Romney's Views on FEMA

First off, I want to share in everyone's well-wishing and condolences for those on our East Coast and inland, affected by Hurricane Sandy. We have two very serious issues to confront: infrastructure investment and reconstruction--the NYC subway system is more than 100 years old--and of course, climate change. 

Without getting too "political", and certainly not to take advantage of tragedy to insert one's own agenda, I'd like to share some very simple truths that we must and should confront. 

We all know that during the Republican Primary process Gov. Romney voiced a desire to cut funds to FEMA, return more "power to the states" and went on to describe an even better solution: privatization. This is troubling if you consider that states would be expected, during times of disrupted communication and transportation, to handle all the aspects of a disaster while you are in the midst of it attempting to invasion the short-term necessities and the long-term needs. We all know that public service unions have come under fire and have been decimated in many states, so their ability to have the resources to handle the situation is doubtful. Turning to consider the specter of privatizing FEMA I ask you to consider the effectiveness--mainly safety concerns for workers and the population they are intended to serve--of such private contractors as Halliburton and KBR (previously Blackwater) in war zones. 

Short of outright "saving for dollars" Gov. Romney would have Congress decide upon an off-setting cut before FEMA expenditures could be made. How timely would that be? (You'll recall the deficit battles and the 'cliff' we are about to plunge over in January unless the POTUS steps in to correct the situation which, of course, he will.) 

This is not a plan to help anyone except State's Rights believers and private industries. FEMA itself would be about as pleasant to deal with as your insurance companies. And if the smaller government types are so dead set on not leaving a huge debt to the next generation--because that's "immoral"--then how do they feel about cuts to those same kids' education, which is ALWAYS the first agency mentioned in relation to this newly imagined incarnation of our federal disaster relief agency. 

The only other time I've heard the word "immoral" interjected into the political conversation this cycle has been from the Catholic bishops and the Nuns on the Bus: They use it to describe Paul Ryan's budget. 

This is a choice between two very different Americas: One where we look out for each other and want our tax money--our collective wealth--to go out to our countrymen when they are in need, or another where we beg a company to do the right thing for us when all they care about is what's in it for them. 

Ask yourself this: Whenever you hear someone say, "Well the government should balance it's budget and make the hard choices just as our family does", are they hang to choose between their children's lives in a disaster and their children's education or do they foolishly expect to get both? 

We need to decide what type of nation and people we want to be: The one that makes itself apparent in times of turmoil, or a different type of land where the Red Cross waits for the "high bidder" when deciding where to travel with aid.