Governor Rick Perry begging the federal government for aid to fight wildfires

[Fern]

no where in the article does it say that perry is asking for the cuts.

True, plus I thought the Texas governor was a supposedly weak office. In any case, it's only a proposed bill in the legislature at this time, nothing Perrry could do about it. He can't even veto it yet if he wanted to.

Moreover, and more importantly I think, is what the hell does the proposed bill have to do with this anyway?

The OP makes out like Perry cut the funds and now finds himself in wildfire trouble because of that cut. None of that is correct, the cuts haven't even occurred yet.

The whole (future budget) 'cuts' thing brought up here is compeletely irrelevent to these current wildfires.

So OP do you think FEMA and Federal Disaster aid should be doled out based on political favor or based on actual disaster mitigation?

Well apparently the Obama admin doesn't believe huge wildfires in TX are a big problem?

Perry sent a letter to President Barack Obama on April 15 requesting a Major Disaster Declaration for the state, which would make the state eligible for direct federal assistance and emergency protective measures from the federal government.

However, the federal government denied that request on May 3.

And Obama's remark about the $6B looks pretty snarky. I can see why people get the impression that Obama is 'punishing' TX.

Fern

 

[PokerGuy]

I can see why people get the impression that Obama is 'punishing' TX.

Fern

Of course he is, they are not part of the ruling elitist party. They vote the wrong way.

 

[CycloWizard]

None of those are insurance nor has the State of Texas paid anything for them. Try again.

The issue here is should the federal government step in and pay wildfire fighting expenses when the state deliberately and intentionally is cutting it's funding for the same. I find it especially ironic that purported haters of big government come squealing for big government benefits.

They are all services that the federal government is legally obliged to provide. Texas' citizens have paid for them with their taxes, thereby holding up their end of the legal bargain. The federal government put itself in a position where it is obligated to step in when the state and local forces are not capable of dealing with a fire. Texas didn't write that law - the US congress did.

 

[woolfe9999]

They are all services that the federal government is legally obliged to provide. Texas' citizens have paid for them with their taxes, thereby holding up their end of the legal bargain. The federal government put itself in a position where it is obligated to step in when the state and local forces are not capable of dealing with a fire. Texas didn't write that law - the US congress did.

You keep saying that, but your cited references do not say yea or nay as to whether there is a legally required federal response in this particular case. Policy statements are general and do not impose specific legal mandates, and your one statute isn't specific enough to address the particulars here.

 

[woolfe9999]

Hey, when Bush took too long to help out those in LA, it was because of racism (at least according to the left wing fringe). Why is it now unfair to assume the same for the lack of support for TX?

Your reasoning is precisely this: two wrongs make a right. It's classic partisan reasoning.

Carry on.

 

[theeedude]

Obama should declare Perry a national disaster and send in aid

 

[CycloWizard]

You keep saying that, but your cited references do not say yea or nay as to whether there is a legally required federal response in this particular case. Policy statements are general and do not impose specific legal mandates, and your one statute isn't specific enough to address the particulars here.

So your argument is that the US government takes taxpayer money and establishes numerous wildfire-fighting agencies, but they are not required to actually fight fires, despite a foundational law stating that the purpose of one such agency (USFA) is to, "reduce the Nation's losses caused by fire through better fire prevention and control," and another (NICC) is granted the legal authority of being, "the sole dispatch center for heavy airtankers, lead planes, smokejumpers, hotshot crews, Type 1 Incident Management Teams, area command teams, medium and heavy helicopters, infrared aircraft, military resources, telecom equipment for fires, Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS), and large transport aircraft." So technically, I suppose you're correct: the US government can tell Texas to piss off, even after Texans paid federal taxes to fund these agencies, and the agencies disallow local and state agencies from providing all of the services they might need to fight fires. Even if I assume that's all true (I'm certainly not going to spend all night looking at the details), that only serves to prove Perry's point - Texas should absolutely secede to avoid paying money for services not rendered.

