Sometimes, and ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If there were more supports for firefighting in place without the budget cuts, I think it's pretty easily argued that it would have saved far more money than was "saved" by cutting the budget. This is a case of tripping over a dollar to pick up a penny.
Would you suggest to a homeowner with a car to skip purchasing insurance for the car and the home? Cutting back on fire fighting essentially is the same thing.
Since I'll be busy later tonight, I'll also answer your response to this... some sort of idiotic argument again about cutting the budget and the homeowner should give up the car or something. That, in this analogy, would be equivalent of getting rid of all those homes and forests. If you have homes and forests, then you NEED adequate firefighting capabilities. That is, until the firefighting costs exceed the costs of the losses you would have without firefighting. That's a pretty laughable proposition.