New York Times EDITORIAL A Big Storm Requires Big Government Published: October 29, 2012 Most Americans have never heard of the National Response Coordination Center, but theyre lucky it exists on days of lethal winds and flood tides. The center is the war room of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, where officials gather to decide where rescuers should go, where drinking water should be shipped, and how to assist hospitals that have to evacuate. Disaster coordination is one of the most vital functions of big government, which is why Mitt Romney wants to eliminate it. At a Republican primary debate last year, Mr. Romney was asked whether emergency management was a function that should be returned to the states. He not only agreed, he went further. Absolutely, he said. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, thats the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, thats even better. Mr. Romney not only believes that states acting independently can handle the response to a vast East Coast storm better than Washington, but that profit-making companies can do an even better job. He said it was immoral for the federal government to do all these things if it means increasing the debt. Its an absurd notion, but its fully in line with decades of Republican resistance to federal emergency planning. FEMA, created by President Jimmy Carter, was elevated to cabinet rank in the Bill Clinton administration, but was then demoted by President George W. Bush, who neglected it, subsumed it into the Department of Homeland Security, and placed it in the control of political hacks. The disaster of Hurricane Katrina was just waiting to happen. The agency was put back in working order by President Obama, but ideology still blinds Republicans to its value. Many dont like the idea of free aid for poor people, or they think people should pay for their bad decisions, which this week includes living on the East Coast. Over the last two years, Congressional Republicans have forced a 43 percent reduction in the primary FEMA grants that pay for disaster preparedness. Representatives Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and other House Republicans have repeatedly tried to refuse FEMAs budget requests when disasters are more expensive than predicted, or have demanded that other valuable programs be cut to pay for them. The Ryan budget, which Mr. Romney praised as an excellent piece of work, would result in severe cutbacks to the agency, as would the Republican-instigated sequester, which would cut disaster relief by 8.2 percent on top of earlier reductions. Does Mr. Romney really believe that financially strapped states would do a better job than a properly functioning federal agency? Who would make decisions about where to send federal aid? Or perhaps there would be no federal aid, and every state would bear the burden of billions of dollars in damages. After Mr. Romneys 2011 remarks recirculated on Monday, his nervous campaign announced that he does not want to abolish FEMA, though he still believes states should be in charge of emergency management. Those in Hurricane Sandys path are fortunate that, for now, that ideology has not replaced sound policy.
Why are the states "financially strapped"? The federal govt made China a trade partner and caused untold jobs to leave our shores. The federal govt then allows Chinese goods to flood our markets priced to sale because of slave or near slave labor. This cost the states billions upon billions in tax revenue. Also, the Feds pressured banks to give mortgages to people who statistically had no chance of ever paying them back. The Feds put in place the factors that caused a financial collapse.
From ABC News Hurricane Sandy: What Romney Says He'd Do to FEMA By JORDAN FABIAN (@Jordanfabian) Oct. 29, 2012 Though the presidential campaigns have been focused on Hurricane Sandy, the politically sticky topic of disaster relief is making its way to the forefront. With Sandy bearing down on the East Coast, supporters of President Barack Obama are saying that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney would gut FEMA, leaving it incapable of handling a massive hurricane or tornado. How would Romney handle FEMA if he was elected president? In a June 13, 2011 GOP primary debate, Romney suggested that states should assume a more significant role in disaster relief. The debate took place soon after a tornado devastated Joplin, Missouri and other communities, and moderator John King of CNN asked Romney whether states should take on a greater role in paying to repair and rebuild. "Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better," Romney said. "Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut -- we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep?" When asked a follow up on whether disaster relief should shift to the states, Romney said: "We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids," he said. "It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off," he added. "It makes no sense at all." Romney did not go as far as some reports have suggested, which say he would shut down the agency entirely. But he has made it clear that he would shift more responsibility to the states or private agencies when it comes to disaster relief in an effort to reduce federal spending and the deficit. "Gov. Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions," said Romney campaign spokesman Yohana de la Torre. "As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities, and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA." Even if Romney FEMA left standing, Obama backers argue that a diminished agency would make it extremely difficult for municipalities to recover quickly from significant natural disasters. That could hurt the nation's economy as towns and states if delays in recoveries occur due to gaps in federal assistance. "Left to its own devices a storm-ravaged Delaware or Louisiana is going to be squeezed between balanced budget rules and falling sales tax receipts and be forced into an increasing state of dilapidation," writes Slate's Matthew Yglesias. The Romney campaign points out that FEMA could face cuts anyway due to mandatory spending cuts under a deal passed by Congress and signed by President Obama. The "sequestration" cuts were triggered when Congress failed to reach an accord on a deficit reduction deal on its own. According to the Office of Management and Budget, FEMA could lose out on $878 million. Of that money, $580 million from direct disaster