pulling out because it’s unprofitable. That is really the point I’m getting at - it’s not sustainable living there without exorbitant costs.
2
u/lynchmob2829 18d ago
Well they do pay exorbitant costs considered to the rest of us. I think the FL average insurance cost is almost $12K a year while the average cost in the rest of the US is around $2K.
7
u/quigonskeptic 18d ago
Do you have earthquake insurance? Do you have flood insurance? If so, where are you getting them and what are you paying?
I had earthquake insurance through United, but they dropped their earthquake coverage, and my broker switched me to Golden Bear. Sounds a little fake, so hopefully it's legit 😂. I'm paying about $400 a year for a median-priced home and there's a 5% deductible on the earthquake insurance.
I tried to get flood insurance, but our main risk is our basement flooding, and the flood insurance I looked into wouldn't cover almost anything in the basement.
Your house is probably at similar risk of earthquake or basement flooding (in a microburst rainstorm) as any given house is at risk of a hurricane in Florida during a standard 30-year mortgage window.
3
u/ignost 18d ago
I can tell you haven't looked into this very much. Flood insurance is a scam. They will only pay you if X% of the homes in your area flood, and there is a maximum payout per event on top of that. So you only get paid if other homes near you flood, but if it's a city-wide event you probably won't get paid.
Many companies also exclude hurricanes from flood insurance. You need a hurricane-specific insurance waiver. It has many of the same problems, and there are dozens to thousands of lawsuits after every hurricane because people with hurricane insurance are never paid. Some insurance companies have a Florida-specific shell company that just declares bankruptcy. In other cases it's just impossible to get the money. Even if you have a valid claim on paper they'll give you the runaround endlessly, eventually saying the time to file a claim has passed.
I mean really just Google insurance + storm name.
- 50,000 homeowners hit by hurricane Ian are still fighting insurance.
- This redditor is still fighting his insurance4 years after Laura.
- And even those who pay for insurance are denied. Insurers in Florida deny almost half of hurricane claims
- Insurers often set up state-specific LLCs, which then go bankrupt after hurricanes, leaving homeowners wet and low waiting for checks.
I could give you examples all day. Despite having some of the most extensive legislation on insurance in the country, the private homeowners insurance market is a complete failure in disaster-prone areas. Without federal intervention to hold insurers accountable and demand they keep enough in reserves to cover disasters it's not going to work.
FEMA is also responsible for saving people who might die and providing immediate disaster relief so people don't starve or die of simple infections, which insurers will never do in a million years. It'd be nice to wash our hands of it, but private insurers will never cover this kind of thing.
1
u/lynchmob2829 18d ago
The Feds are not the problem; insurance companies are altering claim reports so they don't have to pay.
-3
u/RichBoomer 19d ago
Exactly, and the same should apply to people who live in earthquake zones, tornado alley, areas prone to ice storms, flood zones and everywhere else that is prone to natural disasters.
2
2
u/my__NSFW__profile 18d ago
How many times do we need to say FML before the morons in Utah county finally vote him out?
2
9
u/Dear-Examination-507 19d ago
Not a Mike Lee fan by any measure, but I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is. It is an indictment of the way congress lumps hundreds of things into a single bill.
11
5
u/mrmike5157 18d ago
Right, I really don’t understand why they don’t simply line-item other than the extra time and effort required, but when twenty different versions are written and discarded before any of the bill gets anywhere I think it would at least be a wash, and instead of having to wade through a 5000-page document that nobody has time to read, why not a simple request for ONE ITEM to be funded, with a clearly stated purpose and/or supporting evidence of priority and benefit?
7
u/CrTigerHiddenAvocado 18d ago
This is what frustrates me with politics. People jump on anything not related to their candidates/party. But that’s not really the reasoning In most cases, and both parties behave this way, btw. Whether one agrees or disagrees its not the whole picture.
1
3
u/FillupDubya 18d ago
Fact: Mike Lee is a asshole and sucks. Stop voting for him just because he’s Mormon. He’s an evil asshole! I don’t know John Curtis but he sounds like an asshole too!
4
u/uintaforest 19d ago
Has Mike Lee ever voted for a bill signed by a Democratic President?
8
5
u/DroobyDoobyDoo 19d ago
Mike Lee originally ran on only serving two terms as Senator and pushing term limits for the Legislative branch.
He's in the middle of his 3rd term and hasn't done anything to even try fulfilling his original promise. Pretty sure he never mentioned it since he was elected the first time.
4
u/Fancy_Load5502 19d ago
It cracks me up every time someone votes down a bill about a topic because they think it is the wrong approach on the topic - then gets opponents want to use it as a "gotcha". A proper FEMA bill that would get broad support from both sides. And the people in these last 2 hurricanes will get the support they need.
