Romney wants to send FEMA's funding/job back to the states

[HomerJS]

Mitt Romney was asked this question during the primary, in the context of natural disasters. Good idea, bad idea? Pls opine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTSHxR_4rc8

 

[Schmide]

Fema in the private sector. That's the clincher. (and I mean the sphincter btw)

 

[Jaskalas]

The States should collectively manage FEMA, it should not be in the hands of the federal government. Feds should be separated from it to more accurately fit in the role of watch dog and protector.

They don't do that if FEMA works for them.

I would apply this principle to many functions of government.

 

[xBiffx]

I have to agree, somewhat. Why is federal money being used for disaster relief that affects only a few states. Same thing happens when there are wildfires out west. States would have a better time of preparing and funding their own disaster relief. Those funds would be better used to target the disasters that actually affect those states.

I still think their should be a backup plan for funding should a state find itself in the unfortunate scenario of getting hit with several unforeseen circumstances like fires, earthquakes, and floods all at the same time. But you wouldn't need FEMA to manage the cutting of checks.

This is one of those times when federal management takes away from an agencies effectiveness, IMHO.

 

[Dari]

The States should collectively manage FEMA, it should not be in the hands of the federal government. Feds should be separated from it to more accurately fit in the role of watch dog and protector.

They don't do that if FEMA works for them.

I would apply this principle to many functions of government.

aka federal government...

 

[jpeyton]

The States should collectively manage FEMA

Because having 50 chefs in the kitchen is better than one...

 

[xBiffx]

Because having 50 chefs in the kitchen is better than one...

50 chiefs, 50 kitchens. 1 chief in the kitchen. That's what I would say.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Why is federal money being used for disaster relief that affects only a few states.

1. Risk spreading. Some states have one type of risk, others have different types. Reduces the potential impact on any one state.

2. Coordination among states and between states and the federal government.

3. Superior access to national resources.

4. Ability to coordinate and manage disaster relief from areas outside the affected state(s).

5. Efficiencies through reduced duplication of agencies and effort.

Now, what exactly are the benefits of "sending it back to the states"?

 

[Ryan]

Many natural disasters cross state lines. What if a state is ineffective at managing it's FEMA money? Why should residents who live in that state be subjected to a lesser quality of response than someone who lives one state away?

 

[yllus]

The States should collectively manage FEMA, it should not be in the hands of the federal government. Feds should be separated from it to more accurately fit in the role of watch dog and protector.

They don't do that if FEMA works for them.

I would apply this principle to many functions of government.

That sounds incredibly inefficient. So you're going to have experts on containing oil spills or forest fires in Louisiana and California, but if you want to communicate their knowledge over to Kansas or Missouri you need to send it up to a federal supervisor and hope it gets relayed back down in a timely manner? Why not just field those experts in a nationwide capacity to simplify things?

There are things a national body is simply better suited for. Don't abandon all reason in your quest to distrust big government.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Why don't we send the military back to the states as well? Think about how much more efficient it would be to have 50 of each of the branches. (Okay, Kansas and Nebraska can skip their Navies.)

 

[xBiffx]

1. Risk spreading. Some states have one type of risk, others have different types. Reduces the potential impact on any one state.

It doesn't do this at all. How does who manages the relief reduce anything? Having more money or better management doesn't stop natural disasters from occurring

2. Coordination among states and between states and the federal government.

Doesn't take Federal management for this to happen. Unless you are trying to say that we live in a dysfunctional and states are completely cut off from one another?

3. Superior access to national resources.

What federal resources? This is the heart of the question in the OP. If you send FEMA to the states, what federal resources are you missing? Besides money, I already addressed that.

4. Ability to coordinate and manage disaster relief from areas outside the affected state(s).

Same answer as number 2 because its the exact same question just worded differently.

5. Efficiencies through reduced duplication of agencies and effort.

We are talking about one agency per state. No duplication would happen in any given state. Same thing applies today with regards to state law enforcement. Or do you think we should be using the Federal government to manage that as well?

 

[xBiffx]

Why don't we send the military back to the states as well? Think about how much more efficient it would be to have 50 of each of the branches. (Okay, Kansas and Nebraska can skip their Navies.)

Don't have to. I'm sure you have heard of the Air Guard and Army Guard.

 

[xBiffx]

Many natural disasters cross state lines. What if a state is ineffective at managing it's FEMA money? Why should residents who live in that state be subjected to a lesser quality of response than someone who lives one state away?

Who says the Fed is going to do it any better? Pretty presumptuous to think a state couldn't manage this or that the fed would do it better just because.

 

[DaveSimmons]

States already control FEMA through their elected representatives in congress.

I see sending it back to the states as wasteful duplication of effort.

Multi-state coalitions sound nice until you realize that some states might need to belong to several of the coalitions (wildfires, floods, quakes, oil spills, ...).

