With Hurricane Sandy poised to wreak havoc for millions of Americans, it seems like a good time to revisit Mitt Romney's unusual vision for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
In this clip, Romney was asked at a debate for the Republican presidential candidates about emergency-response efforts, and he suggested FEMA should be shuttered, moving responsibility to the states.
"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.
"Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut, we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we're doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we're doing that we don't have to do?"
Asked specifically about the federal government playing a role in disaster relief, Romney added, "We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. 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."
Again, in context, he wasn't talking about debt reduction in the abstract; Romney was specifically talking about FEMA and the federal role in responding to communities hit by disasters.
What's more, Romney appears willing to put his (lack of) money where his mouth is -- Romney's budget plan would mean at least a 34% cut to FEMA's budget.
I should note that there may be some who find this perspective compelling. Maybe Romney's correct, the argument goes, and FEMA's doors should be closed. Maybe Washington should just let states, municipalities, and families fend for themselves when disaster strikes, as Republican policymakers focus solely on debt reduction.
In case anyone's tempted to believe this is wise, I'd note two things.
First, this is an incredibly callous approach, wholly at odds with the American tradition. When making a list of tasks the federal government can and should tackle, one need not be a far-left ideologue to think emergency relief should make the cut.
Second, as Matt Yglesias explained, Romney's anti-FEMA approach would be awful for the economy.
Disaster relief, I would argue, is a great federal program precisely because of the debt issue.
If a storm damages basic physical infrastructure (power lines, bridges) and imperils human life it would be the height of penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking to suppose that the afflicted area should wait months or years to repair the damage. Ultimately, anyplace is going to go back to robust wealth creation faster if basic stuff gets fixed up faster. But that requires financing by an entity capable of rapidly financing expensive projects -- i.e., the federal government. 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.
Given this, as Sandy takes its toll, it's worth remembering what may happen to FEMA early next year depending on the outcome of next week's election.
Leave a Comment:
Any bets on how fast Mitt would put in for FEMA funding if one of his mansions was damaged? Effing hypocrite!!
Just on its face, Romney's proposition is nonsense. There are two objections. The practical one is that the federal government cannot afford it. Will no one ask the obvious question? If the federal government can't then why should we believe that a ravaged state could? In fact, from a practical point, Romney is attempting to deny the very principle of defense against risk. Insurance as a practical dollars and cents business proposition only works if you aggregate risk over a large domain. Disaggregation (in this case to the states) destroys the capability of the system to absorb impacts of devastating unpredictable events.
Romney's second objection is ideological- that states and private companies do this better. States because they better understand their local needs, and privatize companies because they are more efficient at carrying out tasks than public institutions. But this is not new- this approach was pioneered by George W. Bush and the benefits of this ideological approach were amply demonstrated during hurricane Katrina.
Naomi Klein describes in her book Shock Doctrine why it is in the interests of conservatives to exacerbate the impact of shocks. The point is that during the crisis, people are focused on doing whatever is necessary to alleviate the immediate losses in front of individuals. They don't raise many objections about the radical deconstruction of liberal institutions undertaken by conservatives because in these moments their attention is focused on the crisis.
The true agenda behind the GOP is to exacerbate crisis in such a way that liberal institutions can be blamed and used as a justification for their deconstruction.
Next crisis that comes along be sure and have Naomi Klein on call so that you can get her on the show and present the scoop on what the plutocrats and their shills in the GOP are up to.
It is pretty sick.
This is all complete and total BS. I was in Charleston SC for hurricane Hugo, a direct hit.
Where do the states get the money from? Republican States are going to raise State Taxes? Will they use the funds as intended or use it to balance their budgets, like Walker did with the money meant to help homeowner loosing their homes.
Hurricane Hugo struck under Republican president George HW Bush's watch. It is unsurprising that FEMA was absent and ineffective.
FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina was a debacle under George W Bush's presidency
Between these two, president Clinton worked to create a professional and competent FEMA, appointing James Witt, who had been the head of the emergency office for Arkansas during Clinton's time as governor. Under Witt's direction, FEMA changed from an agency that could "screw up a two-car parade" into a responsive and effective agency that earned accolades from state governors who used its services.
