Politics Who's Gonna Win?

Is being against inefficiency your concern? It is Romney's, it is mine. Just because there are better ways to provide disaster relief than FEMA does not mean one is against disaster relief!

After 4 years of the twisted logic used similar to yours to support a political agenda is going to be the primary reason President Obama will not be re-elected, it is the reason Democrats lost the House and it is the reason Democrats may loose the Senate. People are tired of these false bogyman arguments. Have a legitimate discussion about the best delivery system for disaster relief, including how to budget/pay for it. I am looking forward to grown-ups being in control in D.C.

 

Ace, did you read the link? Where does the inefficiency argument come in?

 

I hadn't read it at the time I made my post, but I have now. Ryan's proposal has to do with how to budget/pay for federal funding of disaster relief. this is a legitimate topic of discussion and some methods are going to be better than others. Having a plan to pay is better than having no plan. the reality is that there is a limit to what the federal government can do.

In the context of efficiency, it is clear that if costs are hidden or paid for by someone else, decisions are altered. For example if the cost to live on the coast is actually realized by those who live there, they may move a bit more inland and not incur those costs. Or, if I live near a river that floods about every ten years, and you pay for my damages, I would never move. Would you move if I paid your costs?

 

Yes, there is. It is then a matter of priorities. The question is whether funding disaster relief is a priority. As it happens, the republicans in congress thought it was.

The rest of your post is not really relevant. I would expect a lot of the loss to be covered by insurance, with premiums higher in risky areas. However, this does not remove the need for immediate disaster relief, in my opinion.

 

The reason we have a supplemental/emergency appropriations process is to respond with necessary funds in TIMES OF EMERGENCY....when waiting for Congress to debate offsets could likely results in loss of lives. (BTW, the emergency appropriations process was not intented to fund wars, in the manner of the Bush admin for six year.)

In the last six years, four out of five americans have been impacted by weather related disasters:



We're not talking about a flood insurance program, ace. The issue is having the capacity to respond to a natural or weather-related disaster. Most states do not have the full capacity to fund resources, equipment, systems, experienced and trained personnel that they may rarely need or use. It would be inefficient to do otherwise.

Whereas having a federal supply of resources, equipment, personnel, etc to be spread among the states when needed is far more efficient.

The role of FEMA is to assist the states in emergency mitigation and response.....to save lives and to help those who have been temporarily impacted!

Something that the federal government has done for 200 years by act of Congress, with bi-partisan support until today's extremist Republicans decided it was solely a state function.
--- merged: Oct 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM ---
And which Romney now supports after suggesting thatg FEMA was not necessary earlier this year.

 

Yeah. But will he support it in a few months? Who can tell? I'm not sure even he knows.

 

This is wrong. The question is - what is the best way to fund and relief disaster relief? If your answer is FEMA we disagree.

 

This is wrong. The questions are (1) whether FEMA should be funded and have a role in disaster response and (2) whether federal emergency response funds should be offset while in the midst of the emergency.

 

I have no objection to Federal government involvement in disaster relief, either on our shores or over seas. I have no objection to tax dollars allocated and going for that purpose. My interest here is in how it is being done.
--- merged: Oct 29, 2012 at 8:21 PM ---

Why does it have to be FEMA?

I experienced the 1994 Northridge CA., earthquake first hand. FEMA was involved, I experienced what they did and how they did it first hand. It could have been handled better.

Do you know the percentage of fraud involved with FEMA activities? Any interest in fixing it?

 

Ace....now you are really reaching!

I really dont think you know how FEMA works or what it does.

FEMA only becomes involved in a response under two conditions:
1) a governor asks the president to declare a natural disaster and provide federal assistance becauce the state does not have the capacity to handle it. And even then, in most cases (in the map above), FEMA is not involved, but federal resources/equipment and/or financial assistance is provided.

2) a disaster is so widespread over many states that it requires a national response.

As to FEMA's role, it is to coordinate the federal response, which might involve numerous federal agencies (from the Coast Guard to HUD). Would you not agree that is is more efficient to have one federal command and control center in a major disaster?

The fraud question is not worth a response, unless you think fraud is limited to a federal agency and not state agencies.

 

Can you provide a workable scenario for state or privately run disaster relief?

How would a private company profit from providing disaster relief services? Who would be paying them for their services?

Can states afford to take on the task themselves or outsource it to private companies? Will states have to raise taxes?

If you receive a $1000 tax bill from the state you live in, are you somehow paying less than you do getting a $1000 tax bill from the IRS?

What happens to those states that can't afford to take on this and other proposed responsibilities? Do they simply not offer them? Who picks up the tab when states can no longer operate within a budget because the Federal government has "sent them back" everything it once did?

Why exactly is taking something from the federal government and sending it to the states a move in the right direction? Who benefits?

Republican theories are flimsy on the surface. Shake them up and watch them crumble.

Can someone please tell Mitt Romney that he can't make comments like he has below and continue to have folks believe he's on the moral side of children and their future.

 

I pay $600/year to Allstate for my home owner's insurance. I'm sure they could tack on another $300 or so a year if I wanted disaster relief service from them. There is the 'Public Option' that is the Red Cross and local churches too.

It isn't that crazy. It just needs to be explained better. I don't know all of the details and how they could make it work.

 

You're confusing preparedness, response and initial recovery efforts with disaster relief and assistance.