Other states might opt out of coalitions for disasters that rarely effect them, until a storm of the century or an unexpected quake makes them need the resources they failed to help fund.

FEMA needs to be able to work across states and to hold resources ready for use in any state.

 

[Socio]

Many natural disasters cross state lines. What if a state is ineffective at managing it's FEMA money? Why should residents who live in that state be subjected to a lesser quality of response than someone who lives one state away?

Because they voted in the idiots that over see its management.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It doesn't do this at all. How does who manages the relief reduce anything?

Same principle as used in all forms of insurance. More states means more ability to shoulder the load and buffer the impact from any given disaster. Left to themselves, a single disaster could overwhelm a single state.

Doesn't take Federal management for this to happen. Unless you are trying to say that we live in a dysfunctional and states are completely cut off from one another?

No, but it's a classic role of the central government, which is in a better position to do the job. So that's where it should be done unless there's a damned good reason not to.

What federal resources?

Money, equipment, experts, whatever.

Same answer as number 2 because its the exact same question just worded differently.

No, it's a different point. #4 is saying that in addition to the coordination effort, by having it at the national level, you gain the advantage of not having to manage the disaster as it is happening around your ears.

We are talking about one agency per state. No duplication would happen in any given state.

Just lots of duplication among the states.

Now, what exactly are the benefits of sending FEMA to the states? ("Giving a stiffy to a bunch of tea-party know-nothings" doesn't count.)

 

[Lemon law]

An incredibly stupid idea IMHO. As us small minded human ants, can play stupid political games over which humans in which States of Countries OWN OR CONTROL some small subset of the planet Earth.

But every once in a while, that entity we like to call Mother Nature, reasserts herself, usually in the form of some total regional disaster, and reminds us tiny humans it is Mother Nature and not humans who really controls the earth.

And when the USA happens to be ground zero for some national disaster, Mother Nature
has zero respect for borderlines drawn by humans. Because many of Mother Nature's disasters tend to be at least interstate in extent, we need a FEMA with at least Interstate national authority to get all affected States working TOGETHER instead of at cross purposes.

In short, Mitt Romney is idiotic on that point.

 

[MovingTarget]

To those of you suggesting that we "send FEMA to the states", have you ever been in an area when a disaster of this magnitude is occuring? We're talking major hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, earthquakes, etc. Some things are better off being organized at the national level. When a state is affected by a disaster, often the bureaucracies needed to organize and coordinate relief efforts are themselves compromised due to the disaster. If we have 50 SEMA's instead of one FEMA, we also lose the ability to more effectively distribute and allocate resources for these disasters, especially across state lines. Many states, such as my own, will skip on the chance to keep such an emergency infrastructure/organization in place, in order to "keep taxes low". It would be disastrous to say the least.

 

[Slick5150]

That move itself would be a disaster. As would a Romney presidency in general I guess.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yes, some of us have been through these types of disasters and have seen the states that handle them well and those who squander the tax payer's money. Most of the help was provided by either/or the state's National Guard, Red Cross, and many volunteers. FEMA as with most government entities is wasteful at best. I can show you thousands of trailers they purchased for Katrina and Rita that were never used and are worthless now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We are talking about one agency per state. No duplication would happen in any given state. Same thing applies today with regards to state law enforcement. Or do you think we should be using the Federal government to manage that as well?

I disagree. The state would have to be all things. The idea of Confederation of States model, waiting for help and the various groups to get shuffled may sound appealing, but from an organizational POV it's not. Consider that one of the complaints is that there are duplications creating inefficiencies. State governments also have that problem. Then there are the political considerations to get this in place. 50 sets of politicians. Does that sound like a better number? An administration for each. Different standards. I don't see it. Then there's the case where states are overwhelmed financially. We're going to let them sink then? Appeal to the federal government tit then? Expect other states to pony up and explain to their constituent that it's in their best interest?

Seems unlikely to be good.

 

[Throckmorton]

Because we are one nation. Yes, in the Ayn Randian Distopia it's every man for himself, but in America we work together to solve problems because a) we take care of our own like Bruce says and b) because all disasters have national effects

 

[Jaskalas]

aka federal government...

Then under the false premise that it's the same thing, surely you'll have no problems doing it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Because we are one nation. Yes, in the Ayn Randian Distopia it's every man for himself, but in America we work together to solve problems because a) we take care of our own like Bruce says and b) because all disasters have national effects

Two choices eh, that's it? Nice way to cut out the States.

You make a nice tool for centralized planning. You and all the others who drone on bestowing us with the horrors of anarchy if men are not ruled from the top down.

Because having 50 chefs in the kitchen is better than one...

Another jewel, pretending that the States having authority would be 50 chefs, as if they couldn't organize FEMA as a single national agency. As if they must be ruled by a single 'chef' and have no place in this 'kitchen'.

On one hand we're told the people own this country, but in policy you insist that this country own its people.