FEMA is an example of how a president who insists that "government cannot do anything" will produce agencies that really do nothing, while a president committed to effective government will produce agencies that can make a real difference.
I just heard Romney tell people at a campaign rally that they should consider giving to the Red Cross to help Sandy's victims. I guess all it will take for a complete recovery from Sandy is for the Koch Brothers and their allies in the .1% to run a multi-billion dollar ad campaign saying how much they care for those affected and hope they have a bright future.
Borrowing hundreds of billions to enrich arms dealers: Moral.
Helping Americans after a disaster: Immoral.
Why exactly do people want Romney?
"Why exactly do people want Romney?"
Because they are either as rotten as he is or wilfully delusional.
This was the point I was going to make, thanks for beating me to it John ;-). States are already broke.
When you put more programs on the backs of the states you either end up eliminating that program, raising taxes (but at the state level and not federal level which more often than not impacts the poorest and middle-class Americans most directly), or you immediately end up privatizing the program. Now that would be one thing if Romney were saying that he wanted to work better with states on how to manage the payment of money for natural disasters or how to better co-ordinate efforts to respond to those disasters. I'd actually be all for that: work on a state by state basis in tandem with the state legislature, governor, and with local municipalities hit by the natural disaster (local sheriffs departments, fire departments, etc) to achieve better success. We can always talk about how to better manage the relationship between state and federal government to make things better for everyone. Saying that you just cut the funding and leave the responsibility to the states, however, is a wildly irresponsible stance to take for anyone, let alone a president. This smacks of a person who does not fundamentally understand how or why federal programs like FEMA were initially established to begin with.
Really? I live in Massachusetts and a small tornado came through here last year or the year before and FEMA was out passing flyers when I think we only lost one or two houses. The damage was very minimal. I think you're exaggerating this just a smidge.
This demand of instantaneous federal aid isn't traditional. What? What does that sentence even mean? What does tradition have anything to do with whether or not federal assistance is needed for a natural disaster? If you mean that FEMA has no history helping the US then you're off....by about 60-70 years. And, on that note, you saying that FEMA is only famous because of Bush is also a gross exaggeration. FEMA responds to all local and national emergency situations and has for decades. Remember those huge earthquakes in California in the early 90's or how about the bombing that took place in Oklahoma? Or how about 9/11 or how about any of the other countless disasters in which FEMA helped to co-ordinate, fund, and respond to local efforts? I mean you're being so hyperbolic here it's just amazing and sad at the same time. Desperate much?
Actually this doesn't usually happen. After Hurricane Katrina unemployment jumped locally because the state outsourced all of it's construction jobs to private contractors who were then brought in from around the country and outside of the US (yes many were Visa immigrants, bum bum bum). The people who lived there who were financially capable of leaving fled New Orleans and those who were not now had lost their place of employment and their homes and all of their wealth because of the destruction. This is a completely baseless claim without any evidence to support it's merit whatsoever.
But even if we assume that you're correct- hell let's say unemployment falls 5% for a year after a hurricane- this is NOT a good thing. You would be rebuilding infrastructure and damages that already were existent. Not improving them or adding to them; you'd be replacing something that already existed. Do you understand the term "fiscal sanity?" The least fiscally sane thing you can do is spend thousands of dollars to replace your current equipment....with a piece of equipment that isn't better than what you had before. Replacing perfectly good infrastructure with re-construction (meaning the term literally here) doesn't improve the situation and ends up just wasting money. But even furthermore you do realize you'd be arguing a limited version of Keynesian economics here, yes? Please Shooter- we all know you're not happy with Romney, but this is beneath you in terms of crazy-fact-freeness
False premise and false dichotomy. Romney was NOT arguing that he wants to see the efforts of FEMA better orchestrated with that of state and local governments. No one would be questioning Romney if that were his response. Instead he was saying that it should be incumbent upon those governments to financially prepare for and repair afterwards the damages of a natural event like a hurricane. Where do the states get the personnel? They do not have that many people and anyone who is brought on has to be paid or reasonably insured. Where do the states get the funding for homes, schools, temporary living shelters, etc? And furthermore you talked about the private sector here: you do realize that private insurance companies will not take on the risk of hurricanes, floods, and the like unless they have some sort of government backing to provide for them a bottom line, yes? The state is supposed to do this? Give me a break. And what I love is that I clicked through your history and I see a comment made by you complaining that California is going bankrupt because it does not know how to spend money and is ran by liberals. So you've just stated that this government which you just derided as being incapable of spending money is now great at maintaining itself with no supervision over natural disasters. Yeah freaking right.
