X/@SenAdamSchiff
Congressman Adam Schiff calls the Trump administration glassing for supposedly weaponizing federal Disaster Relief funds on the basis of political affiliation. The California Democrat, through social media, aired his concerns on what he perceives to be a dangerous politicizing of very critical infrastructure projects.
Advertisement
“When you’re elected to be the President of the United States, you’re not half-president,” Schiff expounded. He went on to say, “Disaster response should be above politics. A state may be blue or red, but it contains millions of people who are themselves blue and red.”
Schiff substantiated his claims with two examples: one was earlier in the year when funds were threatened to be cut for California wildfire recovery; he also cited cuts to flood prevention projects just recently, arguing that those decisions had seemingly not been made on an objective assessment of need, but of political expediency instead.
Tensions between Democratic-led states and the federal government over resource allocation are mounting; the Congressman brought the matter home: Basic governance style: “When people need help, we help them; when people are fighting to rebuild, we help them rebuild.”
An immediate reaction followed, starkly divided along party lines. On the one hand, many rallied behind Schiff for his stance; in contrast, the detractors did not stay quiet. Against this backdrop of bitter political division, one user exclaimed: “You are just pissed that your grift is being exposed.”
Several commentators turned Schiff’s accusation back upon the Democratic leadership. “Someone should have told Biden that!!” one commenter exclaimed, indicating that the administration of the past likewise treated the matter in a partisan manner. Another one asked, “Why weren’t you and your colleagues crying about people needing help when you and your colleagues had Biden, and was giving illegals all and citizens nothing you imposter?”
The debate then moved from disaster funding into the arena of governance philosophy: some conservatives were hostile to any federal involvement, with one saying, “No they should be denied federal funding because its not the federal government’s job to fund the states.” Hence, the constant ideological divide on where and upon whom the federal government should be hold responsible.
Immigration politics emerged as critics tied the issue of disaster funding to that of border security. “All Democrats care to protect is gang members and illegal aliens,” one respondent charged, showing how the discussion quickly spiraled beyond its original scope.
Several Californians felt pressured by Schiff’s representation of their state. One user commented, “I’m a California native, and I do not feel you represent me or my family,” with another angrily charging the state, “Your a lustrous state has a shit ton of taxes and therefore tax dollars to spend.”
The exchange truly underlines the current mix of issues: ranging from disaster response to federalism to partisan politics. As climate-related disasters become progressively more frequent and intense, such debates over the allocation of scarce resources in an apolitical fashion will only grow louder and more contentious. Schiff’s remarks and the heated rebuttals toward them go a long way to show how these issues cut across the political spectrum in America.
Advertisement
What is still a matter of question is whether such airing of grievances will deliver any concrete changes to policies or remain ones that only serve to harden the partisan divisions. Given that the hurricane season encroaches and wildfire threats grow in intensity across western states, it might soon become painfully evident to the affected communities, irrespective of their voting choices, how deeply down the road they are from an actual resolution.
No responses yet