Sure, we may castigate assorted elected officials ( West Virginia's Joe Manchin does come to my mind often lately), and be annoyed or exasperated that their constituents have given them powers that affect the course of events outside of their district or state.
But I don't think that justifies taking "an eye for an eye" sort of outlook on the people of a state hit by a natural disaster... EVEN IF there are some people in Kentucky who may well have said "F&ck New York" after Hurricane Sandy back in 2012.
About 4.3 million people lived in Kentucky in 2010 when Rand Paul was first elected. It was not a Presidential election year, so turnout was predictably a little lower for a midterm contest and only 1.3 million Kentuckians (about 30%) turned out to vote for a candidate in the US Senate race. Paul won 55.7% of those votes and the Democrat Jack Conway got 44.3%.
So we're looking at just 755k people (then 17.6% of Kentucky's whole population) who at least nominally agreed with Rand Paul's views on things... including aid for natural disasters.... and that's before taking into consideration that not everyone eligible to vote does vote, and not everyone who does vote is a Johnny-one-note voter. As hot button issues go, aid for natural disasters is not a ballot-buster anyway.
But just on the grounds that Rand Paul did win the 2010 election, you're willing to dismiss the humanity of the 755k people who voted for him, as well as the humanity of all the roughly
3.5 million Kentuckians who did not or could not vote either for or against him in the election prior to the 2012 Hurricane Sandy diaster?
C'mon. You're way better than Rand Paul, and I don't intend insult there. I mean he's such a piece of work.