No offsets, no hurricane relief?

While the House finally approved some money for Hurricane Sandy relief, it was in a very backhanded way, and it wasn't the first bill of the new House. Actually, what the passed was money for flood relief for the entire country, and the first bill offered in the House was to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Thank you, Michelle Bachmann).  But yet, 67 Tea Party members couldn't vote flood relief. Why couldn't they vote for it? In one simple word, offsets.

Offsets are simply taking money from one place to add to another, keeping the budget the same instead of raising it. And every Tea Party member who voted against the bill said that unless entitlement cuts were made, the couldn't vote for any more spending. So what did that mean? Well, it really means that defense spending and some of the domestic spending couldn't be cut, while programs to help the poor and elderly could be cut, and this was the only way to give hurricane relief. To put it in a way that brings it down to a family level, one of your kids gets sick and you take him/her to the hospital. Then, to pay for the visit, you decide that all your kids, including the one who went to the hospital, has to cut one meal out of their day for the next year. No, not you and your spouse, you still get the extra meal. The cable and phone bills will stay the same, as will the weekly dinners out and a baby sitter for the kids. And that neighborhood kid who comes by and cuts your lawn? Yes, he'll get paid, too. Make sense to you? Doesn't to anyone who isn't a member of the Tea Party, and even some of them don't think that makes sense.

Some Tea Party House members couldn't vote for bill giving some relief for those who were harmed by Hurricane Sandy, saying any relief must be offset by cuts in entitlement. Does it really make sense to hurt the country in one area to help it in another? Doesn't seem so to me.