Posted on 09/17/2004 6:40:38 AM PDT by Dutchgirl
Warnings for the next hurricane to hit the United States have already been issued -- for Washington, D.C. Taxpayers should keep an eye on the aftermath.
After most disasters, Congress acts like a whirlwind to rush to the aid of victims, as lawmakers should.
A few members of Congress are also quick to take advantage of the situation to tack money for their pet projects onto such bills.
"Congress simply has no shame," warned Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste. "Knowing that this is most likely the last opportunity to bring home the bacon before the election, members are busy maneuvering behind the scenes to add their pet projects to the emergency supplemental (for hurricane victims). Considering the record $422 billion budget deficit this year, loading the bill with pork could be more costly than cleaning up after the three hurricanes."
And who gets blamed for such deficit spending? It's seldom Congress.
Emergency supplemental bills are not included in House and Senate caps on spending, so these bills are ideal vehicles for pork projects. Even lawmakers with the best of intentions have a hard time living down the public outrage if they vote against emergency funds for hurricane victims.
As is obvious, "looting" isn't confined to the lowly thieves taking advantage of disasters to satisfy themselves. A few members of Congress use supplemental appropriations to do it legally -- and often get praised by their constituents for bringing that money home. --------------------------------
TALLAHASSEE – Florida Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner Charles H. Bronson reminded state residents today that Florida’s price-gouging statute remains in effect and called on Floridians who encounter any such activity in connection with the approaching Hurricane Frances to report it at once to his department.
“Price gouging is not just immoral - it is illegal,” Bronson said. “Anyone who attempts to exploit another’s misfortune will be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law.”
Under state law, it is illegal to charge exorbitant or excessive prices for essential items, including shelter, gasoline, food, water, ice, generators or lumber, following the declaration of an emergency, unless the increases in the amount charged are attributable to additional costs incurred by retailers.
Governor Jeb Bush declared a state emergency in connection with Tropical Storm Charley last month - and the emergency declaration remains in effect.
Individuals or businesses that engage in price gouging face fines of up to $1,000 per violation, or up to a maximum fine of $25,000 a day.
Bronson is asking residents who have any evidence that price gouging is occurring to report it at once to his department’s toll-free hotline - 1 800 HELP FLA (435-7352)
Please call your department of consumer affairs, your attorney generals and other state officials. Let us pit our state officials against federal in this fight, and shame them into some fiscal responsiblity.
We taxpayers shouldn't have to pay twice as much for hurricane assistance--that is price gouging at the federal level. Please post any names and responses to this list.
They don't need a hurricane to price gouge *lol*
How is it "price gouging" to add the increased costs of getting inventory into a storm-ravaged area to the price of the product.
If you punish merchants by forcing them to essentially sell their product at a loss because you insist the price be the same after the storm as before the storm, it is going to take a whole lot longer to get essential products into a disaster area.
But logic has nothing to do with socialist policies.
...all in favor of the Save Springfield-Perverted Arts bill..?
The government can't repeal the laws of supply and demand, even by declaring them immoral. That's why the Soviet Union collapsed.
Transportation companies are also not allowed to gouge- therefore, the merchant is not paying more, and if there is a huge demand which makes the price rise- such as with plywood and generators, then the merchant is allowed to pass those costs along.
Meaning people who didn't really need the stuff and were just stocking up could clear the shelves, while the people who might really need it and would be willing to pay more were SOL.
You are a closet Communist. You do not believe in free enterprise or private property.
quote....."unless the increases in the amount charged are attributable to additional costs incurred by retailers.......unquote.
I would pay the going price to get supplies. The cost is higher to get supplies to a disaster area. Some areas may need a helicopter to deliver supplies since the road are closed.
Since the point of my post was a call to action to keep congress from abusing it's power by having the states hold the federal government responsible - I fail to see your logic in calling me a communist.
