Relief bill's flaws I
Relief bill's flaws
I am writing about the unfair criticism of U.S. Rep. Keith Rothfus and U.S. Rep. Scott Perry for their votes against the $9.7 billion in Hurricane Sandy flood-insurance relief. I congratulate them for taking a stand against a very poorly drafted bill that provides subsidies to people and real estate firms building housing on flood plains.
Language to prevent these subsidies could have easily been inserted into the bill. The bill should have also included reforms that would have made the program solvent.
I am certain that neither Mr. Rothfus nor Mr. Perry wish to make the victims of Hurricane Sandy suffer. They are only standing firm for proper legislation and they should be applauded for doing so.
C. Edward Pfeifer
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Majority defied
- Missile defense, not talks
- ... Or free-riding fad?
- Positive & healthy ...
- ISIS strategy misguided
- Thanks for the coverage
- Goodell’s ‘pick-six’
- Russia, not Rice
- Ferguson & contradictions
- Sticker shock
- More answers, please