Awww how cuuuute. You took this off one of those granny sayings of the day calendars huh? I prefer Far Side calendars, but that's just me.
Thank you for all the clarification of what FEMA has learned and has accomplished. It seems that President Obama is aware of these facts, but the GOP candidate seems not to have a clue about what happens, what needs to be done, and how to accomplish that in a disaster. Save us from that!
Remember in 2011 when Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky were under water due to massive flooding, and Missouri and Alabama were devastated by a series of tornadoes, and how many of the citizens living in these areas were left standing on their rooftops for days begging for help while others perished needlessly in the streets because the Obama administration did not respond?
Me neither.
For those of us who still vividly remember Hurricane Katrina and the criminal indifference and failure of our government to respond for one, two, three days and counting, the change from the previous administration to the Obama administration couldn't be more clear.
There's something to be said for having a president and an administration that actually believes that government has a vital role in serving the public, rather than a president who subscribes to the notion that your'e on your own. And there's something to be said for competent leadership.
This is change. Good change. Change you can believe in kind of change.
Let's not also forget that after Katrina, when people were attempting to fend for themselves, or just looking to get on higher ground (Danzinger bridge), many people were shot and killed by police. Many of these deaths were also cleverly covered up, and only recently have some of those responsible been brought to justice BY THE FEDERAL COURTS.
Oh yes, should we also delegate this activity to the states, who at this time are bankrupt and swamped with the other tasks of getting the power and water grids up and running, maintaining the jails, repairing the levees, maintaning curfews while power is out, supplying emergency assistance, water, MREs, and ice, and properly researching and documenting deaths, shootings and lootings?
Any one who was working in Louisiana after Katrina, even two to three years after, could tell you that many of the reasons some of those who committed horrible atrocities against innocent civilians were brought to justice is due to those federal agents who came in and supplied assistance in numerous ways after the storm.
Let's not also forget the US Coast Guard was the first federal agency to respond to the disaster in New Orleans, rescuing more than 21,000 people who had been stranded. They did so without the help or direction of FEMA, but had FEMA been present they could've started operations as early as an hour after the storm hit. The US Navy also responded saving an additional 12,000 some lives and the US Army Corps of Engineers deployed a full detachment to the city to help with the immediate clean-up and then long-term reconstruction efforts.
I think people have a tendency to forget that these are all federal agencies- they are funded and controlled by the federal government and everyone hired is a federal employee.
q
But what would Bobby Jindal do? It seems he always has his hand out...
You think Louisiana would have had the money to pay for all the damage by Katrina and the oil spill? The federal government spent over a billion dollars on pumping stations...Where would that red neck stste come up with that kind of money. They do not like taxes...LOL
Easy, easy, now! Don't paint us all with the same brush!
This goes along with Eric Cantor and his saying that FEMA shouldn't come into Virginia during the last disaster.
Look at it this way. We'd dilute the red state vote. How many natural disasters do you get in America's heartland as opposed to the Gulf of Mexico?
What's 100% predictable here is that at some point after this storm hits the East Coast, but before it has yet subsided, Romney will call a press conference and make a bunch of noise about how absolutely horribly Obama has handled this disaster.
Probably some time Tuesday or Wednesday, while New Yorkers are still trying to figure out which way is up and people a bit to the west are still getting pummeled with rain.
Apparently, the Fox News website already has an op-ed up about Obama's failure in dealing with Hurricane Sandy.
My theory has long been that they make sure to criticize Obama for everything that Bush was ever criticized for (even if it makes no sense), in hopes that the next time there's a Republican president, the media will treat all legitimate criticisms as a "both sides do it" story. Sadly, I'm not sure they're wrong.
