I think Biden and the Dem's will make a strategic mistake here.

I think that because they think Texas is almost in play for them, that throwing money at Texas may help them. Instead I see that as hurting the Dem party. It re-enforces with Republican voters, they can have their cake and eat it too. They can reject the Feds but still get all the benefits of Bailouts when needed. ...FREEDUM!

Instead the Texans should be forced to bear the brunt of their poor decisions. Let their costs skyrocket as compared to other neighbouring States if that happens to be the result. They can then find those boot straps and pull them up.

Not throwing cash at them, may see more citizens want to opt in to the National grid and thus vote in Dem's who will make that happen.

People learn more from the stick than the carrot, imo. It is hard to notice when you don't have to pay a bill you never got, but paying a bigger bill than what your neighbours are reported to pay, gets noticed.

Even more strategic, now I think about it, would for the Biden Admin saying "we are ready to help Texas and to rebuild this infrastructure but we cannot countenance using Federal Money so the Utilities can keep the exorbitant profits they gauged and not have to reinvest them into fixing the problems they caused. If the Texas gov't is willing to cap that price gauging around that event and give back money to citizens over charged, then and only then, will Federal money flow to also help all the citizens of Texas'.


This would get huge local media play in all the towns impacted across Texas. Cap on what is owed and maybe money coming back, is big news.

I'm not sure, but I wish he was still around for commentary

I don't think he'd deny climate change, I think he was more interested in pointing out how full of **** people, we can be

It is now 2021 and the predictions about how we are ****ed do make you start to wonder. There's mountains of evidence obv, but the doomsday scenarios seem to be put forth on a yearly basis...

How accurate was An Inconvenient Truth? I never saw the movie, but I've yet to see anyone reference it or past predictions of how ****ed we are so it makes me wonder

But I'm also not about to disagree with the Pentagon listing climate change as a national security risk. It's very clearly a potential risk even if you aren't inclined to indulge the existential side of that

Electoral politics is not the same thing as governing. I don't agree with your political analysis here, but more importantly, Biden and the federal government should make the decision about whether to send FEMA money to Texas on the merits, not on the basis of an electoral calculation.

Are the "merits" here clear to you?

Yes.

Elaborate then as they are not to me.

I think there is a ton of grey here and a major political slippery slope which I have touched upon above with regards to privatized Utilities prioritizing short term profits over long term safety with bailouts in the midst.

This website lays out the procedure for when FEMA declares a disaster. I haven't examined all of it, but I'm pretty confident that it doesn't include whether doing so is likely to cause residents to turn against the Republican party or its policies and vote Democratic.

The idea of weighing disaster relief against political gain is abhorrent.

That is not addressing the issue I am asking you.

Texas opted out of Federal oversight for their Power Utility very deliberately.

Those utilities then chose, very deliberately to not spend money on safety measures the rest of the Country has to put in place, leading to higher short term profits to their stakeholders and executives.

Then once a predictable travesty hit they put out their hand for Federal gov't assistance to pay the bill that should never have been created had they just reduced the profits and put the required money into safety.

FEMA is discretionary and determined by the POTUS as a SUPPLEMENT to the State needs.

So it necessarily involves politics. NO way around that.

Biden could absolutely say 'We are here and willing to help with Federal Aide but we will require first that the Utilities put in $X for every dollar we put in, or cap their fees to citizens'.

I think that would certainly be a fair thing for the Fed's to demand even if it had no political implications but the fact that it would have positive implications for the Feds (Dem's) and make the Republicans look bad is a bonus for Joe.

While decisions around FEMA declarations obviously shouldn't have any political considerations, two of the factors in determining the aid provided to a state are insurance and hazard mitigation. I don't think it would be unreasonable for the amount of aid to be somewhat lesser than if a similar utilities based disaster had occurred in a state that actually followed federal guidelines for the utility that failed.

Obviously where there is direct risk to health/safety of residents none of this should be a consideration but when it comes to bailouts for the utility companies I think there's a legitimate argument to be made.

Can you also see how 'allowing Utilities to opt out of safety measures for increased profits and then not using your political capital and actual capital to try and make them disgorge those profits (cap the billing to citizens, spend some money to upgrade their own equipment) leads to massive moral hazard?

Did we learn nothing from the 2008/9 mortgage crisis and that if Industry gets all the profits while introducing unnecessary risk while knowing they will not have to pick up the cost (taxpayer bailout) that you create a very compelling calculus for them?

I am fine with them providing help, as per my amended statement which laid out that they need to tie it to making the Utility pay (cash cost) and those in gov't pay (political cost).

I think it is wrong and abhorrent and reckless to not use whatever Federal pressure you have to do so.

And that is exactly the point. All the utilities under Federal gov't oversight are forced to make those investments.

To let Texas off so they don't have to pay $X out and get to keep it as additional profits and then to send them Federal money (every other taxpayer) of many times $X to help fix their problems is simply poor management by the Fed's if not tied to some concessions.


This is not disaster money going to save people in need RIGHT NOW due to the travesty. This is the Texas gov't looking for cash to socialize the cost country wide to take pressure off their budget, and the Utilities looking for Federal Cash to socialize the cost of repairs and rebuilding.

There things are ongoing as we speak regardless of the ultimate Fed hand out or not. The only question is 'who pays for it?'

Federal assistance has often come with more oversight and rulemaking, to which I am not opposed. Cuepee is talking about Biden making a strategic mistake that will hurt the Democratic party and if he had a different policy it would help Democrats get elected in Texas. Those kinds of considerations should be out of bounds.

LoL @ thinking denying funds to Texas would in any way fly with Texas voters. You gotta be out of your ****ing mind.

Again this is not a question of denial of assistance and is 100% a question of who pays for this created mess.