Having just been through a natural disaster that resulted in the evacuation of two million people, I think I can perhaps see the real "state of emergency" that existed--which is when this law went into effect. Perhaps if your 70 year old mother were one of the people facing $1000 per night hotel costs having driven all night and crossed the state line to avoid being killed by 150 MPH winds, you would have a different perspective.
And the burden of proof will be on the vendor, and cost of litigation will be so high that either way, they lose.
Closet communists don't believe in free markets. They believe in government dictatorship, but only when it benefits them.
So you have a gouger or two. Don't delude yourself that the way to deal with evil is simply to forbid it. That is the core of what we now call "liberalism", though it is extremely illiberal in the classical sense. What happens in the free market is that somebody else who has batteries will sell at a slightly lower price than the gouger, in an attempt to scoop the business, just as happens in normal times. Of course, the resultant price is higher than normal, but that reflects the difficulties inherent in providing emergency supplies on-demand in an emergency situation.
Now, once you pass a law forbidding "gouging", what is that supposed to accomplish? How is it supposed to be adjudicated? I suppose that the all-powerful tribunals will assemble whenever needed, at a moment's notice, in front of the coppertop display rack, not though the powerlines are all down, the streets impassable, and naked children are gathering at the rear of the store trying to get the generator started.
No, of course not. What will happen is that after everything is back to "normal", the lawyers come out of hiding and start litigating for damages against the hapless dweebs who marked up their batteries 50% (because they didn't know how long it would take to get any more, and if you can't get 'em, you can't sell 'em, and you can kiss the income good-bye as well!) The legal feeding frenzy can effectively discourage anybody from wanting to make the effort to sell anything, given that doing so makes you an automatic target.
Here's something to chew on: Ask yourself, why is it that once somebody has proposed a law or some other government action in response to a situation, that effectively seems to end the discussion? What is this universal assumption that once a government solution is proposed, everything else is off the table? Why is it that all problems flow downward toward more government, like water seeking its own level?
Free men in a free country, in reliance upon God their Maker, always find a just and equitable solution that fits the need. Government, OTOH, provides "solutions" that exploit the need, and for whose benefit? (Nobody asks, do they?)
As long as you treat the "government" option as the end of the line, after which you may consider the problem as well and truly in hand (after all, somebody is getting paid to fix it now!), the true character of government solutions will remain hidden to you, and the power of freedom will seem mythical.
What are your thoughts about the need for and imposistion of martial law?
“Price gouging is not just immoral - it is illegal,” Bronson said. “Anyone who attempts to exploit another’s misfortune will be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law.”
The government can't repeal the laws of supply and demand, even by declaring them immoral. That's why the Soviet Union collapsed.
Whatever they are, they are irrelevant to this discussion. Check post #14 for a further explanation.
I have been trying to follow the logic of some of these responses. Do they really think that because the free market will bear it, it is okay for congress to pile on appropriations to emergency spending. I am trying to be respectful, but my jaw is just dropping.
Not really, the emergency measures to avoid price gouging, is to my mind, is a form of martial law...something which would be untenable as a regular form of government but is required for the basic protection of the general citizenry, particularly after a natural disaster.
I actually posted two articles, one of them dealt with the pork that our government representatives are preparing to inflict on us in the name of "helping" the victims of the storm. I posted the two together because if the local government is passing laws to protect us from folks who intend to profit from human misery, the federal government is planning to do just that. Do you see no irony there?
Don't nobody take my remarks as approving of THAT.
True, but cold comfort to the 70 year old driving around Savannah in the rain at 11Am after a 10 hour drive.
Yes, but that's not the point. Large profits should be encouraged. There should be a huge financial incentive to load up a panel van in, say, Ohio, with all the things a hurricane victim might want to buy, and drive it down to the disaster area. Lots of people would be doing that right now, if they could charge the highest price people were willing to pay. Instead, their profit margins are limited to about what they would make if they sold the stuff in Ohio, so why go to the trouble? They're allowed to recoup their costs, but not allowed to make good money. That's not enough incentive to rush necessities to the area.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.