Well, if they're right, then let's get out ahead of this. Assuming Romney wins the election, "Romney and his administration are doing an absolutely deplorable, embarrassing job of handling (insert any of the disasters sure to happen from 2013-2017 here)."
So the gop's whole political philosophy is that we should have NO disaster relief , the dems disagree and make points about the policy differences , along with the history of gop failures that have resulted , and to that point you say , " both sides do it " ? .....
Next joke please
I think you misunderstood. They were saying "I'm not sure they're wrong" about how the media would respond.
Obama's Libya = Bush's 9/11
Obama's Oil Spill = Bush's Katrina
Obama's NDAA = Bush's Executive Orders Allowing Torture, Illegal Detention, the Capture and Killing of US Citizens w/o Trial
Obama's Captain Captured by Pirates = Bush's Jessica Lynch
And if there isn't a crazy equivalency to make, let's just blame Obama for the programs/policies/whatever that Bush started that nobody is happy with.
The wars and Iraq and Afghanistan? Naw those are Obama's fault.
The financial industry bailout? Obama!
Solyndra and the green energy program? Obama!
Fast and Furious? Obama!
But my favorite has to be their insistence on regurgitating previous liberal talking points and then re-engineering them to fit Obama, no matter how strange:
Wow
BushObama is sooo arrogant!BushObama doesn't spend any time in the oval office, all he does is go on vacation and golf!BushObama pretends he cares, but he doesn't really careLook at that obnoxious laugh of his, the smug way he always smirks while talking, and his
cowboy attitudethuglike behavior. ManBushObama is such a toolBushObama is a baby killer!!!BushObama added more to our debt than any other president in US history combined! (I love this one personally)BushObama will go down as the worst president in US history!Turns out this IS the twilight zone you were looking for =D
This storm will affect what, ten, twelve states. And the last thing you'd want is a coordinated response. Better to let them duplicate efforts, thereby driving up costs and decreasing available services. And if a Delaware or Rhode Island doesn't have enough resources for the equipment needed, well, they should have thought of that before they set up shop next to an ocean.
But never mind all that. Now is the time to criticize the feds for an ineffective response (Obama's Katrina!), criticize Obama for politicizing a tragedy, and to lament that this country needs real leadership (confident that no one will recall the utter absence of leadership provided by Team Bush in New Orleans).
Bush? Who is this Bush you speak of? There is no administration after Clinton and before Obama. It's a black hole of mystery.
Of course - it's the free market system at its best. Your state needs 100 emergency generators? 40 extra utility crews for the next 3 weeks? Clean up crews for 2 months? Construction crews for the next 2 years? No problem - highest bidder gets them! The other states will just have to wait.
I smell a new Bain investment coming...
Disaster strikes when folks can least support it,
The federal folks at FEMA would contend.
Romney feels federal funds can least afford it,
And thinks of FEMA, he should make an end.
He wants all private firms to make a profit,
Would send emergency services to the states.
Insurance comp'nies would make a killing off it,
While poorer folks eat scraps left on their plates.
Mitt Romney has no heart, no soul, no conscience -
He doesn't give a damn for those in need.
His rejection of their plight may be subconscious,
Or just the result of his unending greed.
The Right would let disasters do their will,
As long as THEY don't have to pay the bill...
(sarcasm alert!)
Right thinking men know that The Magic of the Marketplace is the answer to all problems! Just ask Ron Paul...or get a ouija board and ask Ayn Rand!
who(ayn rand) in a twist of fate or divine humor, ended up having to rely on social security and medicaid, as her health and income were depleted for the last 10-15 years of her life. where were all of her wealthy freinds, cohorts and followers in her time of need? on to the next one....
Given what Romney and Ryan believe should go back to the states, does anyone believe that states would have enough money to handle catastrophic events like tornadoes, hurricanes, etc? Private groups like the Red Cross would also be flooded (no pun intended!) with requests that they likely could not meet, either. The federal government is the logical choice for national help.
I agree, if it's a case by case basis, he and his cronies will be first on the list for government funded repairs. Nashville would still be under water under his plan.
