Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
America Last: Ron Paul’s Disastrous Moral Low Ground
There are many opinions and ideologies proffered by pundits, historians, and politicians about the role of government, but nearly all conservatives embrace the Reagan philosophy that government is the enemy of the people. It is interesting that although Republicans revere their godhead’s ideology, they demand government assistance when it helps them and their corporate masters and traditionally increase the size and scope of government when they are in power to further that end. However, regardless how much they increase government spending, it is never for citizens’ who fund their corporate largesse and perpetual war-mongering. For the past two weeks, Republican presidential candidates have decried government spending for programs that aid the majority of Americans at the same time they promote government spending for the wealthy and their corporations. It is an endemic problem with Republicans, and in varying degrees of severity they promote causes and issues that will do more damage to America and its people than any natural disaster or terrorist attack. Republican presidential candidates use distorted logic that conceals a corporatist mindset that if government spends taxpayer money, it must help corporations, the wealthy, and private enterprise; not American citizens.
Ron Paul asserted that FEMA should be abolished because it is wasteful as well as unconstitutional, and his comments are prescient in light of hurricane Irene and the earthquake centered in Virginia. Last May, Paul equated abolishing FEMA with morality, a free society, and good economics and he repeated his remarks again on Fox News Sunday. For example, according to Paul, if a natural disaster devastates the Gulf Coast, “Why should somebody from the central part of the United States rebuild” someone else’s house? He states people in affected areas should “buy their own insurance and protect about the potential dangers. It’s a moral hazard to say government is always going to take care of us when we do dumb things, besides, it’s not authorized in the Constitution.” There are several problems with Paul’s thinking, but his comments reveal his Libertarian bent that private enterprise is the answer to America’s problems.
It is dangerous to speak for all Americans, but Paul is taking the low ground when he implies that people in one region should oppose their tax dollars being used to help another region of the country. If all Americans had Paul’s attitude, the residents of Joplin Missouri would have objected to government assistance for the Gulf Coast after hurricane Katrina, or the BP oil spill that devastated the region because it had no direct impact on them. However, when a tornado ravaged Joplin, the residents were thankful for the government assistance to clean up and rebuild the area. Americans are not yet as greedy as Libertarians like Ron Paul whose solution to natural disasters is to buy more insurance and enrich the industry’s bottom line. As far as morality, it is Americans’ moral obligation to assist their fellow countrymen and Americans have always stepped up when disaster strikes anywhere in the country. As for buying more insurance, Paul fails to acknowledge that private insurance hardly covers damage from natural disasters like flooding under the “act of God” provision in most homeowner’s policies. But Paul still wants Americans to buy coverage from the insurance industry even though there is no promise they will pay out when a disaster occurs.
Then there is Paul’s statement that the government should not assist Americans when they do dumb things like live in a region where natural disasters occur. All Americans should be outraged and insulted that an elected representative of the government equates living along the coast with being dumb. It is unclear exactly how Americans can avoid doing dumb things like live in regions where earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding, tornadoes, droughts, and man-made disasters like the BP oil-spill occur, but Paul’s answer is to buy more insurance.
Every American benefits from government programs and assistance whether it is early warning for extreme weather events or disaster relief for drought-stricken Texas. When Americans pay taxes, and all Americans pay taxes, they assume that they will get some benefit whether it is safe roads, fire and police protection, or disaster relief for hurricane Irene. The residents on the East coast benefitted from the West coast residents’ tax dollars that funded FEMA and the assistance they provided during evacuations, but under Ron Paul’s philosophy, East coast residents should have fended for themselves for being stupid enough to live in a hurricane region. That is not the way Americans have traditionally viewed their role as citizens. Americans have always united to help each other regardless of the region they live, and without that sense of unity and shared sacrifice, America would have been defeated in World War II.
Ron Paul is not alone in calling established federal agencies and programs unconstitutional and wasteful; nearly all Republicans are corporatists calling for elimination of important government programs that all Americans depend on, benefit from, and pay for with their tax dollars. There is no shortage of conservatives who lack allegiance to the American people, and there are no Republicans who are not dedicated to enriching corporate wealth at the expense of the American people.
The government does not exist to reward corporations and the wealthy, but that is the Republican Party’s mission since Reagan was president. It would be interesting to hear exactly what Ron Paul and Republicans say they envision the government’s role is, and in lieu of a pack of lies and corporatist propaganda, there is little they could say to belie their corporatism and privatization agenda. Americans deserve more from government than Republicans are willing to allow and it is leading to a time when the majority of Americans live in abject poverty so 400 ultra-wealthy families can maintain their opulent lifestyle. Republicans claim the Founding Fathers would reject the government as we know it today, but one thing is certain; they did not envision a population of peasants serving the church and the landed gentry. That is, after all, why many Europeans emigrated to the New World in the first place.
Related Posts :
For Americans who live through a natural disaster, the feeling of helplessness during the event is secon ...
One of the qualities of Americans in the past was the ability to come together during times of distress ...
On Fox News today, Rep. Ron Paul had a special message for the victims of the flooding of the Mississipp ...
As the East Coast braces for a massive storm, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are trying to cover up the fact ...
In every country in the world, there are certain infrastructure projects that need government’s infusion ...
92 Responses to America Last: Ron Paul’s Disastrous Moral Low Ground
Public Service Advertisements
Brown cow
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 11:13 am
First of all, I’d rather not pay federal taxes that pay congressmen and senators that do nothing for me. Second, Ron Paul must have a lot of money invested in insurance companies.
jake
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
The fact is, the free market is a better way to handle this. Ron Paul is not trying to prop up insurance companies, he is saying that without a federal government that extends its reach through monetary policy and government programs to encourage people to build in disaster prone areas, the insurance would be too expensive and people would stop building there. This seems like common sense to me, especially when we are in the middle of extreme budgetary shortfalls and staggering debt.
Sarah Jones
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
what about the poor people who already live there and can’t afford to move? Where do they go in this common sense scenario? I guess Big Government would tell them they have to move? Buy their homes? Or let them die?