 

[Thump553]

They are all services that the federal government is legally obliged to provide. Texas' citizens have paid for them with their taxes, thereby holding up their end of the legal bargain. The federal government put itself in a position where it is obligated to step in when the state and local forces are not capable of dealing with a fire. Texas didn't write that law - the US congress did.

A) You originally clearly claimed the US issued Texas an insurance policy. I guess you are now conceding that was a false statement of fact. Again, if you still claim there is provide specific evidence of that alleged INSURANCE policy.

B) As I indicated several times already these programs have provisions in them so they don't subsidize a state's normal expenses-like here in the Northeast, snowplowing for megastorms. My point is Texas is intentionally evading paying its normal firefighting expenses in light of a clearly indicated greater need-in the hopes of passing the expense onto the "evil" big government. That is hypocritical and wrong-especially from people that love to deride the welfare mama mentality.

 

[Fern]

The question is whether these wildfires constitute the type of disaster the federal govenments usually steps in to help with.

They either do or they don't.

If they do and Obama is delaying then why?

(Dithering around when it comes to uncontrolled fires is crazy. Urgency is whole point with fires, otherwise everything is destroyed.)

Looks like Texas SHOULD cut their future firefighting budget for the next two years. At this rate there will be nothing left to burn again for several years.

Fern

 

[JSt0rm]

us liberals in California take care of our own forest fires.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
My point is Texas is intentionally evading paying its normal firefighting expenses in light of a clearly indicated greater need-in the hopes of passing the expense onto the "evil" big government.

Where do you get that from?

If you're referring to the budget cuts mentioned you'd be wrong. Those cuts are only proposals at this point and aren't affecting the current budget. Those proposed cuts are for FUTURE budgets.

If there's another problem in the future than the cuts would be relevent.

Edit: This whole of arguing about TX's proposed budget cuts smacks of coercion by the government. If the fed gov doesn't like your pending legislation they'll retaliate by withholding justly due services that others similarly situated would receive.

Fern

 

[Drako]

us liberals in California take care of our own forest fires.

We do? :hmm:

Funny, I remember California getting Federal aid in 2007 and 2008 for wildfires, and 2010 for flooding and earthquake relief. In 2011 we already have had federal aid for flooding and tsunami damage.

 

[Drako]

us liberals in California take care of our own forest fires.

Looks like we (California) has gotten federal aid for "fire management" for at least the last 8 years.

http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters_state.fema?id=6

 

[woolfe9999]

So your argument is that the US government takes taxpayer money and establishes numerous wildfire-fighting agencies, but they are not required to actually fight fires, despite a foundational law stating that the purpose of one such agency (USFA) is to, "reduce the Nation's losses caused by fire through better fire prevention and control," and another (NICC) is granted the legal authority of being, "the sole dispatch center for heavy airtankers, lead planes, smokejumpers, hotshot crews, Type 1 Incident Management Teams, area command teams, medium and heavy helicopters, infrared aircraft, military resources, telecom equipment for fires, Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS), and large transport aircraft." So technically, I suppose you're correct: the US government can tell Texas to piss off, even after Texans paid federal taxes to fund these agencies, and the agencies disallow local and state agencies from providing all of the services they might need to fight fires. Even if I assume that's all true (I'm certainly not going to spend all night looking at the details), that only serves to prove Perry's point - Texas should absolutely secede to avoid paying money for services not rendered.

No, my "argument" is simply this: you claim the federal government is legally mandated to provide the relief requested by Governor Perry. You have cited no evidence that this is the case. You are now making some kind of muddled moral argument, not a legal argument. Truth is, I have no idea what the applicable laws and regs say must happen under these circumstances, and I'm not going to hunt for all the detail either. I will say one thing, however: I'd like to hear from FEMA and/or Obama about this decision to not provide aid. There has to be a reason for not providing the aid, and the merits of that reason are very much at issue here, but the reason itself has not been identified in this thread. I've got a feeling there are two sides to this story, and unlike you, and I'm not going to take sides without knowing both.