relief would be slashed from FEMA's budget. But it's unclear whether the sequestration cuts will take effect, since Obama and congressional Republicans have expressed desire to avert them. Romney's running mate Paul Ryan has also drawn attention for the impact his budget plans could have on federal disaster funding. Ryan's 2012 "Path to Prosperity" budget blueprint does not include specific cuts to disaster relief or FEMA, but it is possible that proposed cuts to non-defense discretionary spending could cause disaster relief funding to be shifted from the federal government to the states. Here is what the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) says about Ryan's plan's effect on federal disaster funding: "This form of discretionary federal aid would be subject to cuts under the Ryan budget. If it were scaled back substantially, states and localities would need to bear a larger share of the costs of disaster response and recovery, or attempt to make do with less during difficult times." Congress struggled to come together last fall on a deal to pass a deal to avert a government shutdown last fall, and at the center of the fight was disaster funding. At the time, under strain after Joplin, it appeared that FEMA would run out of money to continue disaster relief through the end of the fiscal year in September. House Republicans demanded that more funding for federal disaster relief should be offset by spending cuts elsewhere. But when it became apparent FEMA would have enough money to close out the last fiscal year, a deal was eventually passed that contained $2.65 billion for FEMA this fiscal year with no offsets. At the time, Ryan opposed a broader federal disaster-relief fund backed by Obama that budgets for aid before natural disasters occur, the Associated Press reported. The plan eventually was signed into law. Ryan would prefer to find disaster funding from cutting elsewhere in the budget. But Republicans have argued that Obama has been too quick to make federal disaster declarations, which allow FEMA to spend money on relief, and thus have overused the agency's powers. A report from the right-leaning Heritage Foundation notes that Obama issued 243 disaster declarations in 2011, while George H.W. Bush issued 173 during his entire four-year presidency. The report notes that the trend began with former President Bill Clinton and continued under George W. Bush. Conservative accuse Obama of overusing disaster declarations have demanded that Congress impose greater restrictions on when they can be issued. "Major multi-state storms, like Hurricane Sandy, are exactly why FEMA was created. Non-lethal 5.8 earthquakes in Virginia are not," the conservative Washington Examiner wrote today. A2013 budget resolution from Ryan's committee in Congress called on FEMA to use more scrutiny in distributing disaster funds to states and localities in an effort to cut down on disaster declarations. But Obama's supporters are quick to remind that there have been a number of significant natural disasters during his first term that have warranted a robust federal response, from wildfires in Texas and California, to Hurricane Irene, saying that FEMA funding is the last thing that should be cut. With Hurricane Isaac threatening the GOP convention in Tampa in August, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) criticized the Republicans' approach. "Some Republicans are still fighting this," she told the AP. "And it is kind of ironic that the storm was at some point headed towards Tampa during their convention. That would have been the irony of all ironies for this storm to hit Tampa when the Republicans were the ones saying `we need to find offsets'" for disaster aid.
All of the clean-up, repair, and restoration will be done by the private sector. Government's only role in this crisis is to maintain order. FEMA is one of those "nice-to-have" agencies that has to go in order to balance the budget.
It's simply untrue to say Romney wants to "eliminate" federal disaster coordination. He thinks disaster coordination is vital but thinks one big massive Fed bureaucracy isn't necessarily the best way to handle it and I agree. Of course lib's will always favor more and more federal bureaucracy no matter what the issue. So what else is new.
Yeah.....we need 6 trillion of Government for out 15 trillion dollar country.......because of "Big Storms"..... ....what a bunch of retards..... . .
It's called F E D E R A L I S M. It's constitutionally authorized, unlike FEMA, Ag, Ed, DOE, and every other alphabet agency we need to dynamite into a smoking crater.
A Big Storm requires 16 Trillion of (D)ebt and 4 straight years of trillion dollar (D)eficits...... ........who knew Big Storms were so demanding...... . .
Central planners never miss an opportunity like a natural disaster to illustrate how badly we need cradle to grave government. No shame. As if there is one single Republican governor or member of Congress who doesn't want any government at all. I haven't checked lately, but I'm sure there's still no anarchist caucus of the Republican party. How stupid do these people think we are?
Everyone's a small government advocate until a hurricane, tornado, or flood comes by. Very few voters are small government advocates with regard to the military, and even fewer politicians are small government when it comes to pork.
I decided to reply in platitudes based on nothing more than my feelings...like the NY Times author. And my intelligence is insulted by his inaccurate and unfair historical accounts and his obviously flawed understanding of how the federal budget has been operating for the last three years.
Sandy is also going to require multiple Trillion Dollar Government Health Care Programs.....a Retirement Ponzi Scheme to Nowhere....a bloated Subprime Public Education System.....and all sorts of Government Hand Outs from Free Cell Phones to Beer Stamps....as well as womb to tomb social teet ....a "Big Storm" has its needs.... . .
Whenever I see a New York Times article.... all I can think is: What a bunch of left wing trolls. Way to go all political on the storm with your left wing bull crap NYT... you suck as bad as the Huffington Post.
In past years, I worked on 5 different hurricane cleanups. About all that FEMA does, is contract for debris removal. FEMA does nothing in in rescue, repair, restoration or anything associated with the priority tasks.
Now you know why they used to name storms strictly with women's names.hehehe Hey liberals......it's just a joke, so lighten up.(wink)
