Will Republican Senators Tom Coburn and James Inhofe (both of Oklahoma) want federal
disaster relief for help in dealing with the horrendous devastation that a recent
tornado has caused their great state?
When the Senate passed the long-delayed Hurricane Sandy relief package, 36 Republicans voted against the bill --- and 2 of those Republicans had been from the good state of Oklahoma. Both Tom Coburn and James Inhofe had previously supported emergency aid efforts following other disasters in their own states --- such as after severe storms and drought (Senator Inhofe had actually boasted.) But in the past, both have shaky records for disaster relief.
On April 29, 2009 Inhofe wrote on his website, "I believe the first 100 days of President Obama’s Administration will be remembered for the unprecedented level of new federal spending and the return of big government."
In another post he wrote of Speaker Nancy Pelosi as being gleeful and said, "The San Francisco liberal [was] running free on a spending bender." And Inhofe had also sacredly referred to the Heritage Foundation, who had said that, while under Obama, was the "largest peacetime debt buildup in history."
But over the last four years, under Obama, we've had the largest deficit reduction — and the fastest — since the demobilization after World War II.
James Inhofe has always advocated for more tax cuts, a freeze on discretionary spending and "entitlement reforms" (food stamps for the working poor, unemployment benefits for laid-off workers, Social Security benefits for disabled and retired workers, and Medicare for the elderly.)
He says the sequestration cuts were the fault of Obama, but he also says, "What America needs from Congress is to balance the federal budget. Senator Inhofe complained of "a trillion dollars in tax hikes and increased big-government spending" and says "we must put an end to this tax-and-spend mentality."
Senator James Inhofe had voted YES on a balanced-budget constitutional amendment (Mar 1997), YES on prioritizing national debt reduction (Apr 2000), YES on reduced overall federal spending (Dec 2005), YES on paying down the federal debt (Mar 2007), and he had also disapproved of increasing the debt limit (Jan 2012).
But Senator James Inhofe also voted NO on repealing tax subsidies for profitable corporations that outsource U.S. jobs (Mar 2005), NO on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks (Nov 2008), and NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007).
Senator James Inhofe was rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union (anti-worker) voting record (Dec 2003) but was rated 100% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003).
So in keeping with his steadfast ideological principles of helping big business, but not their employees; and cutting benefits for working Americans while cutting taxes for the rich; and reducing the federal debt at any cost to the poor; I will assume that this time Senator James Inhofe will vote NO on disaster relief for the good people of Oklahoma...
...because "big government" (lots of people) and spending (on those people) is "out of control", and no matter what harm may come (to those people) federal spending must be cut, just as in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. According to Inhofe (an maybe rightly so), the "earmark debate" was phony, so maybe he won't be requesting any.