Romney and his cronies wouldn't be after repairs for their own properties; I'm sure they have great insurance. They'd be after everyone else's properties, government development contracts for commercial interests (to the detriment of residents), privatization of schools, etc. I'll throw in another recommendation for The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.
—Mississippi Katrina survivor
Can you imagine the response to the BP oil spill without FEMA and the rest of the federal government? BP would have saved most of that $23 Billion they like to advertise about. No need for the advertisements at all, since it would have been a "local issue."
The GOP and it's corporate backers want to put all the power to the states--why? Because these huge corporations have so much economic pull that they can easily overwhelm state governments when it comes to regulations. Red states are "business friendly" already, and without Federal regs would be more so. That puts pressure on other states to court business by de-regulating as well. And the dominoes fall.
Whether it's worker's rights, or the environment, or banking oversight, the Federal government is necessary to keep big business in check. Which is why big business wants to decimate Federal power. It is not just about the amount of taxes they pay, it's about "starving the beast" as they call it.
Yes, this is EXACTLY the mission.
He's dreaming, I mean does he really think that if you went down the street and asked your neighbor Joe to come and help you out, he's gonna even answer his door. Joe has barricaded himself in his house, Noone of the neighbors have seen him for years. His plants are all dying. His children are carrying guns, he's not answering his door.He's on the horn with his Buddies who keep raising the price of his gas.
ahhh yes, but what would Romney's answer be today? Asked the same question; with Hurricane Sandy bearing down on so many, I'm sure he would say whatever those in the room wanted to hear. So I guess it would depend on who's askin'.
So the great and powerful Mitt would abort federal aid unless it was for one of the small multinational businesses he so longs to protect, like EXXON.
What scares me more than giving all that responsibility to the state and local governments is the idea of private industry taking over the damage cleanup. Who would pay these "entrepreneurs" to fix up the roads and bridges and handle the grid problems? The rich, of course, but what about the poor who cannot pay? "Those people" will be ignored, except by overworked and underfunded charities and by neighbors who care, but those charities can only go so far. I'm tired of all this anti-government talk. The federal government is the best source for this kind of help.
The idea of turning it all over to private business is absurd. Private companies will not repair roads, bridges, etc without compensation, and it's downright insane to expect them to do so. This is a role for government whether it's state or federal (and those who point out states will not be able to fund the process are exactly right).
Romney and the extreme right know better; they just have no qualms about lying to the American people. Whether it's direct government assistance or government money is filtered through a private company, it amounts to the same thing. It's still government funded!
This is exactly the case with the cuts to the defense budget they're all whining about. Many private corporations depend upon government contracts for their profit margin. Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, Halliburton, are all examples of those who survive off of government, yet Republicans would have you believe it's different.
The really scary thing is the number of people who accept this BS without ever thinking about it!
"The really scary thing is the number of people who accept this BS without ever thinking about it!"
Ideologican Soundness/Theological Correctness removes any need to think. :-/
I think that it will be interesting to see the response that team Obama has to any disaster relief efforts ... comparing that to the lack of response from Bush. The promises were many, but the lack of actual effort showed true lack of integrity..... not good.
Q: How can you tell a Republican idea is stupid?
A: Hey, it's a Republican idea isn't it? That's what they do!
Motherfrakking morons.
Republicans have ideas?
Let's see what tune he's singing by Thursday, after a record-breaking storm wreaks havoc on much of the East Coast. Hint: do the words "flip flop" mean anything to you?
Obama better put this in a commercial!!!
Romney thinks that it's even better anytime you can transfer responsibility from government to the private sector? I wonder if he'd like to live in a state where disaster relief was run by ENRON?
If FEMA is de-funded, and disaster infrastructure rebuilding is left to local government, the states and towns will need to get the money to do it themselves, from somewhere. Where does Mittens think it will come from? He just tells his audience what he thinks they want to hear, and nobody's thinking about the rest of the story. It's very tough for me to fathom the stupidity of people actually supporting this idiot.
Yeah baby! Let each state pay for it's own highways, or better yet set up toll booths on it's borders and charge/gouge the foreigners from other states,, ahh let's just privatize the roads and pay tolls every time we cross a bridge..
Water treatment for water leaving the state, oh hell no, dam the water and charge the downstream states. Let's privatize all the resources and get rid of state governments too.
