Here I disagree with Romney -- disaster relief is exactly the kind of thing the federal government should be doing in a big way, because the feds can marshal assets and focus them on hard-hit regions in a way that states lack the scale to manage. Romney is right that there's a moral question, but he's on the wrong side of it.
Livingston High School's second-most-famous grad gets it.


On Romney's part, this seems an exercise in sacrificing the welfare of others to uphold his own principles.
Posted by: JustCorbly | Oct 30, 2012 at 08:58 AM
I don't believe it is a choice of one or the other. Big government or state government.
And I don't think Romney framed his comments in that way.
You do, though.
Posted by: polifrog | Oct 30, 2012 at 09:13 AM
"You do, though."
Imagine that!
It's just another attempt to politicize yet another natural disaster, something that's standard operating procedure on a blog like this.
Conveniently, it also provides an excuse to divert political attention away from the real political situation that needs to be discussed.
Posted by: bubba | Oct 30, 2012 at 09:33 AM
Reading for comprehension, it would appear the blog author can posit anything he wants to on his blog. The internet is a big place -- I think the subways out of Whinerville are still running.
Posted by: Dan | Oct 30, 2012 at 09:43 AM
Not to mention that polifrog puts the words in Ed's mouth he wants to argue against (big government vs. state government, whatever that means) so he can dispute his own straw man.
Posted by: Roch | Oct 30, 2012 at 09:47 AM
So, what is FEMA's budget? What resources are they responsible for marshaling? security - no that's the govs and the guard. power restoration? or is that the power companies that do that? aftermath - housing? google FEMA horror stories.
perhaps its the sort of thing that you'd think should be centralized, but how is it actually working? please make a case for the job that FEMA is doing - not the concept of a FEMA.
seems like Christie's major concern was getting the tap from washington flowing. no?
Posted by: formerly gt | Oct 30, 2012 at 10:12 AM
"Not to mention that polifrog puts the words in Ed's mouth he wants to argue against (big government vs. state government, whatever that means) so he can dispute his own straw man."
However, we WILL mention that your reading comprehension skills usually tend to the most convenient wrong interpretation you can find.
Posted by: bubba | Oct 30, 2012 at 10:21 AM
In Bubba's warped view, Benghazi > Sandy.
Posted by: MojoNixon | Oct 30, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Surprising that all the do gooders are on here arm chair quarter backing instead of being in Virginia or Maryland helping there fellow Americans. Typical Hypocrites.
Posted by: sittinginthemiddle. | Oct 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM
"In Bubba's warped view, Benghazi > Sandy. "
If your counting bodies then Sandy wins.
If your counting deaths resulting from suspected treason, Benghazi wins.
Posted by: Hugh | Oct 30, 2012 at 12:30 PM
(yawn)
Posted by: MojoNixon | Oct 30, 2012 at 12:49 PM
As a believer in subsidiarity, Romney's view seems right to me in principle: the states should handle as much as they can, and depend on federal aid only to the extent necessary.
FEMA can be very inefficient in delivering aid. You can say, well that was under Bush, and he didn't like black people. Well, if you believe that, that's an argument for distributing control away from the feds, isn't it? It's a lot easier to hold state and local officials accountable for you state's disaster than it is to unseat a President.
Posted by: David Wharton | Oct 30, 2012 at 12:49 PM
I agree that FEMA's inefficiencies under Bush 43 were not because he allegedly hated black people. But Bush was of the opinion that government is usually the problem rather than the solution, and he ran FEMA as if to prove his point. Remember Brownie? It was all the more striking given how well FEMA was run under Bush's predecessor.
Now we have another president who appears to think that government plays an essential role during natural disasters. As Ed notes, at least one major Republican figure thinks Obama's FEMA has done a good job so far.
There is ample justification for nationalizing disaster relief, and it comes down to self-insurance. You want a big pool from which to draw resources for relief. If North Carolina were to be hit hard with a hurricane, our state government's resources would be strained by the disaster in a way that the federal government's would not.
Posted by: Andrew Brod | Oct 30, 2012 at 01:10 PM
Andrew, you know of course that NC and other coastal states are hit hard by hurricanes all the time. And FEMA encourages free riders who make a ton of money on unwise real estate investments that are backstopped by federal aid. To me, this is an argument against FEMA as it is now configured.
