Three weeks ago I ask Ozark Billy Long, congressman and colonel, about GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s controversial comment that offsets in the federal budget would have to be found before federal aid would flow to Joplin.

As of now, I don’t know if Billy Long has ever been asked by anyone but me about Cantor’s comment, nor, as far as I know, as he offered any criticism or support of Cantor’s offset idea. 

What I do know is that Long voted for an initial aid package for Joplin, but that vote was for something called the “Aderholdt Amendment,” part of the 2012 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. That amendment was a Cantorian offset, as it moved money from the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program in order to provide aid to Joplin.

So, we have Billy Long on record as voting for a budget offset, but we don’t have him on record as urging his House colleagues to avoid a protracted an ideological budget fight over the issue of offsets and disaster relief to Joplin.  In fact, on Long’s website, he said:

“While we need to look everywhere to make spending cuts, making sure our first responder, disaster relief, and national defense communities have the tools they need will always be a priority while I am in Congress,” said Long.

Does that mean he is for or against Cantor’s offset scheme?

Beats me.  So, I called Long’s D.C. office this morning and talked to Molly, a very nice and polite intern.  When I asked Molly about Long’s position on aid to Joplin and budget offsets, she read me the statement above.  I asked her to clarify whether Long would support aid to Joplin, if there were no budget offsets.  She was unfamiliar with Long’s vote on the Aderholdt Amendment, so I explained it to her.  She then put me on hold for a few minutes to get more information.

She came back and said, “Here is what I have found out.” She then tried again to formulate a statement that would allow Long to have it both ways: “So far, offsetting hasn’t been an issue,” she said. and Congressman Long believes “funding to Joplin is most important,” and he “doesn’t want to waste time with a political debate.”

Okay, but will he support funding without offsets?  In other words, I ask her, will he support a clean aid bill for Joplin?

She then told me that if I wanted a more definitive answer, I would have to email Bret Funk, Long’s press person.  Okay, I said.  She gave me his address and I emailed him the following:

Simple enough, right?  It shouldn’t take five minutes to formulate a response to those questions.  After all, the issue has been out there for three weeks. I’ll let you know what I find out, if anything.

But in the mean time, today’s Joplin Globe editorial, avoiding its usual boilerplate conservatism, boldly and accurately proclaims:

Leave Joplin out of it

The editorial opens with this:

What does cutting funds for a program to encourage clean-car technology have to do with federal disaster relief in Joplin and elsewhere?

The answer should be “absolutely nothing.”

The editorial ends with this:

If legislators need to find cuts to the budget to make funds available for disaster relief, then that’s what they should do—separately from approving funds for Joplin and other towns and cities across the United States that have been hit hard by tornadoes and flooding.

At a time when our city is already suffering, we don’t need to be caught in the middle of political warfare.

Well, it’s about time the Joplin Globe took this position.  And now that the paper has come to its senses, maybe someone with a little more journalistic clout can ask our congressman about it.