Colorado will be the king state!! We have the fresh water, the cantalope, and and the molybdemum,,, and since our rich owners will be richer than your rich owners we will have the best housing and stuff.
And best of all there will be no more education so we won't have to spel stuff correctly!!! Yah Yah Yeah!!!
Yes, that's what I was thinking. Why do we even need states? Let's have each state become its own country. Fiefdoms, warlords, city-states ---- hey, just like the good ol' days!
Backwards into a new day!
Romney should be here in NYC today talking about his plans for FEMA instead of campaigning elsewhere.
I'm with Mitt on this one. And not just FEMA, also D.O.D.
"Defense"? When was the last time the United States was attacked? 1812, I believe. (Hawaii 1941 don't count, it was a Territory, like most of the West, when the Apaches "attacked".)
So, here I been, payin' my taxes all these years, and a lot of it is spent on "defense." How 'bout turning that back to the states, Mitt? We can go all Tea Party and Minute Man, and have our State Militias again, like before government ran amuck.
I got a gun, and a box of bullets. So, can I have my money back?
Does the Romney campaign want to keep ANYTHING that would help people?
Cut education, cut FEMA, cut PBS, cut food stamps, wreck medicare...
Of course he wants to help... corporations. Corporations are people, my friend...
First, we should discount most of everything Romney says. Anyone who has all the answers usually has none. It doesn't matter what he is asked he always has the answer. He always wants to turn things over to private enterprise. I think that is good in a lot of cases, but private enterprise is not always the answer. For example, fire departments were once private. That didn't work out too well. I can't see a private company set up just to handle weather disasters that don't occur enough to keep a company in business. Who could afford to pay them. Hurricanes always attract a lot of attention, but there are more tornado's each year than there are hurricanes that hit the US. Two years in a row there were major tornado's that devastated the Joplin, Mo area. I think Romney is foolish to talk about doing away with FEMA. Most republicans want the government to go away until they need it. Then they come running and wanting help. Bush II wanted to keep the size of government down and he contracted a lot of government services, that didn't get a lot of attention and it wasn't very effective. Romney wants to increase funding for the military industrial complex, which already take a disproportionate share of the federal budget. Romney and others keep talking about entitlements as being the root cause of the federal deficit. First they shouldn't be called entitlements,because that has a perjorative meaning. Social Security is not an entitlement it is a contract between payers and the SSA. Social Security and Medicare are fully funded with a surplus that goes to the treasury as a loan. SS and Medicare are not the cause of the deficit. I believe that people should take care of themselves, but there are things that are taken care of collectively such as natural and man made disasters. I just hope that people will listen to all the lies Romney tells and say he's not for me. As the President said "vote, don't boo".
I am terrified that there are so many of our citizens with diminished capacity to make a valid decision and that what extra votes Romney will manage to intimidate, coerce and just plain steal to put him in office.
However, when they come to mess with my Social Security and Medicare, I will file a class action law suit for breach of contract for Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan and the congress men and women who voted it through, personally. I won't sue the government as it only does what it is told to do. I mean I will sue Mr. Romney, Mr. Ryan individually.
It has already been put out that the Republicans have managed to skim Democratic votes to the Republicans with their machines in the 2000, 2006 and the Republican primaries (from his opponents). If Romney is elected I expect a fire storm of protests. I wonder if they are aware that most citizens knew that Dub stole Florida and I think they will not tolerate another Republican stolen election.
At least I hope we don't.
Keep the government's hand off my medicare!! Duplicitous dogmatic thinly veneered theocratic PRIVATE militias shall rule again! He who has the most guns wins!!!
The first job of the Federal Government is the protection of its citizens, PERIOD. To put this burden on the States is the first step toward a dangerous reinterpretation of our Constitution. This would mean that States like California and Florida would almost surely have to raise taxes to ridiculous levels in order to cover natural disasters as well as man made ones. Do they want everyone to move to the Kansas or Nebraska prairies? Because that's exactly what would happen if the States took over the role of protecting their citizens. I guess Mitt's forgotten all about why we got rid of The Articles Of Confederation, huh?
Omaha, the New Boca Raton?