With Sandy in full effect, perhaps it's time to take a look at Romney's ideas on disaster relief. From the Republican debates (emphasis mine - I included the whole exchange as to not be accused of selectively editing, but if you just read what's in bold, you'll get the gist):
KING: What else, Governor Romney? You've been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I've been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it's the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we're learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?
ROMNEY: Absolutely. 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 ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we're doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we're doing that we don't have to do? And those things we've got to stop doing, because we're borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we're taking in. We cannot...
KING: Including disaster relief, though?
ROMNEY: We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. 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.
I think you might wanna make sure your kids actually survive a disaster and its aftermath before worrying about the debt you'll leave them.
I think you missed his point. It's not that we shouldn't have disaster relief, but that it (and other things) should be done at the state level. Rather than the fed taxing the shit out of you and then handing it back to the state,, let the states do it directly, or even better the local government. At least then if you feel you disagree, you can always move to a place that you agree more with. Your vote has a far bigger impact at the local and state level than it does at the federal level.
ReplyDeleteHere in Mn, when there is a natural disaster, it's the national guard that gets deployed. They get there way quicker than FEMA and then the state ends up begging for federal money from the Feds for MONTHS. Let the states take on this role, and the money, aid and assistance would get to those who need it most, much quicker (and probably cheaper more efficiently).
To be clear, I'm not defending Romney. I'm a libertarian. I don't believe the federal government should be anywhere near as big and powerful as they are. That isn't what the founders intended...in fact, it's the exact opposite.
i will not be voting for the first time since i have been of legal age. never has it been so obvious to me, that these assholes think in terms of decades, not four year terms. it truly does not matter who is president, democrat or republican. they have an overall scheme that benifits the rich elite. for example, i think obama care has many good provisions, but once the public option was scrapped i was like wtf but now it makes since. the individual mandate passed in its place that forces people without insurance to pay an annual fine! that benifits the insurance companies! obama care is bipartisan, as is a policy that is implemented. voting, debates, political opposition, the illusion of a choice, the world's a stage.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
I did not miss his point. His point is that not adding to the debt is more important that the existence of FEMA. I believe immoral was the word he used? Not to mention, his ultimate goal for this is the private sector, hence the title of the blog.
ReplyDeleteStates already do the heavy lifting, as we know, but the Federal government absolutely should play a role in disaster response, even if it is just doling out money and coordinating efforts (which is generally what it does). FEMA funds get disbursed pretty quickly if the state government has its shit together. The problem is you have people like Romney when he was Governor sitting on Federal funds http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/mitt-romney-mothers-day-floods-2006-14260979.
We're all susceptible to the theory of libertarian politics, but this is the kind of stuff that reminds me why it's a marginalized philosophy. To leave it completely to the states assumes that all states are equal in giving a shit about their citizens, and don't have to give a shit about other states. MN may kick ass, but I don't want the federal government giving Alabama a blank check (usually paid for by Californians and other states who give more federal tax dollars than they receive) and just trusting that they will do the right thing.