Posted by: David Wharton | Oct 30, 2012 at 01:22 PM
Roch: Not to mention that polifrog puts the words in Ed's mouth he wants to argue against (big government vs. state government, whatever that means) so he can dispute his own straw man.
So Ed was not distinguishing between big government and state government? It would be interesting to know what your reading of Ed's post is.
Actually it wouldn't.
Posted by: polifrog | Oct 30, 2012 at 01:31 PM
Andrew - "at least one major Republican figure thinks Obama's FEMA has done a good job so far."
Christie's observation was about turning on the flow of money from Washington to NJ. Right?
There's no doubt that the govt has a responsibility to maintain security when a disaster occurs. They should maintain public services. they should provide emergency services for food, water, and housing if required. They should evacuate/relocate people if needed.
But why should the govt provide aid beyond that? Should the govt really be providing all the items listed here?
Posted by: formerly gt | Oct 30, 2012 at 01:51 PM
DW, I'd also like to see unwise real estate projects pay for/insure themselves (that's part of the argument against the attempt to ignore rising sea levels in NC), but you could have that good policy and still keep a robust federal disaster program in place.
Posted by: Ed Cone | Oct 30, 2012 at 02:37 PM
Ed, Romney's argument is not about whether to have FEMA, but the appropriate degree of "robustness" at the level of the national government. If the current configuration is causing unwanted consequences, then a look at reconfiguration is warranted.
Posted by: David Wharton | Oct 30, 2012 at 04:57 PM
No worries. Romney's changed his mind about FEMA. What a huge surprise.
Posted by: Ged | Oct 30, 2012 at 05:30 PM
DW, while it's true the question asked of Romney was ""Should FEMA be reformed to put a stronger emphasis on the states and less of an emphasis on federal aid?," Romney's answer went beyond what you describe:
That bit about going further and sending it back to the private sector is more than a matter of the degree of "robustness."
Posted by: Roch | Oct 30, 2012 at 05:32 PM
Oh, he's changed his mind? Never mind then.
Posted by: Roch | Oct 30, 2012 at 05:35 PM
The Onion has a funny item on Brownie criticizing Obama's response to Sandy as too quick.
Oh. Scratch that. Not The Onion.
Posted by: Andrew Brod | Oct 30, 2012 at 05:47 PM
I am just waiting for Obama to start asking those NY'ers and NE'sters for "their dollar" so he can get FEMA on the case
Obama Insisted On State/Local Stafford Act Funding After Joplin , Missouri Tornado
" Despite his harsh criticism of the George W. Bush administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2007, President Obama decided not to waive a requirement that state and local governments contribute 25 percent of relief funds devoted to cleaning up after a tornado that swept through Joplin, Mo. in May 2011.
The Stafford Act requires those matching funds in order to collect federal disaster relief money, but that requirement may be modified or even waived at the president’s discretion.
“What’s happening down in New Orleans,” Obama asked in a video of a June 2007 speech at Hampton University obtained by The Daily Caller. “Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money?”
Obama misstated the Stafford Act’s requirements, saying that Hurricane Katrina-ravaged communities — mostly black communities — were expected to contribute ten percent of the rebuilding funds on their own.
The federal government, he complained, hadn’t footed the entire bill for Katrina cleanup as it had in the aftermath of 9/11 and Hurricane Andrew.
But the Obama administration responded the same way to the Joplin tornado as the Bush administration had after Katrina, by declining to cover the entire cost of disaster relief.
Bush, however, waived the Stafford Act at times to provide more support to Katrina’s victims. In May 2007, weeks before Obama’s initial criticism of the Katrina relief effort, the Bush administration provided an additional $6.9 billion to affected areas."
Posted by: Fred Gregory | Oct 30, 2012 at 07:38 PM
Stop making sense, Fred.
It's not allowed, particularly when the approved meme involves prevarication about what Romney said in that 2011 GOP debate, as indicated by Cone's last comment here.
Posted by: bubba | Oct 30, 2012 at 08:06 PM
Romney is very familar with how states should handle natural disasters. Check into how he handled the flooding in western MA when he was governor. The mayor of Greenfield, MA could not reach Romney when she was seeking aid to help with the flooding there. He ignored the area for 3 days (he was busy at a fundraiser in NC and a meeting in Boston). When he finally showed up, he never contacted the mayor to talk to her.
Posted by: Gerry Alfano | Oct 31, 2012 at 08:38 AM
Posted by: polifrog | Nov 01, 2012 at 08:54 AM