And the fact is that most states make budget choices that leave them unprepared for the worst (the hurricane, tornado, earthquake of the century) or even near worst or worst than average disaster scenarios....and they are not wrong in doing so, given budget limitations.

The federal government makes the difference with resources that can be allocated anywhere with short notice.

To suggest that disaster planning, mitigation and response is solely a state (or private/NGO) function would like result in far greater death and destruction.

 

There are (at least) two quite separate questions around how to manage disaster relief. One is about who should provide it and the other is about who should pay for it (and how much).

To respond effectively, it is important to be prepared. In the event of a major disaster, local resources are likely to have been overwhelmed. Medical help, short-term housing, food etc. will all be needed. Once the immediate issues are dealt with, there will be a major clear-up operation. If this is all going to happen effectively and efficiently, the level of preparation will be key. That means having databases of available resources, trained people, good risk analysis, solid communications infrastructures and a working team ready to handle the crisis. With every disaster, the team(s) involved will gain experience and learn lessons that will help towards a better response when the next one hits.

When a disaster hits, it may only affect one State. However, it will often affect multiple States. Each State may have its own response and its own infrastructure in place. Of course, it is also possible that the command and control centre itself may have been hit (which would be a problem!). It may not have electricity for communications. Equipment could have been damaged. Hospitals may be overwhelmed. Et cetera.

Also, if each State is to be self-reliant, there will be a high degree of duplication of effort and issues of coordination. And much more wasted money (even if States make the investment needed).

Insurance companies are not in the business of handling this stuff.

Even Romney sees a need for an organisation like FEMA, if only to train, support and provide coordination for relief work. Alternatives would be less effective and more wasteful.

So, some central body is needed. Which is not to say that a central organisation can't work more effectively and efficiently than it has to date. Like all organisations, I'm sure it can.

How should it be funded? Well, you could argue that some States (and their citizens) don't need to pay as much as others, I guess. It probably depends on the assumptions you make about what future disasters might be faced. Earthquakes in the West? Hurricanes? Tornadoes? Drought? Oil spills? Bush fires? Disease? Nuclear reactors? Either way, it needs to be paid for and it will cost what it will cost. Some agreement needs to be reached on what (how much) will be set aside. The American people will pay that, whatever the mechanism.

So, how much? The Ryan/GOP argument was that it should be less and that whatever is set aside should be countered by budget reductions elsewhere. This is what I meant by stating that it was a matter of priorities. Is it more important to fund this or more important (for example) to use the money for military spending, or education spending or - well - tax cuts?

 

I am not going to be sarcastic, here is a summary of my view on this subject.
*I believe the Federal government has a role in assisting people during and after disasters.
*When money/resources are being made available, I think it should be done as efficiently as possible. If $1 is intended to help victims, I want as much as that $1 as possible to get to the victims.
*When money/resources are being made available, I think it should be done with the biggest positive impact as possible. If $1 is intended to help victims, I want those in greatest need to get priority.
*I believe that when money is being allocated that the allocation is best done as close to the source of the need as possible. I think responsible local officials will do a better job of allocating money and resources than officials that are removed.

Given my frame work. and given FEMA's budget, I would handle the situations very different than what is currently being done. Reasonable people can disagree.

 

How would you handle it differently, Ace. Please be specific.

 

It is mostly done on a local level currently.

In 1994 in California I had earthquake insurance. The insurance covered my damages less my deductible. I knew people who did not have insurance and they got free money. Not fair in my opinion. After the earthquake I dropped my coverage, realizing I was wasting my money.

Perhaps the cost to live in Florida should actually reflect the costs of hurricanes. These events are predictable, over time we can measure the frequency and intensity of hurricanes.

Again, I have no objection to Federal government assistance when it is needed. However, at some point long-term preparations need to occur. for example in New Orleans, the city is below sea level - it is going to flood. There is a pattern of the flooding. However, even with the best plans problems can occur unexpectedly. So, the Federal government need to be available for assistance when needed. Also, perhaps the Federal Government needs to help to minimize the exposure. However, how many times would you rebuild a home in the same place after floods? At some point I would rebuild on higher ground, wouldn't you?
--- merged: Oct 30, 2012 at 11:57 AM ---

There are two phases to response - during and after. During a disaster I would have a response plan and teams that can be mobilized to assist states and other countries as needed. In order to be more specific, I would need to have the actual job, otherwise all I can do is speak in general terms.

After a disaster I would expect each state to have detailed plans and after a disaster I would allocate money to state and local officials directly, for them to administer. I would not create a big bureaucratic entity for this purpose. Again, I don't know how to be specific without having the responsibility of putting it together. but I can answer any questions anyone may have regarding my general views.

 

That is not different, ace. That is how it is done now, aside the fact that most states while they may plan for the worst case scenarios (including with federal grant funds for training and resources), generally, given budget restrictions, make budget choices that dont allocate funding for those scenarios.

Here is one way to do it differently, ace.

Dont appoint FEMA directors with no experience. Bush's first FEMA director, Joe Albaugh, was political fundraiser with no emergency management experience. After a city in Iowa was hit with massive flooding (the once in a lifetime kind that you cant plan for), he complained about having to commit federal resources to the response effort. Then later, when a Texas city was hit by a hurricane, he said FEMA needed more funding to help in the response.

He resigned after nine months and when FEMA was rolled into the new Dept of Homeland Security after 9/11, Bush decided that FEMA needed a director whose experience was as Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association.