By Lisa Mascaro Washington Bureau

August 30, 2011, 1:25 p.m.
The White House accused congressional Republicans of holding additional federal disaster aid hostage to steep budget cuts, saying the country needs to put politics aside in the wake of Hurricane Irene and provide for Americans in need.

GOP leaders say they want new money for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster fund to be offset with spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget, an unprecedented approach to disaster aid that is creating a political stalemate as FEMA is about to run out of money.

"When we have a national -- a natural disaster and an emergency situation in, in this case, a significant stretch of the country, our priority has to be with -- has to be responding to the disaster and then helping those regions and states recover," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

"I wish that commitment to looking for offsets had been held by the House majority leader and others, say, during the previous administration, when they ran up unprecedented bills and not paid -- and never paid for them," he added.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House majority leader, has been steadfast about offsetting disaster funds. His office shot back Tuesday that in the face of the nation's $14-trillion debt load, the GOP approach was "the right thing to do."

"People and families coping with these natural disasters will certainly get what they need from the federal government, but the goal should be to find ways to pay for what is needed when possible," Cantor's office said in a memo.

Congress has hit an impasse over disaster funds as FEMA could run out of money within the month. Already, FEMA has prioritized its remaining resources -- using the money for immediate food, shelter and debris-removal assistance in the wake of Hurricane Irene but putting rebuilding projects on hold.

The GOP-led House approved $3.6 billion in FEMA funding, but the legislation has stalled in the Senate, where Democrats oppose the cuts to other programs.

The GOP-led House approved $3.6 billion in FEMA funding, but the legislation has stalled in the Senate, where Democrats oppose the cuts to other programs.

Wait, what? The dems are opposing 3.6 billion in aid?

No, they are opposing using a disaster bill to leverage more budget cuts.

No, they are opposing paying for disaster relief. In other words, they are opposing prioritizing the budget to allow for these increases. In other words, they are holding FEMA money hostage to avoid having to make cuts. In other words, they are prioritizing the funding for the programs being cut over the FEMA dollars.

Buy Now, Pay Later!!!

I don't think they oppose paying for disaster relief. They oppose cutting other projects to do it. Especially at the time of the disaster itself. Further, doing that is unprecidented according to the article, so it's not the Dems who are doing something new or different here.

I agree that this kind of funding is part of the overall budget picture, but I would argue that this kind of emergency bill is NOT where those arguments should be hashed out. Get the people in need the money now and then figure out the budgeting after the fact.

You see those underlined portions? That's precisely the problem, that more expenditures in one area are not being met with cuts in others. The fact that this is new and unprecedented is the problem.

I'd argue that we're in this pickle because the Reps come in and cut funding, but never actually cut programs. Dems are in my eyes at least intellectually honest with themselves and say, we want these programs and we'll raise funding to pay for them.

Admittedly they are trying to cut programs now, but IMHO the middle of an emergency (hurricane) is not the time to sort that out.

They oppose cutting other projects to do it.

How in the crap do you pay for it then?

I'm sort of curious as to how people think states will handle major disasters without FEMA or any other kind of federal help, especially the majority of states that have balanced budget amendments to their respective Constitutions, so they can't even borrow money in a crisis. The total cost of Hurricane Katrina was about half of Louisiana's annual GDP, how are they supposed to deal with that if they can't borrow money? Say a similar hurricane hits Mississippi. That would costthem more than their entire annual GDP to clean up. It's not like they (the government or the individual people) can buy insurance, the only reason flood insurance is even available to people living in these areas is because the federal government subsidizes or mandates it.

It's not like they (the government or the individual people) can buy insurance, the only reason flood insurance is even available to people living in these areas is because the federal government subsidizes or mandates it.

It's not like they (the government or the individual people) can buy insurance, the only reason flood insurance is even available to people living in these areas at rates not commensurate to the risk is because the federal government subsidizes or mandates it.