Axe FEMA, Romney Says — as Sandy Looms

Rather inconvenient timing on his part, wouldn't you say?

As a rather large storm looms, Romney is standing by his comments from 2 years ago, which include cutting disaster relief in order to cut the deficit.

He may have a point, but is the timing, with 8 days until the election, good timing?

I think not. Clearly there are going to be folks who need FEMA, and talk of cutting it does not seem like a wise way to get elected.

Now in my own opinion, when a disaster is going to cover multiple states, why not have one concerted effort to take care of the damage, to provide a bit of relief, rather than multiple efforts with different criteria and a different allotment? Doesn't it make sense to have just one?

Anyway, just interesting considering the timing.

http://www.care2.com/causes/axe-fema-romney-says-as-sandy-looms.html




Hurricane Sandy threatens to be one of the most devastating storms ever to strike the United States. But if Mitt Romney were president, disaster relief would be up to the states.

Stands behind “disband FEMA” comment
The Romney campaign said early Monday morning that Romney stood behind a statement first made during a 2011 Republican debate, in which Romney said that the Federal Emergency Management Agency should be disbanded, and its powers either privatized or given to the states.

“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,” said Romney in 2011. Asked by debate moderator John King if that included cutting disaster relief, Romney said, “We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids.”

Given the chance to back away from the statement, the Romney campaign instead told the Huffington Post that Romney meant what he said.

“Gov. Romney wants to ensure states, who are the first responders and are in the best position to aid impacted individuals and communities, have the resources and assistance they need to cope with natural disasters,” the campaign said.



Romney’s paean to states’ rights ignores the very important role of FEMA in coordinating disaster relief in events that transcend state boundaries. Hurricane Sandy is expected to impact fourteen states and the District of Columbia; its impact stretches from Maine to North Carolina, and from West Virginia to Massachusetts.

Furthermore, FEMA manages disasters on scales beyond the capacity of states to manage them. Hurricane Katrina did over $100 billion in damage to Louisiana in 2005. The entire annual budget for the state is about $25 billion. Simply, states that are hit by devastating natural disasters are usually in no position to manage the crisis by themselves.

As for Romney’s suggestion that disaster relief could be privatized, it’s almost impossible to conceive of a way that would be possible. Disasters generally require a huge outlay of funds to help wounded communities get back on their feet. Some of that is covered by private insurance, but much of it is not — especially the immediate response to the crisis.

Republicans Have Targeted Disaster Aid Before

It’s not surprising that Romney has opposed federal spending on disaster aid. His running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has proposed a budget that would require drastic cuts to federal aid programs, including FEMA.

Ryan is not alone. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., initially argued that disaster aid in the wake of Hurricane Irene should be offset by spending cuts, though he was later forced to walk that back after public outrage. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has also called for the elimination of FEMA.

The targeting of disaster aid is part and parcel of the current Republican mentality. More and more, the Republican party is pushing a worldview that says, in effect, that we’re all on our own. In times of crisis, if you can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps then you’ll just have to stay down on the ground.

FEMA has an imperfect track record, of course — its response to Hurricane Katrina was woefully inadequate. That error, though, was not one of doing too much, but doing too little. Under the Obama administration, FEMA has generally earned plaudits, especially for its response to an outbreak of tornadoes in the south and midwest. When supported adequately, FEMA has been a vital and valuable agency that has provided aid to states in the wake of disasters across the country.

In many ways, Mitt Romney’s opposition to federal disaster relief programs is what the election is about. President Barack Obama supports using government to help those in a crisis get back on their feet. Mitt Romney believes that government has no role in helping people who are dealing with disaster. Those two very different views of America’s future are on the ballot next week.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/axe-fema-romney-says-as-sandy-looms.html#ixzz2Ahv5zIUo

 

This election is not about FEMA. It's about ending a social justice experiment gone awry. Simple, really.

 

Perhaps to you, but I bet there are some to whom this issue is important, namely those affect by this storm to the point where the need for FEMA relief is very real.

Now I daresay the Governor Romney's words are coming back to bite him in the ass with some very inconvenient timing.

 

We are going to have to cut every area of government in order to balance the budget.

I guess Romney could treat the voters like little children and promise them everything they asked Santa Claus to bring them but just like Obama he could not deliver without increasing the deficit.

 

Of all the areas that could potentially be cut, disaster relief is at the very, very bottom of the list. When one part of the country is decimated by a disaster it negitively effects the entire country/

 

Now matter how hard libs try they can't put everything at the bottom of the list.

Sooner or later you will have to cut something or we will wind up like Greece.

 

Privatize disaster relief??? Is Romney out of his mind?

 

Everything but defense amirite?

So you don't think disaster relief is incredibly important? should we just abandon entire cities or what?

 

I love people who make the comparison between the United States and countries like Greece. Shows a vast level of ignorance about what is happening in Europe, Greece, and the United States.

 

FEMA has been cut $917 billion over 10 years. Now I daresay they have taken a big hit. Couple that with the automatic cuts if we go into a sequester I would say FEMA has been slashed pretty good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ses-nearly-900-million-if-sequester-cuts-hit/

 

I think defense should be cut also.

But no more than any other department of government.

 

If he promises to axe the DHS along with it I'll vote for him.

 

Use ancient Rome then if you prefer.

No great country is immune from the consequences of its own failures.

Libs are living in a dream world by thinking that the borrow and spend party can last forever.

 

This is why Bush created DHS, so they can better address problems like this storm is going to cause. FEMA is under the umbrella of DHS so they now have better communication with other agencies and hopefully more support so we don't end up with another Katrina type of event.

FEMA is not being run well, purchasing 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets as an example, but having a national disaster relief system in place is vital for the Nation. Romney is just wrong on this one.

 

What you and the libs at the WS post mean is that the projected rate of increase was less than expected and you count that as a cut.

 

Living in North Carolina I say FEMA should be torn apart and restructured. It should be the logistics agent of the federal government in cases of multi state disaster and/or cases of extreme catastrophic disaster in limited impact areas. FEMA as it has been should GO. It is abused, too big and sloppy.

 

I agree, let the states handle it and then help and back them up when necessary.

 

Nothing is gonna bite Romney in the ass, not at this point - not even if Obama commands hurricane to turn back, and it obeys...

 

Which is a point, but what about disasters that go across state lines? Flooding going across state line. Power lines. Freight routes.

Wouldn't it make more sense for one agency to take care of it rather than multiple agencies having the extra burden of not only taking care of whatever needs to be taken care of but coordinating with agencies form other states?

 

this is just another case of "I don't want <gov. program>", until they need it, then the blame game starts when something bad happens.

 

States can and do already work together. Its not like some big super mystery, we are all Americans, we have brains, we can and know how to work together.

 

I agree with him 100%. FEMA is really a joke. For responders and utility companies they are more of a hinder then they are of any good. Monkeys at a zoo could run FEMA better then what they are doing now.

 

States simply do not have enough resources to handle everything on their own. This is also one of the federal government responsibilities to the US.

 

I've just visited Greece, and guess what? Greek people looks remarkably like we Americans do - 2 legs, 2 hands... (*)(*)(*)(*) for brains, but otherwise, a lot of similarities

 

Well, my point clearly was that you would have states expending time, money, and resources to having to deal with other states, rather than a single agency taking care of it all. Seems to me that the most logical would be the one with the least overhead.