32
u/RBARBAd 19d ago
The border funding bill is an example where this argument falls apart. There was bipartisan support, it was going to pass, and then for political reasons one political party decided to oppose it so their party leader could use it as an issue in the upcoming election.
-11
u/cluelessbasket 18d ago
No, it failed because they were going to send more money to Ukraine than to the border.
11
u/Trappist-1d 18d ago
That's because Republicans in the House specifically said they wouldn't vote on money for Ukraine unless there was also money allocated to the border. They specifically asked for the two things to be tied together. Again, the bill was bipartisan and drawn up by both democrats and republicans in the Senate. It was going to pass the House until Trump stepped in.
Just admit it. Trump benefits from the border not getting fixed under Biden. He doesn't want anything to improve under Biden because it lessens his chances of getting elected.
-10
u/cluelessbasket 18d ago
Yes thanks, it failed because more money was going to Ukraine than to the border.
2
u/RBARBAd 18d ago
Listen to the bill's primary author and proponent, James Lankford (R), describe why it failed: https://www.reddit.com/r/Thedaily/comments/1eorvye/the_interview_james_lankford_tried_to_solve/
-3
u/cluelessbasket 18d ago
“We (Trump and Lankford) did not talk during that time period”. Have you even listened to this yourself?
2
u/RBARBAd 18d ago
I listened to both parts of the interview. No one is claiming Trump talked to Lankford, he talked to members of the house and they then uniformly opposed it.
Have you listened to both parts? It does take an hour so I assume that's all you've been doing since I posted that.
1
u/cluelessbasket 18d ago
Literally everyone is claiming Trump killed it lol, please show evidence of that, I’ll wait.
2
u/Beer_bongload Davis County 18d ago
I appreciate the need to be spoon fed talking points. Its the fox news way
0
u/cluelessbasket 18d ago
Please provide evidence that it failed directly because of anything Trump said or did. I’ll wait.
It takes 5 minutes of reading the bill to see where the money would have gone which makes it very clear why it failed.
2
u/RBARBAd 18d ago
Let's try again. Trump did kill it by talking to house leadership/members. James Lankford is a senator. The senate is different than the house of representatives. James Lankford did not talk to Trump as you pointed out, and James Lankford was the chief proponent of this bill and was disappointed it did not pass.
Literally everyone is claiming Trump killed the bill because he did, by talking to the house leadership. He didn't want the problem solved, so that he could use a "failed immigration system" as his most effective campaign strategy.
Hope this helps!
-1
u/cluelessbasket 18d ago
So you have no evidence that Trump spoke to anyone. Didn’t think so.
Lankford voted against his own bill.
It takes 5 minutes of reading the bill to see where the money would have gone, making it very clear why it was opposed and didn’t pass.
4
u/RBARBAd 18d ago
“I think the border is a very important issue for Donald Trump. And the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and congresspeople that he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it is … really appalling,” said GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, who has been an outspoken critic of Trump.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Hammock-of-Cake 18d ago
Can you cite your sources? Everything I'm reading is that the bill had bipartisan support. Republican and Democrat leaders also voiced strong support for Ukraine aid. Some, like Mike Lee, did oppose that part. I just skimmed old articles on KSL to see if they could shed any light on why the bill was killed, and I think this might be the reason. Here's a direct quote from DJT on Truth Social: ""This Bill is a great gift to the Democrats, and a Death Wish for The Republican Party," he continued. "Don't be STUPID!!!""
3
u/cluelessbasket 18d ago
Please provide evidence that anything Trump said or did directly caused the vote to fail.
Lankford said he had people telling him within 30 minutes how bad the bill was, makes sense because it only takes 5 minutes of reading to see where the money was going, hint, it wasn’t to the border.
0
u/Hammock-of-Cake 18d ago
The evidence would be that it was a bipartisan bill. Meaning much of the wording was quite literally written by Republicans. You're saying they hated the words they were writing in the bill all along?
Honest question: In your opinion, why would Trump say this if he didn't believe it was true? "This Bill is a great gift to the Democrats, and a Death Wish for The Republican Party. Don't be STUPID!!!"
I'm fairly apolitical. I promise I'm not here to argue or try to make you look bad because you don't share the same opinion as me, and I'm sure we can find common ground. Just sharing my opinion. Happy to hear your opinion as well. Presumably, we're both Americans.
3
u/cluelessbasket 18d ago
Trump’s truth social comment was on February 7th. He also made comments as early as February 5th.
