That’s the title of an on target editorial in today’s NYT
Most Americans have never heard of the National Response Coordination Center, but they’re 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, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s 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.
It’s an absurd notion, but it’s 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 don’t 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 FEMA’s 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. Romney’s 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 Sandy’s path are fortunate that, for now, that ideology has not replaced sound policy.
A question for conservatives and libertarians: if a Sandy-like storm were heading your way—to your town and your home (and which may indeed be the case today for some reading this)—who would you wish to handle the response: a fully funded FEMA or cash-strapped state governments? Or, failing that—as state government is still government, after all—, private, for profit enterprises, perhaps working with faith-based charities? If the answer is not a fully funded FEMA, please explain how these other organs would handle the job more efficiently and at less cost (and I’m not going to hold my breath awaiting the response).
Arun,
The question practically answers itself, as the editorial provides a little history lesson for your readers:
“Absolutely,” he said. “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.” 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.
It’s an absurd notion, but it’s 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.
So, what did the poor huddled masses do before 1976 when natural disasters hit the U.S.? How did we ever survive? Of course I want the feds to get out of the business of responding to natural disasters and let States and local governments be the ones taking the lead (and yes, there should be a big role for volunteers — there always has been in this country, from the Red Cross to the Salvation Army, these non-profts have done an excellent job during disasters, much better than a typical bureaucrat and at much less cost). This morning I was listening to the radio and an official from one of the Chicago-area’s electricity providers was talking to the host from Baltimore, where he and over 200 of his colleagues had volunteered to go to help utilities restore power on the East Coast. Again, the private sector in action, and it doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime!!!
There is a role for the Federal govt afterwards, but in the immediate, best the befuddled bureaucracy stay away.
States loke NY, NJ, and CT can manage wert well, thank you. Local government, excellent governors, and private citizens, along with organizations like the Red Cross are doing a great job.
Congrats to Mayor Mike Bloomberg who refused to let Obama grandstand and make political hay out if this dusaster in NYC. Bloomberg politely told Obama “thanks, but
no thanks, and told him to stay away from the city.
The nightmare of traffic, tying up of security and NYPD resources whenever he comes to town creates chaos.
For once, Bloomberg got it right.
Andrew Cuomo, our competent and very ambitious Governor needs to do his job without interference.
NY will do just fine without the media show. All city agencies, private groups, neighbors and citizens are all working together to get things working.
We are high on a bluff overlooking Manhattan and thank God had no flooding and no loss of power. Many food markets, restaurants, and stores were open today, and the streets were full of people.
Thanks to all for your thoughts and prayers.
CCinna, you can’t help but put your partisan spin on things, here on Obama coming to NYC. Pour mémoire, the President of the United States does not need the authorization of anyone to visit anywhere in the country he pleases. Nor will an elected official tell him to stay away. Obama is visiting New Jersey today – whose Governor Christie said that Obama has been doing an “outstanding job” in handling this crisis – and determined, in consultation with Bloomberg, that it was not the right moment to visit NYC and for obvious reasons. Bloomberg took care, BTW, to praise FEMA
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/bloomberg-now-time-obama-nyc-visit-17603216#.UJD8rMXA9JI
FH, federal disaster relief didn’t begin with the Carter administration. It had been increasing in scope over the preceding decades, as population density increased, not to mention all that is associated with a modern, technologically advanced society. No one is arguing that state and local government shouldn’t play their role – not to mention volunteers and civic efforts (plus aid from foreign countries, as during the multi-state forest fires in 2002) – but when a disaster is massive in scale – and with damage into the billions of dollars – there is no substitute for the Feds taking the lead. One already saw this with Hurricane Agnes in 1972, where the states affected – Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc – were overwhelmed and desperately sought federal aid (and which was forthcoming).
In any case, the current GOP assault on FEMA and other organs of the federal government is purely ideological (and, in the case of Romney, inspired as well by his experience as a Mormon, though which can hardly be generalized to the rest of society). It has little to nothing to do with efficiency or cost – and which are undermined, not enhanced, when essential government functions are privatized; on this, see my posts from earlier this year https://arunwithaview.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/privatizing-the-state/ and https://arunwithaview.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/the-private-sector-delusion/
As it happens, the question in the NY Times’s ‘Room for Debate’ today is “Do we really need FEMA?” Kathleen Tierney’s contribution is particularly good. I was not convinced by the conservatives/libertarians, needless to say http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/30/do-we-really-need-fema
We’ll have to agree to disagree — apparently there are good examples of the private sector taking the lead (or at least trying to) and doing a better job than even local officials are capable of doing:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/30/only-big-government-can-save-us-from-big
But, to your point about federal assistance — if it is true that it might be needed occassionally, then Congress can provide it when necesssary. Establishing a large federal bureacracy to deal with the “problem” is not the answer.
I will agree with you, however, that part of my hostility to federal agencies and programs is indeed ideological — but my ideology flows naturally from what I take to be a common-sense understanding of the Constitution and our system of government. If Roosevelt and the liberals who dreamed up the New Deal wanted a bigger, more expansive federal government they should have done so the right way — my amending the Constitution to allow Congress to take on those roles.