I wonder if you realize that you are advocating to do exactly what Bush did to FEMA – change its mission. And ironically, this is the fail that you use to justify this position. FEMA failed under Bush because he did exactly what Paul is advocating for.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
the government does not encourage people to live in disaster prone areas. However, the last thing I want is insurance companies tell me where I can and cannot live. The last thing I want is any Corporation tell me how I can live and that’s exactly what Ron Paul advocates. Just imagine, insurance companies telling you that you cannot live on East Coast shoreline but the very wealthy people picking up that property for nothing and living there because they can afford to rebuild their homes. I don’t think so
Sarah Jones
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
That’s exactly what happened when NOLA was “rebuilt” – gentrification for the rich.
jake
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
so the rest of us should pay for your house when it falls into the ocean and there should be no check/balance to the building in these areas? An insurance company wont tell you you can’t build there, but they will (and should) evaluate risk when setting rates. This is exactly what the banks DIDN’T do in the housing bubble and now look where we are.
Sarah Jones
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Jake, please stay on topic. I gave the example of poor people (e.g., in NOLA, not rich people living in a mudslide area). Please explain how the government under Paul would deal with those folks who live there right now.
And then explain how it’s not big government for government to tell them they have to move. Or it’s not uncivilized govt if they tell them “too bad” when a storm comes because they’re poor.
I am specifically addressing the FEMA discussion we are having here. You keep lapsing back into insurance — let’s just tackle one thing at a time.
maxine
Aug. 30th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Who are we, and who are us?
Define your terms, clown.
We are policemen, firemen, teachers – those parasite ‘government workers.’
Those who call for privatization, contracting out or selling our collective inheritance forget that before Reagan’s poison, government service was considered to be a highly respected and honorable profession.
Civil servants gave up the chance for more money for job security and a modest pension. No one was getting rich, that’s for sure. Like teachers and first responders, all Civil Servants deliberately gave up their economic potential to serve the people.
Civil Servants were the American people’s collective memory of what doesn’t work. When a government contracts out one of its functions, taxpayers loses all those decades of collected wisdom. In the case of prisons, we lose our entire tax investment, and a staff that was paid directly by us, for us. Once we don’t own our own critical utilities and services, or our military, we’re hostage to whoever we gave them to. The lie of the ‘horrid bureaucracy’ was to demonize the dedicated public servants who kept blood sucking corporations from pillaging our taxes. Like they are now.
Feasibility studies didn’t exist, because your Civil Servants KNEW it wouldn’t work, since they were there the last time it was tried. Billions saved. They were shielded from lobbyists and politicians because they had job security.
The reason the government today seems incompetent is that every time the government privatizes a function, it lobotomizes its own ability to see stupid. Sort of like crack. Money is the drug, politicians the junkies. It’s always been that way. But back then, Civil Service was a barrier to keep politicians from hurting us. They were our neighbors and friends. Not so well to do, but honorable people.
We’re beaten and starved our own guard dogs.
Smooth move, idiots.
jake
Sep. 1st, 2011 at 2:03 am
Maxine – let’s keep the name calling out of it.
To your point…you DO know that FEMA’s work is carried out predominately by private contractors, right? Very few, if any, “civil servants” are part of the disaster relief effort that the federal government brings to the table with FEMA.
jake
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
The government DOES encourage people to live in disaster prone areas, when they make it economically viable to do so by unconstitutionally overextending their reach.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
“The government DOES encourage people to live in disaster prone areas, when they make it economically viable to do so by unconstitutionally overextending their reach.”
Absolutely rediculous
simply scott
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Sorry, dude. The government does not encourage it. There are no federal tax benefits for living in GA, FL, SC, NC, VA, MD, DE, NY, NJ, MS, AL, LA, TX, KS, MO, IL, CA, AZ, NM, NV or WA, just some of the places that natural disasters occur. I suppose though we could all pack up and move to North and South Dakota because I cannot think of a single natural disaster that has ever happened there. Man, shit is sure gonna get crowded, and I wonder what we are going to do with the other 40+ states where no one lives.
As for insurance, it’s already been demonstrated in millions of cases that insurance can’t and won’t cover everything, thus this is a total non-reality and foolish at best.
Let me say this about Ron Paul; he’s smart and I like him a lot, but his social Darwinism and desire to just let everyone around him die off while he sits pretty in his little castle because he’s rich is really a shame, and as a self-proclaimed Christian (I’m not one), he should really go back and read the gospels that he so proudly claims to believe in. I don’t think Jesus said ‘fuck you, pal; get some more insurance’.
Dan
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Starting your comment with “the fact is” when there are no facts but rather opinions shows a distinct lack of open mindedness.
I think the best analogy you can make is to healthcare. You say people won’t build in areas too expensive to ensure. What we already see is that people build there anyway but don’t get insurance. What will happen is you will find poor people move to cheap areas where insurance is unaffordable and when disasters hit, it is the poor that will suffer.
Robert
Aug. 31st, 2011 at 5:22 am
The free market is about the worst way to handle emergencies, you could possibly imagine.
Example, major flood, people are drowning, I know what we will do say the idiot red neck right freak, we will put out too public tender the saving of those people. Two weeks later after the quotes are in, another tender goes out for mass burial arrangements.
In an emergency, insurance has got to be about the most stupid idiotic bone headed moronic answer imaginable.
Peoples homes are gone, the insurance company building is wiped out, and guess what, all the local building contractors are also in no position to help anyone.
Insurance helps you, when it was just your house that was wiped out, not when the whole community was destroyed.
Getting things up and going again is what disaster relief is all about, the next 24 hours to 6 months when services and the basic elements of the community need to be re-establish in order for people to get going again.
You know what kind of jacked up, self serving, jackass, says insurance can solve, the greedy rich liar who has more than one house, in fact several in different locations around the country.
In fact saw dust for brains, I will tell you exactly how private insurance companies handle this situation. They set up a subsidiary who insures houses in high risk areas, as people pay premiums all the money is extracted as management fees by the parent company, when a disaster occurs the subsidiary who has no money declares bankrupt and that sawdust for brain is exactly how the free market operates.
jake
Sep. 1st, 2011 at 2:10 am
ok…saw dust for brains… sounds good.
brandon
Aug. 30th, 2011 at 10:02 am
Here is the real interview and it make much more sense when its not taken completely out of context cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.co...