 

[Craig234]

my only assumption is that Jakalas is throwing out the anti-"Bush hates black people--look at Katrina" "theory." Images of the 9th ward falling to chaos while Bush gets all cozy with senator Lott and promises to help save his gulf-side vacation mansion is a pretty sharp pill for many.

stupid for Dems or anyone to really make a whole lot out of that, but also something that the Bushies couldn't really ignore. Hurt pride, maybe, I don't know. silly assumption that what's good for the goose...

I don't know whether Bush has racism or not - if he did, he'd mostly hide it, and there isn't any real evidence I know of.

Rather, I think Bush views blacks as a group of people who were his political opponents.

Black identified them, but it wasn't about their being black, it was about their being his political enemies like any other group of his political enemies.

I think this led him to not care much about them in ways as a result. His brother did some pretty terrible things to disenfranchise them to get his brother the presidency in 2000; his father used race cynically to appoint Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, and so on. But that's different than racism.

I suspect Bush as a somewhat contradictory view, that's a mix between having poor opinions of many blacks, yet caring about them as people in ways.

I suspect the offense he took to Kanye West might have had some sincerity.

Thing is, it's hard to tell - Bush had political interests to do so as well, and would certainly 'act' for political benefit, like his 'good ol boy rancher' act.

I'm not comparing Bush to them, but I've seen where people with white slaves or servants think of themselves as incredibly caring towards 'those people'; I read a diary entry from a woman in the civil war writing how she was hugely shocked and in disbelief that her slaves fled to join the union army, she thought they were so happy.

It gets complicated, because you have to separate racism - views on racial superiority/inferiority - from motivations involving other things about blacks, from culture to poverty to political preference that affect Republican opinion. That's why I think you can see Republicans accept a Colin Powell, while feeling very different towards blacks who are 'labor costs' or 'Democratic voters' or 'causing them political problems by protesting for equal rights' or other ways they interact.

From a Republican's point of view, I suspect many feel that the extent to which they support some policies good for blacks, they feel like they do a lot for a group who has an almost exclusive political organizing against them, and votes 90% against them, and has little good to say about them. It's natural for that to build resentment - and it's towards a race but not about race.

I think the issue is less about racism than about policies and economics. Republicans mostly just do not support policies that are more in blacks' interests.

 

[CallMeJoe]

From the first linked article:

Perry had requested a federal declaration of emergency for Texas as the wildfires began to rage across the large state. The request has not been answered, although several federal agencies are supplying firefighters.
A federal major disaster declaration could reimburse Texas and local governments 75 percent of the cost of their response. Local departments and the Texas Forest Service have spent more than $60 million since Sept. 1 responding to wildfires, state forest service spokeswoman Linda Moon said.
She said Texas has already received 22 grants to help pay fire management expenses this fire season, including 16 in April alone.

It appears that Governor Perry is not asking for more actual assistance in fighting the fires, but asking for more Federal Government Cash to refill the state's coffers. Note that they already have gotten their Government Cheese, just not enough to please the Governor.

 

[Craig234]

I will say one thing, however: I'd like to hear from FEMA and/or Obama about this decision to not provide aid. There has to be a reason for not providing the aid, and the merits of that reason are very much at issue here, but the reason itself has not been identified in this thread. I've got a feeling there are two sides to this story, and unlike you, and I'm not going to take sides without knowing both.

Late Tuesday, Gov. Rick Perry criticized the White House after learning that his April 16 request for a federal major disaster declaration and additional help had been rejected.

"I think we've had 9,000 separate fires in the state of Texas," Perry told reporters in Austin on Wednesday. "The federal government has only helped us with 25 of them. That's inappropriate."

