Published: Tuesday, Oct. 30 2012 3:00 p.m. MDT
"States are closer, better placed, better motivated, and perfectly capable,
particularly with in-place or planned regional and interstate support
agreements, to handle disasters as they occur. Federal involvement seldom
extends beyond political photo-ops and money."You'd better
check with Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey on that point. His praise for
FEMA and specifically for Obama's leadership during this crisis has been
nothing short of effusive.The idea that the Hurricane Sandy
disaster, which profoundly effects our nation as whole, should only be handled
by a bunch of state agencies acting independently is just plain absurd.
Romney said last year he'd get rid of FEMA.Today he didn't.Ironically -- The Deseret News posts another letter to the editor
today that Mitt Romney is not a lying Flip-Flopper.Who's
"Politicizing a disaster like superstorm Sandy borders on obscene".I agree. Funny that the first picture I saw when I opened deseretnews
dot com this morning was Mitt Romney stuffing cans of food into sacks presumably
for victims of superstorm Sandy.
At a time like this, which experience is better?The former
Commmunity Organizer?orA Vulture Capitalist?BTW - What
is Romney doing stuffing bags with canned goods for the cameras?He has
Hundreds of MILLIONS $$$ in Cayman and Swiss bank accounts.He'd
do more by simplying writing a check to the "little" people at FEMA.Just wants to keep his $$$ for himself, and take advantage for a photo-op.
"Unfortunately, runaway federal spending on entitlements threatens to
hamstring the nation's ability to respond to disasters as deficits grow and
the ability to borrow is compromised."The last time the total
federal debt went down instead of up (year over year) was 1957 (check out
TreasuryDirect.gov for a list of the federal debt from 1791 to today). You have
a long list of presidents and politicians to blame for the current federal
"We have seen that type of disaster response often here in Utah, when
floods, high winds and other problems have prompted impressive responses from
churches and local governments."Utah has done an impressive job
of coming together when emergencies hit. But Utah has never seen anything near
the scale of what has happened on the east coast. For starters "Early
Wednesday, at least 6.2 million electric customers across the Eastern United
States were still in the dark." (reported by CNN this morning). That is 2.2
times more people without power than live in all of Utah (2011 population
estimate for Utah is 2.8M). Please don't even hint that Utah has managed
to get by just fine by itself when dealing with a problem of the same magnitude,
because Utah has never seen problems of that scale.
This is a sad editorial. The idea that the NY Times editorial was improperly
politicizing this disaster is absurd. Are we supposed to simply watch silently
as proof of the inadvisability of Gov. Romney's privatization schemes are
played out before our very eyes? Is it verboten to point out the folly of
eliminating FEMA? Because that is exactly what Gov. Romney, pre-etch-a-sketch,
said we ought to do! I recognize that the Deseret News is in the
tank for Mitt Romney. But it is clear that my co-religionists have been blinded
by Republican ideology generally and by the opportunistic deceit of Mitt Romney
generally. It is President Obama, not Mitt Romney, who represents the moral
values and integrity of the restored gospel.
OK. I understand the rules now.Politicizing a hurricane, bad.Politicizing a terrorist attack in Libya, good.
The news editor of the DesNews must be having a difficult time covering the
massive storm currently devastating the East Coast. Although there is need to
cover the storm and the president's involvement, there is also the
interests of the DesNews to support Mit Romney. Story selection and how the
stories are presented apparently are affected by this conflict of interest.
Favorable coverage of the president's involvement works contrary to
interests of the Romney campaign. It's a tough spot to be in.
I am still trying to figure out what is so wrong with getting rid of FEMA, and
pushing that responsibility to the states?Think about it. If a
disaster was to occur in Utah, who knows better what resources are available and
how to get people organized, Utah or the Federal Government?All
along the East Coast, who knows better what areas are more prone to damage, the
state governments, or the feds?Romney's statements do not
indicate a flip flop as so many liberals claim. He recognizes that the states
currently do not have state agencies set up to do what FEMA does. You
can't just cut off the system without weaning the states from it. No
mental gymnastics needed, just logic and common sense. The mental gymnastics
can be saved for filling out government forms for help.
RedShirt USS Enterprise, UTAs always, it depends upon the extent of
damage. Perhaps you might look at Chris Christie of New Jersey and ask him your
question. I sure he would provide you with a lucid, well-reasoned answer.When the tsunami hit Japan, local authorities realized that the extent
of damage was far beyond their emergency response efforts. Similarly, a
devastating event in Utah would quickly overwhelm the resources of both local
and state agencies. The key words here are "extent of damage" and
Wait a minute...Didn't UTAH just get FEMA assistance for the
"wind storm" last December?Didn't UTAH just declare and
recieve FEMA for assistance for "the Laub dam" break just last month in
St. George?Oh, but now this about a Democratic President, and
New England which is primarily a Democratic stronghold -- so NOW it's bad,
and NOW it's politicisizing.