Anne
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 11:17 am
This should effectively put the last nail in the coffin of the belief that Ron Paul would be any better than the other GOP candidates. His arguments about FEMA are stupid, ignorant, and backward and they appeal to the short-sighted selfishness of folks who refuse to acknowledge that the fates of all Americans are linked together. His cavalier attitude about Americans in general is a dominant part of his ideology and negates the value of the few times he is right about anything.
Mark
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Dr. Paul has already put the last nail in the coffin for corporatists. It’s only a matter of time, maybe a decade or so, before enough people wake up. Obviously you haven’t yet, but I’m sure you will if you dig a bit deeper and think a bit more long term. Paul has put the nail in the coffin for both the Bush Neoconservative Corporatist Republicans on the right and the Obama Socialist Corporatist Democrats on the left. Remember Obama and the left engaged in corporatism on an unprecedented scale, bailing out insolvent banks, insurers, auto executives, and seemingly everyone in this country *except* those who are actually struggling. He protected the pieces of paper that serve to enslave the lives and prospects of millions of people, and simultaneously crippling the economy. And, he’s doing it with *taxpayer dollars*! The more we rely on force to get people to do the right thing, the more we will suffer. The more we trust the goodness of people to do what’s required, the more prosperity and fortune all of us will enjoy. If we Americans are good, let us prove it…
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
” Obama Socialist Corporatist Democrats” LOL! Thats hilarious!
I didnt like the Bush TARP, nor Obama’s spending money on banks. But I see the necessity for it. I am glad he bailed out the Big Three and saved a million jobs around the world. Ron paul would leave this world a place where only the haves can stay afloat and the rest be dammed
Anne
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Your statement that the more we trust the goodness of people to do what’s required the more prosperity we’ll enjoy is idealistic. If that were the case, we wouldn’t be dealing with nutcases like Paul and the other GOP candidates. Most people didn’t like the bailouts, but they were necessary. The only area where I agree with you is that everyday people are suffering. As for your comments about “socialism,” this society has always had some socialistic elements.
jake
Sep. 1st, 2011 at 1:40 am
How were the bailouts necessary or even helpful? Lots of money down a money pit, so far as I can see. All propped up by the Fed’s artificially low interest rates and endless printing of money. It’s a house of cards.
DewyB
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 11:28 am
Wouldn’t it be a great world where everyone just grabbed some supplies and ran/ drove/ flew towards the site of a national disaster? Then of course the issue wouldn’t be needing relief, it would be needing the National Guard to prevent looting and provide shelters for the “Victims” AND the Relief workers.
Alas, we live in an age of specialization, where the TRAINED RELIEF WORKER is the preferred respondent, not the truck driver next door with a flat bottom boat. He might not know if the gas leak is dangerous or not!
jake
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Exactly. And FEMA PREVENTS this from happening. They turn away volunteers. They waste billions doing what is not necessary and being inefficient.
Sarah Jones
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Correction: They did this under Bush, whose policy re FEMA’s mission is the same as Ron Paul’s.
jake
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Back this statement up please. How do you see it as the same?
Sarah Jones
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Back it up? LOL. You mean you don’t know? You support Ron Paul, and you are saying FEMA doesn’t work, using Katrina as example, and you don’t know why FEMA didn’t work under Bush?
It isn’t “me” who sees it this way, Jake. It is this way. It’s an empirical fact.
Hint: Bush changed FEMA’s mission before Katrina and defunded it. He didn’t believe in a need for FEMA….because of the evils of big government. In other words, here you are making Bush’s argument for no central government and you think it’s original to Ron Paul? It’s called the far right of the GOP and it’s nothing new:
“George W. Bush’s philosophy on disaster relief was one that Ron Paul agrees with. Bush took FEMA’s cabinet status away, and turned them into a sub agency in the Department of Homeland Security. After 9/11, FEMA role was changed from disaster relief to responding to terrorist attacks. From the time they took office, the Bushies set out to deconstruct FEMA. They did exactly what Ron Paul is currently advocating.
The Bush administration took the federal government out of the disaster relief business, and placed state and local officials in the lead. Bush dismantled the “FEMA bureaucracy” that Ron Paul was talking about on Fox News. No longer was their close disaster response coordination between the federal, state, and local governments, and when Katrina struck the consequences of this ideological decision proved fatal.
It was hypocritical for Ron Paul to call FEMA a failure based on Katrina, when the agency had been gutted by the same ideology that he is now advocating. FEMA was widely praised for their responses to disasters under George HW Bush and Bill Clinton, but that praise morphed into criticism when George W. Bush took the federal government out of disaster relief. Obama has restored FEMA’s disaster relief mission, and praise for the agency has returned. ”
www.politicususa.com/en/f...
jake
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
But you fail to recognize that under Obama we are averaging 68% more spending than we take in. 68%. I am all for taking care of citizens – responsibly. I don’t believe that Ron Paul is arguing that poor people can go to hell when their house burns down or gets flooded. As a matter of fact, I’ve heard him say more than once that he would have the National Guard back on our soil working in disaster areas. Get out of foreign entanglements and unconstitutional wars. Bring that money home. You can’t just defund a program without a plan on how to move forward, and Ron has not said that we should – as far as I’ve heard him say.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
And why are we spending more than we take in?We have been doing that for a few years. Its because the private enterprise will do nothing for America Thats why. Paul supports private enterprise even though he knows it is by far the biggest reason we are in trouble. Its his answer for everything. He supports weakened and easily corruptible states whos taxes would become higher than the Feds are
jake
Sep. 1st, 2011 at 1:34 am
We spend more than we take in because that’s what Obama’s budget has us doing. Before Obama, we were at about 11% overspending.
Sarah Jones
Sep. 1st, 2011 at 2:02 am
Jake, that is an absurd revision of reality. Two wars, left off the budget. Obama put them on. You call that his spending? LOL.
jake
Sep. 1st, 2011 at 2:44 am
Absurd it is, but not my absurdity. The numbers I am using are based on actual spending. In other words, even though Bush funded through emergency supplemental, the numbers account include actual spending – not the budgeting process.
