Federal disaster relief is "bad economics, bad morality and bad constitutional law."
When I heard those words uttered by now-GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX), I was perplexed and taken aback by his marked apathy. In essence, Rep. Paul and certain libertarians believe that there should be no federal funds for disaster relief. Hence, if a tornado, earthquake, hurricane, flood, wildfire or other act of God ravages a city like Joplin or New Orleans, then the residents of those respective communities should be responsible for their own rebuilding efforts. Proponents who agree with this notion often adhere to the personal responsibility principle as the backdrop for their conviction that disaster victims should help themselves instead of reaching into the wallets and bank accounts of their fellow taxpayers.
Rep. Paul's sentiments were recently echoed -- though less extreme -- by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor as he discussed his position relative to earthquake aid for areas in his own district in Virginia. According to Cantor, "There is an appropriate federal role in incidents like this [...] all of us know that the federal government is busy spending money it doesn't have."
I also found Cantor's statement to be very indifferent and somewhat hypocritical from a congressional leader who has repeatedly voted for tax cuts for the rich and corporate welfare subsidies for Big Oil companies without any offsets. In simpler terms, Cantor has no problems with big corporations and the very wealthy getting breaks and perks, but disaster victims should wait for Congress to eliminate spending elsewhere in the federal budget before they get any relief.
To a degree, I do concur with Paul, Cantor and the like that insurance is still one of the best mechanisms to protect one's home and its contents in the event of damage or destruction. But, as evidenced in Virginia, there are exceptional disasters that occur that simply are not covered under standard insurance policies.
There are certainly ways to improve disaster relief at the federal level. From a congressional perspective, it would likely prove beneficial if lawmakers could approve disaster relief funding on an annual basis as a part of the budget, which would negate ad hoc requests to add such payments as supplements. Additionally, it would be prudent to establish limitations on sensitive and high-risk areas that are prone to disasters to discourage further development.
Persistent efforts are needed to improve accountability, management and oversight of FEMA that has made significant mistakes. And, continual improvement of the disaster insurance system could also help reduce the miscalculation of risks that ultimately force insurers to leave certain states or to truncate the number of policies that they issue.
Notwithstanding, should the federal government stop helping those individuals that have been affected by acts of God to help balance the budget? Resoundingly, no!
As aforementioned, there are at least several ways to reform disaster relief but exhibiting a lack of compassion clearly leads to nowhere. Selfishness and dogmatic stubbornness are the real examples of bad morality. And, arguments on whether federal disaster relief evolves from the Constitution, the General Welfare Clause or an Executive Order should not supersede the humane discussion of the suffering of others and the unselfish willingness to assist and to encourage those who are hurting and needy.
Edward Flattau: The Effete Fed
Robin Koerner: Ron Paul Can Win
If that sounds absurd then realize that when katrina hit FEMA prevented volunteers from helping. Neighbors helping neighbors was prevented. Any time the Gov gets involved things go horribly wrong. But instead news organizations like this one still try and justify the same gov that is running us regular people into the ground. Get real. Use that money for the people not just a few.
But I should reach into my own pocket to help others, not extort money from my neighbor in order to do so.
Do you have any evidence for that accusation, or are you supposing that everyone confines their thinking to your narrow box?
But forcing people who take care of their own needs, to pay for those who haven't is moral? If Jerrod believes this is "exhibiting lack of compassion" and is selfish on the part of those who've taken care of themselves (but not on the part of those who haven't) then he's welcome to help on his own. But forcing others to do so, is selfish on his part, and immoral as well.
economy hostage to make a point about Obamas business regulation are killing jobs,we
we need lower taxes on the corporations,cut spending without raising,and the government
should stay out of the states way.If they can play games with everyday citizens lives then
call them on this and dont give in.I am not saying use as leverage to raise taxes,just say no,
we dont have the money.I grow tiredof the BS out of Cantor.Boehner,and McConnells mouth,its time to for them to take the tough medicine they have been trying to force down our throat even
if some of get hurt.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1133006273001/media-ignoring-ron-paul/
Maybe you all can relate to where he is coming from now? Enjoy.
Can you prove it? I've heard of lots of people living in high risk areas without the assurance of relief.
We should do away with the Dept of Agriculture,the Dept of the Interior,Fafsa and any other agency
that provides financial support to individual,the states or businesses.
We would also change government rules for the President,the Senate and the House of Rep.
Neither the President nor any other federally elected official will receive a pension without twenty
years of service,medical insurance will have to paid for(no freebies),vacations are limited to 30 days a years,the will be a minimum of 40 hours worked each week.
On the private sector side there be no grants,no small business loan,get your money from the bank.All subsidies will end,no business tax credits,Obama care will dismantled.
The military will expand to be self-sufficient,they manufacture their own weapons,clothing and all other materials to function,no more private contracting.No one including businesses will be allowed to get a tax refund exceeding what the government collected from them in federal taxes.
Once all these proposals are implemented the budget will be balanced and we will able to lower taxes across the board.I would also down size congress and the supreme court because with less government there will be less need for representation...
There's something else we should all think about is the Big Government concept that is so maligned by the GOP. We The People, For The People and By The People is the foundation for our country rather then an Aristocracy (Monarchy) or A Church. In 1900 there were 76,094,000 folks ... so the government was that big. In 1950 the population was 152,271,417 .... doubled. So our government doubled in size. In 1998 the population was 270,298,524 ... almost doubled again. In 2010 the population had grown by almost 40 million more people to 308,745,538. Our government fits our growing size.
Sure I don't like that we spend so much money on war or giving tax breaks to transnationals. Nor do I like all the privatization that sucks our money out of our communities but there's one thing I know ... if you think we can do without our Big Government then please come with me into the 3rd world and see what having an 'inconsequential' government means.
And remember if you want only States doing things, then you accept huge wealth in some and outrageous levels of poverty because not every State is blessed with extractive natural resources. We agreed to 'promote the general Welfare'.