But a spokesperson in Perry's office confirmed that of the roughly 9,000 reported wildfires this season, the state has only applied for 25 fire management grants through FEMA. And every request has been awarded to the state, the Perry representative said.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics...-Disaster-Status-for-Wildfires-121226234.html


http://mineralwellsindex.com/homepage/x1892927927/FEMA-turns-down-fire-aid-request

Palo Pinto County Judge David Nicklas said that the application for assistance was not made for individuals, since homeowners are only eligible if their primary home, which is either uninsured or underinsured, is destroyed by the fire. Furthermore, there must be at least 25 qualifying homes destroyed and, as yet, just five have been found that fit the prerequisite.

Volunteer fire crews that sent firefighters to assist in the battle still have the possibility of having 75 percent of their costs reimbursed by federal agencies, according to Nicklas. He said he is optimistic that the area will be able to recover without an official disaster declaration.

“It doesn’t seem to be a huge issue for us, quite honestly,” Nicklas said.

 

[theeedude]

We don't have money to help Texas, sorry, budget deficit is more important.

 

[nobodyknows]

5/19 But at the same time is cutting the agency responsible for fighting the wildfires' budget by $34 million over the next two years...

5/17 Perry renews disaster claim for wildfires

4/30 Texas Gov. Rick Perry Blasts Obama for Not Helping with Wildfires

4/28 Governor says Obama leaving Texas in the dust

This guy is supposed to be the savior for the Republican party in 2012?

Irony or poetic justice?

 

[Jhhnn]

Righties obviously don't read links- they just jump up to defend their team, their heroes, never weighing the merits off what's being said in the slightest. From one of hte linked pieces in the OP-

Perhaps the governor's hair got in the way of his brain function, because, according to Rachel Racusen, the spokesperson for FEMA, Texas has gotten 22 federal grants to help fight the fires. A total of 16 of those came in April alone.

And nobody has to mention Perry's name wrt the proposed funding cuts, because he'll rubber stamp any "austerity measures" sent to him by the repub Texas legislature, bet on it.

 

[Ape]

Your reasoning is precisely this: two wrongs make a right. It's classic partisan reasoning.

Carry on.

That wasn't an answer to his question.

 

[nonlnear]

FEMA is and should be nonpolitical, but where a state is intentionally avoiding it's responsibilities why should the rest of the country foot the bill for their neglect aka "conservatism." Irresponsibility is irresponsibility.

I feel the same way about the experiment in river mismanagement that is New Orleans. The entire city is a geographic mistake. The Mississippi wants its delta back. Instead we are flooding half the prairies to save a city that should have had half its land returned to wetlands after Katrina (and other towns that have no business existing, like Cairo IL). This country's entire way of thinking about natural disasters is deeply political, and completely insane - including (especially) FEMA.

 

[Gardener]

They are all services that the federal government is legally obliged to provide. Texas' citizens have paid for them with their taxes, thereby holding up their end of the legal bargain. The federal government put itself in a position where it is obligated to step in when the state and local forces are not capable of dealing with a fire. Texas didn't write that law - the US congress did.

Cite case law. I want to see examples that the Federal government has been required to help states fight wildfires.

Case law, not some damn descriptive charter about the agency.

The Federal government is not legally required to bail out everybody whenever there is an emergency.

 

[nonlnear]

Cite case law. I want to see examples that the Federal government has been required to help states fight wildfires.

Case law, not some damn descriptive charter about the agency.

The Federal government is not legally required to bail out everybody whenever there is an emergency.

You're on the right track in objecting that the feds aren't bound by regulations, but fail to observe that the feds are not bound by case law either. When you have to ask the feds' permission to hold them to the rules, it's a stretch to call them "rules" at all. The rule of law is dead - if in fact it ever existed.

 

[Gardener]

You're on the right track in objecting that the feds aren't bound by regulations, but fail to observe that the feds are not bound by case law either. When you have to ask the feds' permission to hold them to the rules, it's a stretch to call them "rules" at all. The rule of law is dead - if in fact it ever existed.

I'm not suggesting they are bound by either, I'm asking for evidence that they are bound, period.

I don't believe they are bound. There is no contractual requirement concerning when they provide aid, how much aid, etc.