I’m no fan of Bush, but Obama is spending like a drunken sailor.
Sarah Jones
Sep. 1st, 2011 at 2:48 am
“Actual spending” — so wars aren’t spending? What would you claim is the highest expenditure in our budgets?
jake
Sep. 1st, 2011 at 3:27 am
You claimed that Bush didn’t have the wars in his budget and Obama simply put them in the budget. This is true, but when you include the “emergency supplemental” that Bush used to pay for the wars, Bush spent 12% more than he took in on average. Obama spends 68% more than he takes in, on average.
We spend the most on health care, then social security, then defense. But each one is close to a tie at 20% of the budget each.
DewyB
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
No Jake… it isn’t FEMA that stops this from happening, its Human Nature that stops it from happening. People get greedy and double or quintuple prices, or are paranoid and won’t come to the door because they don’t know if its looters or the local Search and Rescue.
What stops the Libertarian Dream from happening is reality, the real world… cause and effect with human nature in it.
Sure FEMA wastes, and its not 100% of everything you’d want… but improve it, not dismantle it. The Fed can do much more efficiently what would take much more time and money on a micro scale without regulation and certifications can do.
Joplin had organization to send in power crews and search and rescue first to limit the danger of electrocution, everyone rushing to the scene and trying to help will get people killed in this day and age. This isn’t the 1900′s where hammers and hard work will do anything!
bee
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 11:54 am
We tried Libertarianism in Europe a few centuries back – it’s now called the Dark Ages, and for good reason….
Mo
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Good one, bee.
So…I guess I should postpone those plans to build an impregnable castle on the ridge behind my house and shake down all those who pass on the road below and slay them if they don’t pay up. It’s been tried, you say. Dang, and it sounded like such a fun way to spend my retirement years.
Oh. I could start an insurance company instead.
nogravity
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Private insurance is all well and good until, for instance, places like Florida most national insurance companies won’t even write homeowners policies.
A Walkaway
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Right. Not only that, but the rich who have their fancy homes on barrier Islands and shorefront property are usually covered by the state’s “Insurance of Last Resort”, and covering their massive losses because of BEING STUPID AND GREEDY means that the state bails out the rich – like usual.
Then the damned Republicans talk about raising insurance rates on the people who live in mobile homes (inland) and who have no alternative. Well, one rich-man’s mansion could pay for a dozen (or more) replacement homes for the poor.
By the way… if you live in a mobile home and suffer a disaster, that insurance pays off your bank balance (the last time we looked into it), and doesn’t cover replacing your home. They have different policies for mobile home owners vs mansion owners.
BeforeSputnik
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Private insurance is difficult to get in Florida because it’s not a good bet. Insurance companies make money because the odds-to-premium ratio is in their favor. When that changes, they pull out of the market. Is that wrong? Should I have to take a loss to temporarily benefit you? If I started selling insurance that I knew was going to lose me money, I’d quickly go out of business, and then there’d be no insurance for anyone. So the private sector will not insure Florida residents because it’s a bad idea. Why then should the government insure Florida residents. We know it’s a bad idea. It loses money. But people still clamor for the government to help them rebuild. It’s like complaining about not getting fire insurance for your house at the edge of a volcano. If you came to me and asked for my money (taxes) to rebuild your house there, I’d laugh you off my property (which is not on the edge of a volcano).
If you live in an area prone to natural disasters YOU deal with the consequences or move. Charities are there for those who want to help others, but you can’t force me to help. It’s tough, but right.
A Walkaway
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Bullshit. The insurance companies were making record profits. They’ve been raising rates and ripping off people in this state for decades (try getting fair or even legal treatment from a company like State Farm in this state, when you don’t have their policy – and from what I’ve heard, even IF you have their policy).
They want no regulation. Which is what the bastard Scott is trying to give them.
If you believe that they weren’t making profits even during the hurricanes, take this bit of advice: don’t buy any gold bricks or invest in any bridges.
Oldsun
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
How can Ron Paul claim to a Libertarian when his pay check until recently was from the tax payers of the US. if he was a true Libertarian then should he not have used his own mony to live off of instead of the tax payers?
Stteve
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
He did return his unused budget money to the Treasury.
www.ronpaul.com/2010-03-0...
He also stands totally opposed to corporatism.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=I...
Oldsun
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
But that is not his paycheck is it no it is two different things. You cannot claim to be a Libertarian and collect payment from the goverment it should go against your belifes.
Mark
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Paul is not an anarchist. He is the most ardent supporter of government, because he supports a libertarian position of a true, sustainable government who’s power comes from the consent of the governed. Dr. Paul is the only congressman who has earned his paycheck, imho.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Ron Paul is a corporatism period. Only the rich would prosper under him
BeforeSputnik
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
The quick answer, “he doesn’t claim to be a libertarian.” Ron Paul is a Republican, not a libertarian. A longer answer would include the explanation that libertarians still support some government (where the congressmen get paid) but just a whole lot smaller than what we have now.
A Walkaway
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Same old tired argument used by the rich to try to keep their money helping themselves and to hell with the poor. It’s been used throughout American history, and always comes up short. Some regions cannot afford to provide the services needed because they don’t have the resources, while others have enough resources to figuratively pave their streets with gold.
If we followed his brain-dead arguments, we would have a patchwork of roads, with no interstate highways because the poorer areas couldn’t maintain them.
We’d have starvation in one town, while the next would be throwing away food (or demanding that the starving town sell its children and souls in order to pay their predatory hyper-inflated prices).
They tried it in Kentucky with “subscriptions” to fire protection, and you’ve probably heard how that turned out.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Ron Paul stands for economic terrorism. He seems to forget that his beloved private enterprise will not sell insurance to many people, specifically the type of insurance that they need in the area that they live in. And Ron Paul’s world if you are poor then you might as well go die.
I would love for private enterprise to take care of everyone, or to be able to be in a position to take care of everyone for-profit of course. But there are no insurance companies both healthcare and home and liability that are not corrupt. If they were not corrupt than people would give them more chance to fill-in the blanks for the government has to do it. But unfortunately Dr. Ron Paul also believes that no regulation which paves the way for total corruption. We see that in the healthcare industry, banking, Wall Street, insurances and just about any other industry you can think of.
