The numbers tell the story, really.
On January 15, 2013, 241 Members of Congress (Representatives) successfully voted for disaster relief for Sandy victims. One hundred-eighty of their colleagues cast their votes against providing disaster relief to Sandy victims. Here is a roll call from the House of Representatives website.
In a previous vote on Flood Insurance for Sandy Claims, on January 4, 2013, 67 Representatives voted against Flood Insurance for Sandy Claims. They were outnumbered by the 354 Representatives who voted on that day in favor of Flood Insurance to pay Sandy Claims. Here is a roll call from the House of Representatives' website.
Parenthetically, one of the 67 changed his position and voted in favor of providing disaster relief on January 15th, Rep. Steven Palazzo of Mississippi. In the time between his vote to deny Flood Insurance Claims on January 4th, and his vote to extend disaster relief on January 15th, Rep. Palazzo visited areas struck by Sandy. He changed his position because he saw with his own eyes how Sandy made needy victims out of so many people and businesses. See Press Release of Rep. Steven Palazzo, "The Northeast Needs Our Help Now," released January 14, 2013.
In Sandy's wake, there are legitimate questions about national disaster relief programs for the future. These questions include the questions previously asked here, such as whether the availability of Flood Insurance to underwrite continuing construction in areas which suffer from constant flooding is actually a good thing for the United States going forward. See, e.g., the series beginning on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, www.insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com, on December 6, 2012, continuing there on December 9, 2012, and continuing on Insurance Claims and Issues Blog, www.insuranceclaimsissues.typepad.com, on December 10, 2012 and December 12, 2012. See also the post on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog on December 30, 2012.
However, this is not the same thing as refusing to pay Flood Insurance Claims already incurred by people suffering from Sandy.
The majority of the Representatives who voted against relief for Sandy victims appear to have so-called "safe seats" in States that were untouched by Sandy, meaning that they are unlikely to be damaged electorally by their votes against Flood Insurance for Sandy victims.
As has been truly said before, let it be said once again, that these people may have a right to vote against paying valid insurance claims, if we let them.
But they have no right to call their votes Good Faith.
Please Read The Disclaimer.