Nearby lawmakers made the right storm-aid votes; other supposed 'conservatives' didn't

Should the federal government aid victims of Superstorm Sandy? Yes, of course.
Should we continue the slide toward bankruptcy in the process? Of course not.
As summarized on the next page, this area's House members, including our own Rep. Glenn Thompson, cast votes last week in favor of emergency aid and financial responsibility, but against "business as usual" deficit spending. Unhappily, they were outvoted by the dolts in the House of Representatives, dolts that include both Republicans and Democrats.
Among the most doltish comments was this: Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., said: "To my colleagues who are from states that have had disasters, some rather recently, who have decided that we need to change the rules of the game (for disaster aid), shame on you.... Florida, good luck with no more hurricanes. California, congratulations. Did you get rid of the San Andreas Fault? The Mississippi is in a drought. Do you think you're not going to have a flood again? Who are you going to come to when you have these things?"
Nobody opposed storm aid.
What we oppose is adding it to the federal deficit.
Way back a decade ago, when subsequent-moonbeam Rick Santorum was Pennsylvania's senator, we praised him for his courage in an unpopular vote against aid to victims of hurricanes in Florida - because Congress simply tacked the cost of that aid onto the national debt and deficit.
If the uninsured roof is blown off the house of any one of us, and the bill comes to $2,000, and we had planned to spend precisely $2,000 on a trip to Disney World - what do we do? Anyone with any concept of financial responsibility cancels the trip and fixes the roof, unless that person is habituated to living off Uncle Sugar, or is drug- or alcohol-addled.
Well, "Uncle Sugar" ought not to be so sweet any longer.
Emergency aid, yes. Deficit spending, no.
LoBiondo's comments above are ludicrous, or would be laughable were the issue not so serious or his "Re-elect me!" pandering not so blatant.
The nation could have come up with the $17 billion or so of truly emergency funding in House Bill 152 by just slightly trimming other federal programs.
Instead, the House authorized another nearly $34 billion in aid that might or might not have been appropriate - but is called "emergency" aid only by dimwits too stupid to understand the plain English meaning of the word.
Thompson and nearby Reps. Bill Shuster and Mike Kelly were on the right side of this vote. Too bad more Republicans, who talk the talk of fiscal responsibility, succumbed to that fatal disease: Incumbent-itis.
- Denny Bonavita