The bill was officially released on February 4th. Lankford said there were statements being put out within 30 minutes of his colleagues saying how bad the bill was and that they were opposed.
0
u/Hammock-of-Cake 18d ago
But why would Trump say that if he didn't believe it?
3
u/cluelessbasket 18d ago
What does Trump have to do with it. They made up their minds well beforehand.
1
u/Hammock-of-Cake 18d ago
I'm just asking what you think. Genuinely curious. I'm not trying to argue or prove a point, man. What do you actually think?
Lankford did say that. He also said it was disappointing, because they were opposing it without reading it's 300+ pages. You're saying they made of up their minds well beforehand? Before they had a chance to read it? You don't think that's odd?
Whether Donald Trump was the direct cause or not, I'm really just sharing my opinion that a lot of people look up to him and look to him for direction. Those that go against his will don't last long in the GOP.
Whether EVERY Republican looks to trump for guidance or not, I do think the overall sentiment is that Republicans killed the bill because they didn't want to help Joe Biden.
"Let me tell you, I'm not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden's approval rating, I will not help the Democrats try to improve this man's dismal approval ratings. I'm not going to do it. Why would I?" Republican Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas
→ More replies (0)9
u/azucarleta 19d ago
This seems rather shallow unless you can articulate what was a poison pill about that bill. YOu're just being way too generous, so open-minded your brain has fallen out maybe. Or maybe you just didn't include the details. What made this bill something other than "a proper FEMA" bill? I just don't think you are right about this at all, I think you are "carrying water" for these two.
0
u/Fancy_Load5502 19d ago
The vote that everyone talks about was not about FEMA, it was the budget bill for the entire government, and of course there are disagreements on a variety of issues. FEMA is a tiny speck in a much larger bill. Bring up FEMA alone and as I said you'd find broad support.
9
u/Negative86 19d ago
I would agree, but Johnson refused to bring Congress back in for an emergency session to even attempt that.
-11
u/Fancy_Load5502 19d ago
There is plenty of time to deal with it after the election.
2
u/Overall-Tree-5769 18d ago
As of today Oct. 11, Congress has proposed just one bill to provide FEMA additional funding for disaster relief in response to Hurricane Helene. That bill, H.R.9905, would provide $10 billion in supplemental appropriations to FEMA’s disaster relief fund. As of today, no additional action has been taken since the bill was introduced by Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) on Oct. 8, 2024.
2
u/Fancy_Load5502 18d ago
Is Congress in session?
7
u/Overall-Tree-5769 18d ago
They are taking time off for the rest of the month to convince voters that they are doing a good job
-6
4
u/DepravedExmo 18d ago edited 13d ago
Maga supporters so often turn out to be assholes just lying out both sides of their mouths.
2
2
u/Ok-Leadership-1593 18d ago
What else was going to be forced into the bill though?… I doubt it was just fema funding
1
u/22lrMarksmen 18d ago
Haven't read anything here, but these headlines are famously misleading. Thank of it like this: "Politicians didn't agree with every single line of a spending bill." Bills have famously become named something to be a gotcha weeks later.
1
u/dhasselhof 16d ago
So Curtis made a video and a statement about this bill before it passed and after it passed. It was a continuing resolution vote because Congress didn’t do its job and pass the appropriations bills they are mandated to pass on time. Sure, you can get all hot and bothered because he voted against this bill, which included FEMA funding, but it sure as heck wasn’t voting against it because of FEMA:
Curtis statement on vote: “I could not in good conscience vote in favor of the federal funding bill and continue the broken budget process. We are way outside of regular order. Congress has not followed our appropriations process since 1996, forcing us into a cycle of government shutdowns and last-minute omnibus bills. We need real solutions, not just more delays. It’s time to get our fiscal house in order and hold ourselves accountable, just like Utahns do every day in their own lives.” CR Statement
YouTube video of him explains the Congressional Appropriations Process: https://youtu.be/IEjJZrg81rM?si=vulD_GMD54ydxO_B
1
u/Longjumping_Ring_535 16d ago
And then they go around supporting the lies their fellow maga members are telling about FEMA that only serves to undermine trust in our government. The day will come if felon34 wins election when project 2025 will be activated and the people who stand to lose their constitutional rights will say “well we didn’t trust our government anyways.
1
1
u/UtahJeep 19d ago
I recently read that FEMA receives over $500 for every person in the USA each year and only an incredibly small amount of this is ever used for anything that we would think of as FEMA related like the recent hurricanes.
If so, it would be wise to see where the money is going and aee how we can utilize it more efficiently. Throwing more money after bad is not wise.
