Just a reminder that if Romney had his way people in Sandy’s path would have to rely on the ministrations of a corporation to be moved out of harms way (“A customer services representative will be with you shortly, your estimated hold time is 8 hours.”). Perhaps a “nominal service fee,” or an “enhanced services delivery charge,” would move things along faster, for those prepared to pay (Bain Capital’s business savants no doubt would have had the perspicacity to take large equity positions in the leading disaster relief firms.)
Each state, just like each person, would be on its own, so Maryland and New York would have to pay in full for their foolish decision to be located on the coasts.
“Divided, we fall:” the credo of Scott Brown, Tisei and Romney’s Republican party.
HuffPo (re-confirmed yesterday at 10:04 PM by a Romney spokesperson as the candidate’s official fanatic policy):
During a CNN debate at the height of the GOP primary, Mitt Romney was asked, in the context of the Joplin disaster and FEMA’s cash crunch, whether the agency should be shuttered so that states can individually take over responsibility for disaster response.
“Absolutely,” he said. “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. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut, we should ask the opposite question, what should we keep?”
“Including disaster relief, though?” debate moderator John King asked Romney.
“We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids,” Romney replied. “It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.”
SomervilleTom says
The first fire departments were private. That exercise failed miserably. This essentially religious belief in the magical powers of “the private sector” is grounded in faith, not reality. As evidence of its failure mounts, the fervor and passion of the believers escalates to match. The result is economic catastrophe for hundreds of millions — Mr. Romney and his ilk don’t care, because their wealth insulates them from the consequences of their delusions.
I have no doubt that Mr. Romney, whose most intense economic suffering seems to have been when he and his wife were “forced” to sell some inherited stock while newlyweds, can’t conceive of a problem money can’t fix.
Some of us who have faced more challenges know better.
whosmindingdemint says
For years states rights was code for an apartheid society in various forms. It still is but now it is also code for killing federal initiatives dead, like emergency relief and healthcare. Take it away from the federal government, give it to the states and rest assured nothing will be done.
Besides, we in Massachusetts feel the brunt of privatized emergency services: just look at how well the privatized utilities have restored service after recent weather events. The governor has to say things like they “better” be ready to do the required maintenance and cleanup – or else what? When these guys were public entities, a governor could say such things with conviction.
roarkarchitect says
Using the fire department analogy – would you rather have your fire department run out of Boston or Washington DC – or your local community ?
You push decisions down as far as possible.
Regarding Private vs. Public – I’m no big fan of the power companies response to power outages (but everyone in those organization are working like crazy I wish them the best) – but an equivalent large public organization is the MBTA – can you imagine how they would deal with a massive power outage.
SomervilleTom says
The key word in you comment is end of your second sentence (emphasis mine): “You push decisions down as far as possible.”
The devastation from Hurricane Sandy spreads across Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and most likely more to come — in essence, most of the Eastern US. Are you seriously suggesting that some sort of ad-hoc collaboration of a dozen or more states will be more effective than a well-run FEMA (I’m NOT talking about George W. Bush’s variant)? We tried the no-federal-goverment approach too, you know. It was called the “Articles of Confederation” and it failed miserably.
You do understand that virtually EVERY fire department participates in “mutual aid”, so that large fires that overwhelm any particular department can still be managed, right? You would apparently disband that.
Your comment epitomizes what I mean by an essentially religious faith in the private sector. Responding to a natural disaster like Sandy or Katrina is not the same as putting out a fire in one building in one town.
You choose the MBTA as a scapegoat. I think the MBTA epitomizes what you and the GOP would do to FEMA. It is a miracle that the MBTA operates as well as it does, given that generations of self-serving politicians have slashed its funding and used it as a whipping-post rather than take the need for its services as seriously as that need deserves.
You and Mr. Romney would, like George W. Bush, apparently do the same to FEMA.
David says
FEMA doesn’t tell local authorities what to do – it supports their efforts with money and resources (at least when it’s working well, as it does under Obama – see Chris Christie’s laudatory comments). So the “state vs. federal” argument in this context is a true straw-man. The argument is whether there should be a federal agency at all, and whether federal resources should be devoted to remedying emergencies that, by definition, affect only certain areas of the country at any given time. I’d say yes; YMMV.
Christopher says
That is an opinion based on ideology. Personally I don’t consider that question one way or the other. You should just take each thing case by case. No level of the government is the automatic default answer. The fire department makes sense locally because you want easy accessibility in the event of a specific emergency. Major disaster relief makes sense to have a federal component because Uncle Sam has greater resources at its disposal. The question should be what works best, not what fulfills an ideological mandate.