I don’t want to live in Ron Paul’s world.
jake
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
And how’s Obama’s world working out for you? How about Michelle Bachman or Ricky Perry. Do you want those worlds?
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
I would far more like to live in Obama’s that Ron Pauls. He is not far from Bachmann or Perry. Nor would I want to live in any republican world. Period.
Anne
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Since Hurricane Irene personally affected me with the loss of power for most of yesterday, I have no problem saying I would much rather live in Obama’s world. I shudder to think of what it would be like to live in the alternative universe that the likes of Bachmann and Perry live in.
Grant
Aug. 30th, 2011 at 12:09 am
Yes, Obama’s world (and Bachmann’s and Perry’s and Romney’s) where the government over promises to keep the proles distracted while it sucks their wealth dry with sleight of hand banking. When the end comes, they will be living comfortably in their walled estates (courtesy of our generosity) while the rest of us find that the money we have managed to keep is worthless.
But we’ll still have FEMA and the rest of the federal alphabet soup agencies, except in the end none of them will do anything, just like in the Soviet Union before it folded. Can’t happen here? Don’t bet on it.
BeforeSputnik
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Once again, a media outlet has framed Ron Paul’s words to hide their main point. When you hear Ron Paul say that he is against this agency or that program, note that those are universally FEDERAL agencies. He’s not against these things being done, he’s against who’s doing them. His goal is to reduce the size of the federal government, both in how much money they take from us and how they divvy it back out. The States will then have more ability to tax as much or as little as they see fit to cover their expenses, be they disaster funds or medical insurance.
It’s easy to jump to the wrong conclusion when you hear a strong opinion that goes against the norm, try to think it through from all angles first.
Sarah Jones
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Yes, that is his position, but as the founders of this country knew, there are some problems that can’t be solved by the states (national security and protection of citizens from all enemies foreign or domestic, e.g.) and are the job of the fed. That is the way our government is structured and it’s structured this way for a reason. If done your way, look at the chaos — Natural disaster crosses more than one state – who is in charge? (See: Katrina) What exactly is a logical argument against the necessity of a central government to organize matters that impact more than one state?
BeforeSputnik
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Texas takes care of Texas’s disasters, Arizona takes care of Arizona’s disasters, etc. It’s pretty easy to follow. Adding another layer of bureaucracy just sucks up more tax dollars and takes away Americans’ freedoms. What if i want to live in a state that doesn’t provide disaster coverage? Where can i move? Right now the federal gov’t makes it impossible for states to significantly differentiate themselves on topics like this.
Mo
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
I’m a little curious as to why you feel the need to compartmentalize your thinking into 50 bins. This isn’t the 18th century. We don’t spend our lives within twenty miles of our farm anymore.
BeforeSputnik
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
I’m not compartmentalizing my thinking into 50 bins, I’m allowing for 300 million people to have 50 choices. We can’t expect 300m to want to live the same way. It’s much easier for us to influence how our own states legislature works than it is for us to have an effect on DC. (PS my state is 220 miles wide)
Sarah Jones
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
You can’t be serious.
Are you? Please review Texas’ recent history in demanding federal money for natural disasters.
And if you want to live in an area that will not cover natural disasters, you can move to Somalia. This is a haven for Libertarians, and as a bonus, I hear Dominionism is making a real push there, so it’s a Tea Party perfecta.
Your ideas sound OK until one follows them past the phase of first utterance. It’s not just YOU on the line. Disasters impact water supply for all citizens, e.g. — if the state doesn’t offer protection, the mold from your house that you can’t afford to tear down after flooding will spread, infect the water supply, injure your neighbors….
In other words, we have these laws to protect grown ups from people who can’t think past themselves.
BeforeSputnik
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Under the current system, they ask for money. And rightly so, because I’m sure they have put money into it. I was commenting on what Ron Paul’s goal would be, to let the states take care of their own issues.
Gloria_Lynn
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Yes, sure…… Texas takes care of THEIR disasters by themselves, all alone, with no help from anyone. Bull!!!!
Texas has gotten billions of dollars in Federal aid for disasters and got them for all the wildfires too; maybe not as much as they wanted but with Teapublicans cutting funding on everything under the sun, including FEMA, there’s much less money to go around.
And your beloved nutcase Rick “Greg Stillson” Perry also took stimulus money and used it to balance your massive state deficit.
CLeo17
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
All of the current GOP nominees and runners for the highest office int he land are dangerous. I mean REAL DANGEROUS. Not one of them should be near any WH. I really wish their costituents would listen to what they’re saying which is WE WILL NOT RAISE TAXESA on the rich so that our country can get back on track. WE WILL trust me DESTROY SS MEDICARE MEDICAID because we hate stupid poor people who rely on THE UNITED STATES GOVT help them. We WILL TEAR DOWN the GOVT that way none of you can ever have clean breathing air, inspected food, oh yes AND NO HEALTH CARE..hell NO! We will never make it possible for you to get affordable health care you should pay those doctors and Insurance comanies whatever they ask for until you die or go broke whichever happens first. THIS IS JUST THE ICING ON THE CAKE OF WHAT THE GOP IS OFFERING YOU AS A CITIZEN. To you fools out there voting republican KNOW THAT YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE HANDS BACK ONCE YOUR SORRY BUTT ENDS UP IN A HELL YOU NEVER DREAMED OF. Thanks to your wondrous party the GOP.
BeforeSputnik
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
That assumes a lot of malice or huge incompetence. Whenever it seems like that is the case, I try to really dig into where the other party is coming from and I usually end up seeing something I missed by assumption or misunderstanding. I hope you can do the same.
To address your issue of the GOP candidates’ stance on raising taxes for the wealthy, I’ll answer for the candidate in question, Ron Paul. Congressman Paul has never voted to raise taxes, ever, for anyone. Factcheck all you want, you won’t find a tax increase. He thinks the federal gov’t already takes too much, and so he’ll shoot down any increase and vote for any decrease. As for the rest of your issues, Ron Paul would try to end the Federal government’s role in your life, leaving any social aid programs in the hands of your particular state; which cuts bureaucracy costs and lets people customize their state services to their liking. If you end up living in a state that doesn’t fit your lifestyle, you won’t have to move out of the country to avoid it, just the next state over.