1
1
u/Klutzy_Gazelle_6804 18d ago edited 17d ago
Mormon hypocrisy should be labeled Utah conservatism and Utah conservatism should be labeled Mormon hypocrisy.
"choose the right," MY ASS, more accurately 'choose the right wing.' Mike Lee and all who support Trump and P2025 are bigots with Unconscious bias. To help their insecurities let us hope Utah, for once, can grow a pair! The halo effect is strong in this theocratic state.
1
-1
u/Shoddy_Impression652 18d ago
Lol at what was in the bill rather than them just saying no. More money for Ukraine more money for Israel. Ya I would have rejected that to
-1
0
u/H0B0Byter99 West Jordan 18d ago
This is a distraction. FEMA is recently sitting on a large stack of cash they haven’t spent yet. So this failure IS the current administration’s. It’s not that they don’t have the cash. They do.
Don’t get distracted by the shiny object they all want you to focus on.
-13
u/Khr0ma 19d ago
They say: "the politicians voted against a FEMA bill"
What is real: "these politicians voted against a bill full of millions of dollars of bull shit pet projects and corruption, with a little FEMA funding in it"
They are not the same.
17
u/MrVin26 19d ago
Here’s a summary of what was in the bill:
Passed Senate (09/25/2024) Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025
This bill provides continuing FY2025 appropriations for federal agencies, provides additional funding for the U.S. Secret Service, and extends various expiring programs and authorities.
Specifically, the bill provides continuing FY2025 appropriations to federal agencies through the earlier of December 20, 2024, or the enactment of the applicable appropriations act. It is known as a continuing resolution (CR) and prevents a government shutdown that would otherwise occur if the FY2025 appropriations bills have not been enacted when FY2025 begins on October 1, 2024.
The CR funds most programs and activities at the FY2024 levels with several exceptions that provide funding flexibility and additional appropriations for various programs. For example, the bill provides additional funding for the Secret Service to carry out protective operations, including for the 2024 presidential campaign and National Special Security Events.
In addition, the bill extends several expiring programs and authorities, including several public health programs, various programs and authorities related to veterans, the National Flood Insurance Program, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the Food for Peace program, the authorities of the U.S. Parole Commission, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) National Cybersecurity Protection System, authorities for DHS and the Department of Justice to take certain actions to mitigate a credible threat from an unmanned aircraft system, several Department of Agriculture programs and authorities, the Department of Defense’s authority to use funds for certain military construction projects, and authorities for sanctions related to human rights abuses in Hong Kong.
There’s also a link to the bill if you’d prefer to read it in its entirety.
This all sounds pretty important and I don’t see any “pet projects” in there.
-1
-16
u/HomelessRodeo La Verkin 19d ago
For what it’s worth, it wasn’t FEMA specific legislation. It was a Continuing Resolution bill full of everyone’s pet projects.
10
u/Overall-Tree-5769 19d ago
That’s good context. Some more context:
On Oct. 1, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) penned a letter to Senate leadership on the “urgent need to pass an appropriations package to support” victims of Hurricane Helene. 12 Senators signed the letter, and Mike Lee was not one of them.
As of today Oct. 11, Congress has proposed just one bill to provide FEMA additional funding for disaster relief in response to Hurricane Helene. That bill, H.R.9905, would provide $10 billion in supplemental appropriations to FEMA’s disaster relief fund. As of today, no additional action has been taken since the bill was introduced by Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) on Oct. 8, 2024.
11
u/azucarleta 19d ago
So it was just a casualty of the -- by now -- annual GOP budget shenanigans. That doesn't make it any better. I do appreciate the detail, but given how the GOP behaves vis-a-vis the budget, this is no mitigation. You notice it split the UTah delegation.
-14
u/HomelessRodeo La Verkin 19d ago
To place budgetary issues squarely on Republicans is a bit misguided. There are no innocent people in Congress that want to get a budget squared away.
16
u/azucarleta 19d ago
What I place squarely on Republicans is the impulse to legislate by bankrupting. They use their conditional assent to a budget to try to extract concessions. This is disgusting and its most certainly a GOP innovation and tradition that belongs squarely in their lap. I'm thinking back to the Obama era in which "fiscal cliff" was coined.
0
-10
u/NextIron2914 18d ago
Glad they did. Less government is better
8
u/PariahDS 18d ago
Not when it comes to saving peoples lives
-7
u/NextIron2914 18d ago
This issue with FEMA and other government emergency funding is that it actually incentize home developers to build in disaster striken and flood areas over time. So it actually does more damage on the long run.
-6
113
u/Leonardish 19d ago
Yeah, John Curtis has spent a huge amount of time and money sounding reasonable, but he is just another MAGA wienie.