» News
Yes, We Should Cut FEMA
There are some things in politics that are as predictable as the changing seasons. When there is a high-profile act of violence involving a firearm, the ghouls at the Brady Center and their allies issue press releases while the blood is still hot on the ground, blaming the crime on the failure of Congress to comply with their policy preferences. When there is a natural disaster, Democrats are front and center, before the flood waters even have crested, with reminders that Republicans — wicked, evil Republicans — would cut FEMA funding if left to their own devices.
The storm is coming. But Matt Yglesias is coming first: “Romney wants to cut FEMA.”
Whenever there’s a major natural disaster, the federal government steps in to help. But that wouldn’t necessarily be the case if Mitt Romney got his way. During a 2011 GOP primary debate he said it was “immoral” for the federal government to be spending money on disaster relief when it should be focused on deficit reduction.
. . . 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.
Romney did not present disaster relief vs. deficit reduction as an either/or proposition. Like most Republicans, he has argued that we might have more effective disaster relief if we moved some larger part of the responsibility to the state and local levels, and into the private sector. To put the issue in a less boneheadedly simplistic fashion, the question is not whether we: A. spend money on disaster relief or B. reduce the deficit. Rather, the questions are: Given our tenuous fiscal position, is it possible that we are spending too much money on FEMA and related programs? Is that spending maximally effective? Might we be better off decentralizing these efforts?
Yglesias, like many of his like-minded compatriots, presents these arguments as though they were all-or-nothing propositions. This is strange, inasmuch as they pretty clearly recognize the merits of such inquiry when coming from their own side: There are many people who believe that we spend far too much money on national security (I am among them), but only the most gap-toothed among us equate asking uncomfortable questions about military-spending priorities with abandoning national security categorically. Sometimes it makes sense to ask whether the federal government should be doing this at all. Very often it makes sense to ask, as one expects a Romney administration would, whether the federal government is going about this the right way.
BILL
October 31st, 2012
yes, you could eliminate the whole federal government and everyone would be better off.
its amazing how personal freedom and the personal responsibility that goes with it scares all these macho men reporters into supporting big nanny state government so they won’t ever have to actually lift one of their own uncalloused, hairy palmed fingers to help one of their fellow citizens they claim to care about so much.
Jo
October 31st, 2012
I volunteer at a “crisis” center funded by our local churches and once a year we receive a substantial amount in FEMA dollars for people to pay over due rent!!!!! some folks are “in crisis” for years!!!!
Mrs Compton
October 31st, 2012
We had to rebuild our house after the Northridge earthquake. Luckily we paid the pittance for earthquake insurance. We were very thankful for FEMA to come up with our deductible since that was very expensive. We rebuilt our house just as it was. But we watched our neighbors rebuild mini mansions through gaming the system. If you found a contractor that would pad your estimate you could build the house of your dreams. It just sickened me to see that happening. And our contractor was hinting as us to do the same.
Just as with any other federal handout the room for fraud is great. Keeping it at a local level might limit this, but the people who will take advantage will always seem to find a way.
Mrs Compton
October 31st, 2012
Forgot to add, FEMA was paid back in total by us. In some other disasters I’ve heard that after a few years they forgive the loans. That I feel is wrong, it’s a loan that should never be forgiven. The taxpayers should get their money back.
mossberg12gal
October 31st, 2012
Very much in favor of the feds to stop stockpiling supplies in case of emergency, when companies are ready, willing and able to supply whatever is needed, wherever it’s needed, on a Just-In-Time basis, already under contract with GSA. This redundancy of effort is wasting taxpayer $$$. We need to let business do what business does best!
Maudie N Mandeville
October 31st, 2012
FEMA? – birth control.
FEMA? – birth control.