Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Spreading the risk and the costs

 An editorial in the NYTimes talks about the need for federal disaster relief.  

Over the last two years, Congressional Republicans have forced a 43 percent reduction in the primary FEMA grants that pay for disaster preparedness. Representatives Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and other House Republicans have repeatedly tried to refuse FEMA’s budget requests when disasters are more expensive than predicted, or have demanded that other valuable programs be cut to pay for them. The Ryan budget, which Mr. Romney praised as “an excellent piece of work,” would result in severe cutbacks to the agency, as would the Republican-instigated sequester, which would cut disaster relief by 8.2 percent on top of earlier reductions.Does Mr. Romney really believe that financially strapped states would do a better job than a properly functioning federal agency? Who would make decisions about where to send federal aid? Or perhaps there would be no federal aid, and every state would bear the burden of billions of dollars in damages. After Mr. Romney’s 2011 remarks recirculated on Monday, his nervous campaign announced that he does not want to abolish FEMA, though he still believes states should be in charge of emergency management. Those in Hurricane Sandy’s path are fortunate that, for now, that ideology has not replaced sound policy. (see here for link)

The issue reminds me of the Moss book on risk and Travis's game on natural disasters.  It also relates to the cost of Obamacare.  States don't have the budgetary power to provide equal insurance or action.  Efficiency is not a concept that has meaning here. 

2 comments:

  1. "Efficiency is not a concept that has meaning here" is a perfect summary of the structure of this republican agenda. As he has reiterated in numerous issues, Romney believes that states have significant power to handle their own problems, without the federal government's aid. However this is not an ideal rooted in numbers. This is a moral ideal. Unfortuantely, when pandering to voters the majority of the time, people don't want to see numbers and data about a position. Moral conviction and sentiment are not only easier to identify with, but more powerful to the general voting body. "Personal liberties", "freedom", and "true autonomy" are ideals that are readily understandable to any blue-collar republican voter. They don't want to see numbers and comparisons. More importantly, they don't need to be shown it to sway their opinions.
    This is the same path that Governor Romney took regarding the auto bailout for Detroit a few years back. He wanted to rely on the private markets, and smaller enterprise to decide their fate in a free-hand approach. Instead of government support as a safety net for states and businesses, he would rather rely on the markets to work themselves out alone. His statement during the primaries last year captures this perfectly when 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." The fact of the matter is, he is not looking at issues on a case-by-case basis. This is a man with strong convictions and ideals for America, regardless of situational differences.
    If only this hurricane has come at sooner before the election. (Not to politicize this, but every problem that ripples through our nation stands to affect the election overall, in theory.) I think that FEMA will aid these injured states immensely in the coming weeks. I think it will help NYC and New Jersey especially, to get back on their feet- faster than "private enterprise" and "state power" alone EVER could. If this had happened sooner, the American people could better see these positive effects in light of a Obama-supported FEMA. Romney doesn't want to "cut" it per-say. However given his stances on States rights overall, it wouldn't surprise me to see it erode faster the Atlantic City shore, in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I fully agree with this editorial, federal disaster relief is a vital service, protecting society from the ravages of nature. This is the kind of situation which makes me want to remind conservatives that the government has their backs. FEMA allows the country to get through rebuilding and back to productivity after a crisis. It is unlikely that states would be able to mobilize the necessary resources, or make the necessary investments in insurance to hedge against major natural disasters.

    ReplyDelete