Romney says Shut Down Federal Disaster Agency

[orphanedhawk]

Mitt Romney In GOP Debate: Shut Down Federal Disaster Agency, Send Responsibility To The States

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."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/28/mitt-romney-fema_n_2036198.html

[brice1967]

I've got a couple of buddies that worked with FEMA in a law enforcement capacity.  Neither of them had anything nice to say about the organization.  So many of the trailers/emergency housing units were never used and whats worse is that most not used were destroyed.

It's waste like this that can be stopped.

Personally, each state should have a system...call it FEMA if it makes you feel better, that could be funded both on the state and federal level.  

[adgal]

As you know, I am 100% about helping those in need.  People come first, always.  But I have learned that the absolute best way to help someone is to assist them in becoming self sufficient, and sometimes that means facing painful lessons like being held accountable.  It does not help someone to keep them dependent on the system - not ever.  Now, I could not take it as far as the official Republican platform does, but as usual, I find positive elements in both your parties positions on a lot of things.  Gov't should be there to help it's people....always. I see that as part of a function of gov't.  But it should enable people to achieve their goals, first and foremost.  So to assist people in developing an attitude of "do whatever you choose, gov't will be there" doesn't help.  Don't shoot me for this...lol....I do see the Democratic Party as doing more in that direction, but that does not mean I don't see positive things in the Republican Platform either.  I think the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

[nursegirl6572]

I agree, amanda.  Totally.


With everything you said.  So little accountability anymore.

[brice1967]

You said, "How can he make promises now when he doesnt know what is going to happen?".... Does that mean that he knew what was going to happen in 2008 when he was making promises?

[nursegirl6572]

"Romney's words. Sending it to the private sector means you buy disaster relief. That means those who can't afford it will go without just like those who can't afford health care will go without, under Romeny's plan. "

Over and over and over, he's said about letting the states take the reigns, with help and guidance from big brother.  This is the same kind of argument like the one that he'll overturn Roe v Wade.  It's a stretch, in the least.

In every other quote above, he outlines it clearly....to cut down on the costs of federal disaster relief, by allowing the states more control.  He mentions "private sector" once and now we have him turning his back in the midst of a major disaster.  I can't see how you can come to such an extreme conclusion.  

BTW, there are also a lot of ways the private sector COULD be involved that doesn't mean not helping someone in grave danger, for goodness sake.  They could help in tersm of being more fiscally responsible, and purchasing their own flood insurance, rather than expecting gov't aid for cleaning/rebuilding.  That's just one example, and it's a good one...back to accountability and personal responsibility.  I highly doubt people are going to be forced to start their own Red Cross organizations.  

[adgal]

I can tell you one thing.  I have long thought that folks that ignore warnings, refuse to evacuate, etc. should be held accountable for that.  Extra lives risked by first responders and of course, the huge cost associated with a major rescue operation should absolutely be the responsibility of people who ignore warning after warning.  Even on a small level.  In our mountains, every single year at least a dozen or so idiots have to be rescued because they ignored out of bounds signs when skiing or hiking.  We are starting to charge them back financially.  

As for the federal vs. state issue - it doesn't make sense to me that the feds would be able to properly mobilize and respond as quickly as locals.  I don't understand the logic there?  Every level of gov't should have funding for this.  Heck, if you've got major flooding in one quadrant of the city, the city should be able to respond, not wait for a federal agency.  To me, feds should be called in when its major and full scale, and as a back up to locals.  That would have to be more efficient right?