A Walkaway
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Like people can afford to just move? What about the poor? They’ll get left out in the cold in your world. The rich will concentrate everything to themselves far beyond what the reality is right now (and they’ve taken almost all of the resources already for their greed). It will get concentrated first to the richest states, then the richest counties, and then to the richest neighborhoods, and finally to the richest houses. Everyone else will have to make do, even if they don’t have the resources or means to do so.
I just hope you don’t also claim to be Christian, with a heartless and short-sighted attitude like you’ve shown. (Or maybe you’re one of those “Good Christians”…)
Sarah Jones
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Continuing from above — please explain who is in charge of resources and management in your scenario when a disaster impacts two adjoining states that have conflicting interests (say, water). Like, say your state of North Carolina doesn’t clean up its garbage post hurricane, and it infects the water with that toxic bacteria found in the foam run-off. Fine, you say, let the people die in your state. OK, but that water runs off into Georgia. Why should Georgians die because you didn’t clean up your state?
By the way, who is going to pay for these state run programs, since red states take more money from the feds than blue states? Obviously your state taxes are going to grow and I’m not sure those states can afford it.
Then again, if I weren’t a humanitarian, I could get behind the concept of letting those who espouse ideas like this deal with the reality for a while.
mel in oregon
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
ron paul’s brand of libertarianism can be awfully selfish. the victims of irene shouldn’t have to suffer that’s for sure. but not everyone living in a floodplain, hurricane alley or an area frequented by earthquakes should just always get a free ride from the government. every year we hear about people in california that build in the country & encroach on wildlife like bears who are having their habitat destroyed by humans. when you live in an area where every year fires come through the forest & you don’t adequately insure a $2 million home, tough. same thing with people living on the mississippi flood plain, taxpayers shouldn’t have to bail out someone 5 times because they continue to live in an unsafe area. but again, ron paul put his foot in his mouth in regard to irene.
Sarah Jones
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Of course, too often the wealthy were taken care of post-Katrina by insurance companies while the poor were denied. I agree that a 2 million dollar home on a cliff subject to mudslides every year shouldn’t be the burden of the taxpayers. But when someone buys insurance and that insurance doesn’t pay, once again, it’s the taxpayers who fund the corporate refusal to honor their part of the deal. They will say that the mold is the result of the water which is not covered by hurricane insurance, and yet, the mold grew because no one remedied it because the federal response was a nightmare. It seems highly unfair that people who paid for insurance were left homeless….while those with the means to make a stink were able to rebuild due to payouts.
A Walkaway
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
The error with that thinking is that people often cannot afford to live in better places. For instance – Katrina. The areas that were inadequately protected and below sea level were also (for the most part, there were some small areas that were exceptions) areas where poor people could afford to live. The better places to live were higher in altitude and better protected.
I would agree if it was beachfront or waterfront property, in places where flooding could be a problem – that’s prime real estate that the rich LOVE and want all for themselves (and they want their monopoly on scenery protected). Flood plains? Often people don’t know that their home is built in such an area and they are devastated to learn otherwise. There are areas where 30 years ago it was swampland and largely underwater, but today is a development. A couple of big lawsuits have occurred in this area because of that. We regularly (every few years) read about people getting flooded out and it was because the builder had built in a local flood plain – and then later built up over the drainage (or restricted the drainage to build more houses), causing flooding. One of the first things I would ask if we ever get to where we can look into a real home, is how high it is and look at the possibility of flooding. The Realtors don’t always think about things like that or even know about the land… and they push things like “wall-to-wall carpeting” and “conveniences” rather than sturdy construction, good drainage, and utility.
(Personally, I don’t understand how people could comfortably live in tornado alley, but a LOT of people do.)
mel in oregon
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
the point i think sarah, is that a little common sense is in order. the insurance industry is corrupt & controlled by the rich, but then insurance is no different than any other industry, they’re all corrupt. the biggest property & casualty insurers have always tried to renege any time there is a natural disaster. a little different from.”like a good neighbor”, or “you’re in good hands”. but then all advertising is bullshit. they all too are & always have been guilty of redlining, which for limbaugh listeners means refusing to insure someone in the ghetto or bario. but i’m on your side, we liberals have to keep trying to make the wealthy pay their fair share, & we as always need to help the poor & the unfortunate.
Sarah Jones
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
I’m down with common sense:-)
Jeff
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
First of all Insurance should be illegal it is nothing more than legalized gambling. second if you really want to fix society this is a better way www.thezeitgeistmovement....
Sesso
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
How can Ron Paul claim to a Libertarian when his pay check until recently was from the tax payers of the US. if he was a true Libertarian then should he not have used his own mony to live off of instead of the tax payers?
LeftWinger
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
I wonder how much this author is being paid to write this article…
Ron Paul, along with Dennis Kucinich and one or two others, was one of the few honest members of Congress. This is the second article that I’ve seen bashing him today. I call shenanigans.
JT
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Its also obvious that the author of this is anti Ron Paul, congratulations you are just like the main stream media. Lets pick the worse picture we can of Ron Paul and start bashing his pro constitutional ideas. Lets ignore what he stands for and nit pick a topic and leave out good solid information and educate the readers. Nooo, thats not fun lets bash him and post up a silly picture and collect a paycheck.
Sarah Jones
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
The way to disagree with something is to find the factual inaccuracy – accusing of bias without any such example sort of makes you look like a conspiracy nutter from the far right. The “media” isn’t out to get Ron Paul. Unless reporting on Ron Paul accurately is the equivalent of being out to get him….
A Walkaway
Aug. 30th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Nobody needs to be “out to get” Ron Paul. He’s doing fine by himself – opening his mouth and letting people know what he’s really about.
Goober
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
You know what the real moral low ground is? Its the entitlement types, who want to live on their pretty beaches and trendy areas, that are regularly hit by hurricanes, or on fault lines (California) or in the middle of flood planes, or you let BP or another company irresponsibly drill until they hemorrhage oil all over your beaches — and then, have the temerity to expect the rest of the country, who live in responsible areas, to bail them out via tax dollars ever single time theres a flood/hurricane/earthquake.
