When the average person encounters a household disaster such as a blown furnace, a damaged roof in desperate need of repair, or leaking water pipes that create a major flood, they hope that homeowners insurance will cover the unforeseen expense.
However, it seems that recently, most insurance companies have been very fond of including clauses within insurance policies that somehow exonerate them from having to write a check. When that happens, the so-called insured must step back and examine what can and cannot be cut in their budget in order to facilitate the needed repairs.
The average person has no choice, they can’t print money so they must decide which budget items must either be eliminated or reduced in order to pay the for the damage.
Speaking of unexpected expenditures, the position of our political leaders was recently revealed when Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) proposed to pay for the pork-laden Hurricane Sandy disaster relief bill by making equivalent cuts in other areas.
Of course, the bill was defeated with help from Tea Party stalwarts such as Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).
The argument goes that a national disaster should not be counted when it comes to balancing the budget; after all, nobody requested the type of colossal damage that Sandy inflicted.
I guess I can understand the attitude that everything should be put back the way it was, even though we have no money to do it.
Yet, if we totally rebuilt following the Johnstown Flood of 1889, the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, Hurricane Andrew in 1992, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and in hundreds of other locations following natural disasters, why not in New York and New Jersey?
Of course, we had the money back then.
Using that logic, if we always had military bases around the world in order to meet the cold war menace, then why not to meet the terrorist threat?
We’ve always provided full Medicare in the past, why not now and into the future?
Just like the Hurricane Sandy natural disaster, everything else that potentially could be cut has a history and is justifiable in fully maintaining the programs.
Apparently, that is the argument currently being made by Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, and Tea Party and non-Tea party members.
I thought the line in the sand had been drawn when U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and gang couldn’t cut $110 billion out of the $3.8 trillion budget.
Now, we see the line is even lower at $60 billion.
Within the next 45-days, we’ll learn that there is no line and that these so-called legislators are so afraid of not being re-elected that the number of spending cuts will be zero for now — but perhaps something in the future.
Too bad they don’t need to run their House like the average citizen needs to run their house.
Get the Market Movements in Advance: William's Edge Webinar for Monday, March 10th, 2014 | John Ransom