The Texas government has taken a very political stance of very publically giving the rest of the country the middle finger and saying we can go this alone and let free market solutions provide.

Why?

Because the corporation's can make masses more profit and then donate a small but significant chunk to those same politicians who use that money politically to sway sentiment and buy elections. They then cut more, enrich the corporation's more and so on and so on.

It is only in instances like this where the cost of those poor decisions is born by the State budget and the Energy companies (thus the Texas citizen) where some voters wake up and say maybe this is not the better way.

If however that costs are socialized nation wide then of course the Texas middle finger way makes the most sense.

Having Biden tie help from the Feds to the Utilities capping rates to citizens and chipping in past profits to the rebuild is not just good and moral from a humanitarian stand point but smart like politics.

Anyone who thinks it would be wrong for Biden to try and use his leverage to stop the citizen gauging simply because he may gain political benefit is just bring naive imo

The above speaks as well to the broader Energy Industry/Texas Politician/Texas citizen view on Climate Change.

Again they want to give the rest of America the middle finger with their Energy Companies and gov't saying 'we do not want to contribute any of the profits the companies make to the broader fight against Climate Change mitigation (ie Carbon credits, etc) while at the same time those same companies and Politicians are lobbying the Federal gov't to pay out general tax payer money to build up infrastructure to protect Coast line assets they see as at 'increasing risk due to Climate Change' (predominately hurricanes).

So once again, 'we want to privatize and maximize profits' to the sole benefit of our Stakeholders, while at the same time 'socializing the costs and losses across the Nation'.


Biden and the US generally are not going to change the view of Texans if they just give them that money to socialize costs and losses. They will think their system is working perfectly if they get their way and get that money without being squeezed or educated in some fashion.

I would be very curious it @tame_deuces agrees or would see that as leveraging politics and thus wrong?

That's foolish. Democrats not giving Texans money would be used in every political ad. It would further the divide between Texans and Washington. LoL @ employing the strategy of inflicting max pain on Texans in order to flip Texas.

My strategy (the Dem Strategy) should be to say:

- we are happy to come to the aid of Texas during this catastrophic event. We will utlize Federal dollars to offset the costs of the disaster and to help to rebuild. But we also REQUIRE the Texas utilities making massive outsized profits during this directly from the citizens of Texas to cap those profits at 2X (3X) of normalized profits and we will work the State gov't to do so. We will also require those same Energy companies who did not spend any money on safety concerns to re-contribute profits, to again, mimize the cost on this tax payer funded bailout.


The idea that citizens would see this as bad and not a positive is just nonsense. There was actually similar talk in Texas gov't before they decided the Utilities should just keep the windfall profits saying they were afraid of unintended consequences (AKA donors rushed them checks).

The citizens would see it as the Fed fighting for the average Texas citizen.

Again simply giving them money unconditionally is riddled with moral hazard and just tells them they are winning and making the right decisions.

Excellent summation video of what went wrong in Texas.

Government funds and supporting institution aren't campaign resources or meant to be used to blackmail citizens into your policies. Texas is a part of the US and should be aided by the federal government, regardless of whether it has policies in place that disagree with you or the White House administration.

And yes, I'm not naive, I know politicians often dole out government resources as if they are which is bad in itself, to do so under crisis is utterly reprehensive.

In the hypothetical scenario where this occurs, it would be conclusive evidence that Biden was a terrible president.

I do think that is a very naive position. Sorry. Not meant to insult but that is how i see it.

The fact of this matter is these funds being discussed are not emergency funds to save lives. They are funds that may flow months after the fact, when it is solely about which budgets pay for it.

So it is naive to act like this is Katrina funds needed immediately to save lives.

I also think it is naive to use Politics to try and save the Texas citizens money who are being gauged by their Utilities out of some type of high minded principle that somehow the Federal gov't should not apply pressure to fight for citizens they see being taken advantage of it.

OF COURSE THEY SHOULD!

This is an example where many in Texas gov't were first saying they would cap these ridiculous over charges, during the heat of the moment, and then as soon as their donors got to them suddenly 'no the citizens need to pay the full bill because of some moral hazard about 'free markets and choice' if they do not'.

Ridiculous, and to say gov't should not fight for them with the leverage they have is imo naive. Donors and republicans laugh all the way to the bank as Dem's stand on principle not to fight when they have power.

Biden declaring it an emergency and using FIMA at this point is completely optional to him. How much bailout cash he will propose and offer is also optional. For him to say "We are happy to provide the citizens $X to help with this but we require the Utilities and State to contribute 1/3rd X" is certainly reasonable.

WE can agree to vehemently disagree on this one.

Opposing that central government aid should be used to blackmail local government to choose between citizens dying or adopting positions is not naive, it is the absolute minimal standard for central government to have a right to exist.

If you want local government to adopt a position, then do so by legislative process, not by cutting the purse strings when citizens need you to survive.

Well that strawman has no place here so not sure why you are stuffing it.

AGAIN, Biden giving Federal money to help with the cost has NOTHING to do with saving lives. It is an AFTER THE FACT divvy up of the bill that will take weeks or months to get out.

the naivety comes in when you do not use your leverage to try and make positive change because you tell yourself wrongly this is about saving lives thus we cannot do the things to actually help the citizens of Texas who are being gauged.


Again I would call this naive when you blanket throw it around where it does not belong. It is the type of talking point I would expect from republicans not wanting any pressure to do better.
Strawman again.

So since you are going to keep missing the point and stuffing strawmen probably best to agree to disagree.

I could just stuff a strawman too and say 'omg you are advocating for the killing of Texans there too' but that would be no more true or accurate then what you keep saying here.

That is no strawman, it is literally what you are proposing. Blackmailing a state with disaster relief.

That means letting citizens die unless the state does as you want.

In politics, words and numbers have consequences.