If you want to live in a dangerous area because its pretty/trendy, dont expect me to bail you out every time you get bit.
Oh, and to call Ron Paul a corporatist? LOL. It just shows what a worthless piece of Yellow Journalism this is.
First they ignore.
Then they attack.
Then the emulate – and Rick Perry is already starting to pretend to be Ron Paul, there’s your corporatist.
Ron Paul for President baby.
Sarah Jones
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Who lives in “responsible areas”? I just want to know if living in a tornado prone area like the midwest is considered “responsible” but mudslides no, hurricanes no, hail yes, …..?
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Yes I am sure you want Ron Paul to tell you where to live through his insurance companys.
The real moral low ground is people who think they can tell people who have worked all their lives where to live. They are not entitlement types. Jesus, I have never seen such a post
Brad
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Although I agree with you that Ron Paul’s ideas are not in line with most US citizens, I disagree with your assumption that the majority of conservative Republicans are in favor of corporate welfare and bailouts. This seems to be the rally cry for liberals this year, and it couldn’t be farther from the truth. Conservative business practices rely on the value of holdings to be equal or greater to than their selling price. In other words bailouts are bad for the conservative businessman.
Sarah Jones
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
But it is the truth, as evidenced from Republican governors who are derailing the free market with mercantilist socialism for favored corporations over others to national Republican officials advocating for the same thing for those who fund them. And if Republicans are against bail outs, who did TARP?
Brad
Aug. 30th, 2011 at 4:43 am
With out mentioning which governors I really can’t answer that part of the question. It may seem obvious in the circles you travel in but not mine.
I am not sure you understand the Right from Republicans, but to answer your question:
George Bush signed TARP into law in Oct. of 2008. He met with the front runners on each side Rep. and Dem. (including Hillary) prior to discuss an up coming crisis and how to handle it. It was criticized more the farther right you went on the spectrum. The far right does not particularly consider Bush and certainly not McCain to be on the fiscal “right”. That is why that insane Anne Colter lady said she would vote for Hillary instead of McCain if Hillary won the primary.
In theory it could have worked, but it didn’t, it shouldn’t have been tried, now government spending money creating government jobs (like our current president is doing)and throwing good money after bad into bailouts is like using sandpaper for a band-aid on the open soar. But if you really look into the situation objectively I am not sure you would want to be throwing stones at the right on this issue. The traditional conservative philosophy would be to let the market correct itself, it would also have made the left riot in the streets (figure of speech) when you try to help in this way things only get worse, now they are on the edge of a place of no return(s).
A Walkaway
Aug. 30th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
The market correcting itself is BULLSHIT.
The markets have always been manipulated to enrich the elites at everyone else’s expense – THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET.
The only way corporations will ever do the right thing (and that is NOT making profits irregardless of the damage they do) is if they are forced. Corporations are almost amoral… their only “good” is maximized profit and increasing the wealth of the rich.
Only a fool trusts corporations or the marketplace – or Republicans or the Tea Party for that matter.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 30th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
As an insider trader said, insider trading is rampant and the really rich never lose
Ryan
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
While I do agree that because natural disasters affect the whole country so the federal government should have some involvement in the aid process I completely disagree with the notion that Paul is only saying this because he is greedy and wants to prop up insurance companies.
You clearly have not been following Ron Paul at all in the last 30 years because this is consistent with his message. Government should be small and people should be free to lead their lives and let the local governments do most of the governing. That is his message. This comment is inline with that message. He also speaks out against the Fed, the IRS and above all the MILITARY.
He gives back all excess money that isn’t spent during his offices fiscal year. He is the opposite of most politicians in Washington in that he really does stay true to the Constitution and not corporations.
You don’t have to agree with him and I certainly don’t on everything. But something I will agree on is that he is the example of Politicians should act.
Sarah Jones
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
He has lived up to some of his ideology and kudos for that, even if you don’t agree.
CaptainAmerica
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
FEMA obviously made things worse in New Orleans and proved that FEMA is useless,tyrannical ,and a waste of money.
Anne
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
The director of FEMA in 2005 was someone who was in over his head, compared to the director of 2011. There was also the problem of levys that were not strong enough to withstand high-category hurricanes. Of course, we have to add a president who was out of touch and who appointed “Brownie” due to cronyism rather than competence. It’s also ironic that at least one GOP governor, namely Chris Christie of New Jersey, has praised FEMA’s performance during the havoc created by Irene.
Gloria_Lynn
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Federal emergency management in the United States has existed in one form or another for over 200 years. The history of FEMA is summarized as follows.
Prior to 1930s
A series of devastating fires struck the port city of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, early in the 19th century. The 7th U.S. Congress passed a number of measures in the Congressional Act of 1803 that provided relief for Portsmouth merchants by waiving duties and tariffs on imported goods. This is widely considered the first piece of legislation passed by the federal government that provided relief after a disaster.
Between 1803 and 1930, ad hoc legislation was passed more than 100 times for relief or compensation after a disaster. Examples include the waiving of duties and tariffs to the merchants of New York City after the Great Fire of New York (1835). After President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination at John T. Ford’s Theatre, the 54th Congress passed legislation compensating those who were injured in the theater.
Piecemeal approach (1930s–1960s)
After the start of the Great Depression in 1929, President Herbert Hoover had commissioned the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in 1932. The purpose of the RFC was to lend money to banks and institutions to stimulate economic activity. RFC was also responsible for dispensing federal dollars in the wake of a disaster. RFC can be considered the first organized federal disaster response agency.
The Bureau of Public Roads in 1934 was given authority to finance the reconstruction of highways and roads after a disaster. The Flood Control Act of 1944 also gave the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authority over flood control and irrigation projects and thus played a major role in disaster recovery from flooding.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (1973–1979)
Federal disaster relief and recovery was brought under the umbrella of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),in 1973 by Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1973, and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration was created as an organizational unit within the department. This agency would oversee disasters such as occurring until its incorporation into the FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency, created by Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, and implemented by Executive Orders 12127 and 12148.
Prior to implementation of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 by E.O. 12127 and E.O. 12148, many government agencies were still involved in disaster relief; in some cases, more than 100 separate agencies might be jockeying for control and jurisdiction of a disaster.
Over the years, Congress increasingly extended the range of covered categories for assistance, and several presidential executive orders did the same. By enacting these various forms of legislative direction, Congress established a category for annual budgetary amounts of assistance to victims of various types of hazards or disasters, it specified the qualifications, and then it established or delegated the responsibilities to various federal and non-federal agencies.
In time, this expanded array of agencies themselves underwent reorganization. One of the first such federal agencies was the Federal Civil Defense Administration, which operated within the Executive Office of the President. Functions to administer disaster relief were then given to the President himself, who delegated to the Housing and Home Finance Administration. Subsequently, a new office of the Office of Defense Mobilization was created. Then, the new Office of Defense and Civilian Mobilization, managed by the EOP; after that, the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, which renamed the former agency; then, the Office of Civil Defense, under the Department of Defense (DoD); the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW); the Department of Agriculture; the Office of Emergency Planning (OEmP); the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency (replacing the OCD in the DoD); the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the General Services Administration (GSA) (upon termination of the OEmP).
These actions demonstrated that during those years, the nation’s domestic preparedness was addressed by several disparate legislative actions, motivated by policy and budgetary earmarking, and not by a single, unifying, comprehensive strategy to meet the nation’s needs over time. Then, in 1978 an effort was made to consolidate the several singular functions; FEMA was created to house civil defense and disaster preparedness under one roof. This was a very controversial decision.
FEMA as an independent agency (1979–2003)
National Fire Prevention and Control Administration redirects here
FEMA seal before 2003
FEMA was established under the 1978 Reorganization Plan No. 3, and activated April 1, 1979 by Jimmy Carter in his Executive Order 12127. In July, Carter signed Executive Order 12148 shifting disaster relief efforts to the new federal level agency. FEMA absorbed the Federal Insurance Administration, the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration, the National Weather Service Community Preparedness Program, the Federal Preparedness Agency of the General Services Administration and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration activities from HUD. FEMA was also given the responsibility for overseeing the nation’s Civil Defense, a function which had previously been performed by the Department of Defense’s Defense Civil Preparedness Agency.
One of the first disasters FEMA responded to was the dumping of toxic waste into Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New York in the late 1970s. FEMA also responded to the Three Mile Island nuclear accident where the nuclear generating station suffered a partial core meltdown. These disasters, while showing the agency could function properly, also uncovered some inefficiencies.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton appointed James Lee Witt as FEMA Director. In 1996, the agency was elevated to cabinet rank. This was not continued by President George W. Bush. Witt initiated reforms that would help to streamline the disaster recovery and mitigation process. The end of the Cold War also allowed the agency’s resources to be turned away from civil defense to natural disaster preparedness.
After FEMA’s creation through reorganization and executive orders, Congress continued to expand FEMA’s authority by assigning responsibilities to it. Those responsibilities include dam safety under the National Dam Safety Program Act; disaster assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; earthquake hazards reduction under the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 and further expanded by Executive Order 12699, regarding safety requirements for federal buildings and Executive Order 12941, concerning the need for cost estimates to seismically retrofit federal buildings; emergency food and shelter under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987; fire control, under the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974; hazardous materials, under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986; insurance, under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968; national security, under the National Security Act of 1947, the Defense Production Act of 1950; and various executive orders under presidents Eisenhower, Reagan, H. W. Bush, Clinton, and G.W. Bush.
In addition, FEMA received authority for counter terrorism through the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici amendment under the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996, which was a response to the recognized vulnerabilities of the U.S. after the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995.
Congress funded FEMA through a combination of regular appropriations and emergency funding in response to events.
FEMA under Department of Homeland Security (2003–present)
President George W. Bush signs the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to better coordinate among the different federal agencies that deal with law enforcement, disaster preparedness and recovery, border protection and civil defense. FEMA was absorbed into DHS effective March 1,2003. As a result, FEMA became part of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of Department of Homeland Security, and employs more than 2,600 full time employees. It became the FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Agency again on March 31, 2007 but still remained in DHS.
President Bush appointed Michael D. Brown as FEMA’s director in January 2003. Brown warned in September 2003 that FEMA’s absorption into DHS would make a mockery of FEMA’s new motto, “A Nation Prepared”, and would “fundamentally sever FEMA from its core functions”, “shatter agency morale” and “break longstanding, effective and tested relationships with states and first responder stakeholders”. The inevitable result of the reorganization of 2003, warned Brown, would be “an ineffective and uncoordinated response” to a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.
Hurricane Katrina in 2005 demonstrated that the vision of further unification of functions and another reorganization could not address the problems FEMA had previously faced. The “Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina”, released February 15, 2006 by the U.S. Government Printing Office, revealed that federal funding to states for “all hazards” disaster preparedness needs was not awarded unless the local agencies made the purposes for the funding a “just terrorism” function.
Emergency management professionals testified that funds for preparedness for natural hazards was given less priority than preparations for counter terrorism measures. Testimony also expressed the opinion that the mission to mitigate vulnerability and prepare for natural hazard disasters before they occurred had been separated from disaster preparedness functions, making the nation more vulnerable to known hazards, like hurricanes.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
And yet people blindly follow Ron Paul who could care less if the people of Love Canal had died. The ron paul vision of America is economic terrorism
Grant
Aug. 30th, 2011 at 12:14 am
When will the proletariat remove their blinders, rise up, and seize the means of production from the greedy, misanthropic bourgeoisie?
jake
Sep. 1st, 2011 at 1:50 am
Please. Can we be a little less sensational? A man who has stood by his positions and principles (whether you agree with him or not) for 25 years of service in Congress? Somehow that man is the source of economic terrorism? I don’t agree with everything he says, but at least he’s for a balanced budget, getting out of the wars and focusing time, energy and resources on our own soil.
Glen
Aug. 30th, 2011 at 2:56 am
this guy actually went through the earthquake disaster and that’s how he feels about it. where were you when this happened? to him fema said “the earthquake sucked… well here’s dinner and a t-shirt on us”. if you don’t know what these federal agencies actually do then don’t pretend to know what’s good for the population.