The President should have just—he could have just made a comment while he was in Florida that says, “you know my FEMA director is on top of this and we’re gonna do everything we can when the states ask us to come in and help.” Boom. …
He would have been better served politically to let everybody else—Bloomberg, Christie, Cuomo, O’Donnell [sic] – all of them make whatever statements they were going to make. Call for their evacuations. And then he could have stepped up, very presidentially, and said “And by the way, I have instructed my FEMA director to give the states whatever they need as the storm approaches.” I think he would have gotten more mileage out of it. In other words, he peaked too soon.
So wait, what’s wrong with trying to help people proactively instead of looking for opportunities to gain political mileage?
I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters. As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters.Mitt Romney • In a statement released by his campaign on Wednesday, pushing back against claims that he would eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency should he win the presidency next week. Romney has been put on the defensive recently, thanks to comments he made regarding the agency’s future should he become President during a debate last June. “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,” Romney told debate moderator John King, adding, “And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.”
The tough FEMA question to ask before the election: Who pays?
Back in 2011, during a debate moderated by CNN’s John King weeks after the Joplin, Missouri tornado, Mitt Romney said this about disaster relief funding: “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.” (His office released a statement backing off this stance, saying he would give the funding to the states.)
His running mate, Paul Ryan, had this line in his budget plan: “The disaster declaration is intended as a process to help state and local governments receive federal assistance when the severity and magnitude of the disaster exceeds state and local resources, and when federal assistance is absolutely necessary. When disaster-relief decisions are not made judiciously, limited resources are diverted away from communities that are truly in need.”
And here’s what we’re currently facing: A fiscal cliff that’s going to force someone’s hand, because FEMA’s set to get a $878 million haircut if we don’t find a way to get away from that cliff, according to Wonkblog. And that’s on top of limits placed on funding by the debt-ceiling deal. The need for disaster relief isn’t going down; in fact, there has been more usage of federal relief than ever under the Obama administration, according to the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, which says it’s been on the rise since the Clinton years. (Though, as any fool with a TV set and an internet connection could tell you, 2011 was a rough year for devastating storms.)
Here’s the problem we face as a country — nobody wants to see people in trouble who aren’t getting help. And the best-laid plans and most careful consideration ultimately fly out the window when the problem is IMBY (which, being a DC resident, it kinda is right now). With a hurricane within shouting distance of the country’s most-populated corridor, Romney and Ryan’s tough talk won’t sound so tough on this topic right now, especially so close to the election. But we don’t have a lot of time to consider what we have in front of us. So, the question we gotta ask is: When it comes down to it, who will best fund disaster response in a way that’s effective and efficient, which won’t fall down on the job?
— Ernie @ ShortFormBlog
What do you guys think?
The guy’s acting like he’s having a hard time standing up, and you see people just strolling along behind him. I thought, what a great contrast. Why didn’t he just stand up and say, ‘We were very lucky’?Former FEMA head Michael “heckuva job Brownie” Brown • Somehow turning media critic after Hurricane Irene (in ripping CNN for their coverage of the storm). Hey, Michael, no offense, but you’re the last person that should talk here. Glad to see that the crisis was weak enough that you can rip the media for the coverage. You and Ray Nagin should probably keep your media commentator cards to yourselves. source (via • follow)
Any projects that have not come in for approval, we’re not going to be able to fund those as this point. We’re going to postpone those. Our goal is to keep this disruption as short as possible, but it was prudent.FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate • Describing the reasons that FEMA is putting their long-term work to repair Joplin, Mo. on hold, and instead putting that money towards Hurricane Irene. Another issue arising in the Hurricane Irene situation? They might run into yet another wall of House Republican suck. That’s because House Majority Leader Eric Cantor makes no guarantees about funding Irene cleanup unless there are budget cuts to match, which is a real jerk move which shows how out-of-touch with reality that the GOP is. Now, granted, Ron Paul pitches ideas like these all the time. But when the GOP leadership continues to do so without regard to the current situation at hand, it makes you you want to vote all the bums out en masse next year. source (via • follow)
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