Re: "The idea that the Hurricane Sandy disaster . . . should only be handled
by a bunch of state agencies acting independently is just plain absurd."Yeah -- that's the leftist party line, alright.But,
it's not reality.The largest American disasters ever, were
"only" handled, and handled quite well, by local public and private
entities -- often with financial help from Washington, of course -- but with no
expectation that federal aid would devolve into federal control and
responsibility.But, today, local responsibility has been ceded or
abandoned to bureaucrats in a bloated, distant federal agency. As a result, a
Category 1 hurricane that won't even make the top 50 American disasters,
inexplicably becomes cause for national debate over whether "big storms
require big government."That's the very definition of
politicizing disasters.The idea of local control and local action is
not only NOT absurd, it's the very basis of active, efficient, effectual
aid.The American model of disaster response must be the Teton Dam
collapse, NOT the FEMA-induced political collapse of New Orleans.
So what I'm hearing from these comments all points to the ineptitude of
FEMA. But all of the examples are during the Bush administration. Does that mean
FEMA isn't good, or does it mean GWB hired the wrong person to head FEMA
and did a poor job managing the disaster? Just because republicans do a terrible
job running the government doesn't make the government bad. It makes the
republicans bad at their job.
To "Ying Fah" yes look at that disaster. Who understood the areas best
that were hit with the tsunami? Do the politicians in Tokyo understand the
people in the effected areas best, or do the mayors and provincial officials
understand what is needed? They may ask the central government for specific
help, but overall the locals understand their situation better than anybody
else.To "LDS Liberal" you realize that the "help"
that Utah got was primarily loan guarantees and some funding. It was still the
locals that directed the efforts. Who organized the massive cleanup efforts,
was it FEMA or local leaders?
VST's thinking points up the foolishness of thinking any state can go it
alone when disaster strikes.I think what is missed here is the
impacted area here is a stretch that if it were laid over Utah would go from
Pheonix to Yellowstone part, that the number of people where they eye hit that
have been directly impacted is two times the total polation of Utah, and the
total number of people in the storms hit area is 20 times the population of
Utah. Or lets put it this way, the total GDP of Utah is 10 Billion LESS than
the anticipated fiscal impact of this story. Or how about this.
Utah's National Guerd budget for 2013 is $36 million, of which $30 million
comes from the feds. So Utah contrabution is only a little more than $5 million.
Utah total state budget is $2 billion. Sandy's cleanup cost is estimated
at $50 Billion. How in the world would a state manage something like this, less
along the coordination of efforts across multiple state lines. It makes no
sense what so ever..... but hey, lets hand it to corporations to profit over
evnets like this.
The Romney campaign hastily transformed a scheduled victory rally in Dayton,
Ohio into a non-political “storm relief event” on Tuesday. The
campaign encouraged supporters to bring hurricane relief supplies and
“deliver the bags of canned goods, packages of diapers, and cases of water
bottles to the candidate, who would be perched behind a table along with a slew
of volunteers and his Ohio right-hand man, Senator Rob Portman.” Romney campaign aides reportedly spent $5,000 at a local Wal-Mart on supplies
that could be put on display. When supporters arrived at the rally-turned-relief
event, they were treated to the 10-minute video about Romney’s life, which
was first unveiled at the RNC. The event ended with supporters lined up to hand
over supplies and meet Romney. The donation process was also staged:
Empty-handed supporters pled for entrance, with one woman asking, “What
if we dropped off our donations up front?” The volunteer
gestured toward a pile of groceries conveniently stacked near the candidate.
“Just grab something,” he said.
"The idea of local control and local action is not only NOT absurd,
it's the very basis of active, efficient, effectual aid." Which exactly
the mission of FEMA: to support the local Governor who remains in charge.
Sheesh. Do some research.
Disaster relief is allready handled at the state level. The generally start that
"handling" with a call for help.Then FEMA comes in and helps
the govenor of the state that is "handling" the problem, usually
overwhelmed and facing huge tax shortfalls due to the lax of business tax
revenues. Leaving states on thier own is a terrible idea. If
anything they should pay a FEMA tax for living in a high risk area but it's
conservatives that stop that kind of responsibility.
Re: "Sheesh. Do some research."I did. Therein lies the
problem.FEMA's budget is $13.5B plus. It has more than 10K
employees.That's a $13.5B and 10K-person drain on money and
resources available to respond to disasters, and merely duplicates efforts and
resources available at state, county, and municipality emergency action
centers.It could be more aptly named the Department of Redundancy
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments