This topic keeps growing, so I will add articles that bring out additional dimensions.
As a continuation of the topics I write about yesterday, I want to share an editorial in NYT today: A Big Storm Requires Big Government. Here is the concluding paragraph:
Does Mr. Romney really believe that financially strapped states would do a better job than a properly functioning federal agency? Who would make decisions about where to send federal aid? Or perhaps there would be no federal aid, and every state would bear the burden of billions of dollars in damages. After Mr. Romney’s 2011 remarks recirculated on Monday, his nervous campaign announced that he does not want to abolish FEMA, though he still believes states should be in charge of emergency management. Those in Hurricane Sandy’s path are fortunate that, for now, that ideology has not replaced sound policy.
Another take on the topic of the disaster policies of Romney and Obama, from the Wash. Post on October 28. This one includes quotes from nationally known researchers, such as Kathleen Tierney.
One more perspective, from NBC News.
Rebuttals to the NY Times editorial:
(1) The Heritage Foundation’s response to the NYT article. Matt Mayer commented on October 30 as noted here.
(2) The Wall St. Journal’s article was titled: A Big Storm Requires Big Bird? Necessary government doesn’t justify extravagant government.
(3) A neutral commentary from the Christian Science Monitor.
An example of bad consequences for failure to use federal money for flood mitigation. Romney is now taking the heat for a 2004 decision in Massachusetts.
The view that politicizing a disaster is normal, is the theme of this article in NY magazine, October 30.
- Mitt Romney’s Terrifying Plans for FEMA and Disaster Relief (alternet.org)
- Mitt’s disastrous emergency management plan (salon.com)
- GOP strategist: Romney ‘right on the button’ in knocking FEMA (rawstory.com)