I am quite sorry that people in the path of Irene suffered damage, but they CHOSE to live where they knew a hurricane (or tropical storm or a flood) could come. So I must ask, "Why is it the rest of the country's responsibility to make them whole again?
The government's main disaster aid account, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is running short of money. With less than $800 million in its disaster aid account, FEMA is now forced to freeze rebuilding projects to conserve money for emergency needs. Lawmakers from states hit by tornadoes this spring, like Missouri and Alabama, are not happy. FEMA is cutting off payments to rebuild roads and schools in Joplin, Missouri, because of Hurricane Irene. House Republicans moved to double FEMA funding this spring after tornadoes killed hundreds in Missouri and Alabama, but the legislation failed to advance in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
"The administration has let the fund reach critically low levels, putting continued recovery at risk, without a plan for the future or a clear method for dealing with new disasters," House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said on Saturday. "Time and time again, the (Obama) administration has ignored the obvious funding needs of the Disaster Relief Fund, purposefully and irresponsibly underfunding the account and putting families and communities who have suffered from terrible disasters on the back burner," added Rogers. President Obama has insisted that the FEMA disaster relief fund have at least $1 billion available in it at all times to aid emergency victims.
In Joplin, Missouri
FEMA has suspended payouts in the Joplin, Missouri, region for the moment to make funds available for those hit by hurricane Irene. It wasn't immediately clear which projects in Joplin may be put on hold. While many in Joplin are still left homeless and roads and buildings remain destroyed due to the tornado, FEMA is focusing on the latest victims of other natural disasters. Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill (Democrat) issued a statement Sunday, saying more needs to be done in Joplin. "FEMA should be prepared for all types of disasters and have the resources to respond rapidly and stay until the work is done, and until the community is made whole again," McCaskill said in the statement.
Meanwhile, In Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Art Faulkner, director of the Alabama Emergency Management Agency, said the FEMA action means tens of millions of dollars is on hold that was meant to rebuild four public schools destroyed by April tornadoes that killed more than 200 people. Another $33 million had been promised to construct storm shelters and strengthen existing ones. State and local emergency management leaders say the decision to suspend money for long-term recovery projects not already approved will have minimal impact in the short term, and they say they are optimistic Congress will approve more money for future projects. In Alabama, 32 counties of the 65 counties declared federal disaster areas after tornado outbreaks in April will be affected by the suspension of FEMA money.
FEMA, the East Coast, and Hurricane Irene
FEMA announced Saturday it is temporarily halting payments for long-term repair and rebuilding projects in order to pay for damage caused by Hurricane Irene. With recovery operations from Irene still in the early stages, FEMA spokesman Rachel Racusen said it is too early to know whether that projected shortfall has increased or by how much. "It's just too soon to know what any uninsured losses will be," Racusen said. [emphasis mine]
The fund also must begin paying money to 13 new presidentially declared disaster areas after Hurricane Irene raked nearly the entire eastern seaboard over the weekend. In all, 36 states along with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have active disaster areas. Hurricane Irene devastated the Caribbean and U.S. East Coast, killing at least 40 people and leaving an estimated $2.7 billion in damages. And Irene was a minor storm.
In Connecticut where Tropical Storm Irene caused severe flooding, Governor Dannel Malloy said, "We need to make sure FEMA understands the state they are working with. This is Connecticut not Kansas, even insurance deductibles could mean massive losses to people." [emphasis mine]
Do We Really Need FEMA?
So now we see that FEMA is going broke and the federal government cannot "be all things to all people." I am quite sorry that people in the path of Irene suffered damage, but they CHOSE to live where they knew a hurricane (or tropical storm or a flood) could come. So I must ask, "Why is it the rest of the country's responsibility to make them whole again? Taking the Outer Banks islands of North Carolina, for example, we taxpayers (who fund FEMA) were never invited to enjoy the beaches. So why do those people now expect us taxpayers to foot their bills for misfortunes over which we had no power, but they did when they chose to build there."
This current situation is similar to the one that occurred in New Orleans in 2005. People there CHOSE to live in a bowl, close to the Gulf of Mexico, and enjoy the New Orleans lifestyle. But when (the predictable and inevitable) disaster struck, all they could do was "point fingers." Despite several days warning, they could not even evacuate themselves. And local politicians really fouled things up. Then FEMA stepped in and the finger pointing really started.
So, ultimately, whatever happened to "self-reliance?" Sure, if a mentally or physically handicapped person requires assistance, administer it. But it's very difficult to feel sorry for an able-bodied person who chooses his/her lifestyle, than asks for assistance. What would our founding fathers think about FEMA? But that's just my opinion.
Warren,
Your opening statement; “I am quite sorry that people in the path of Irene suffered damage, but they CHOSE to live where they knew a hurricane (or tropical storm or a flood) could come. So I must ask, ‘Why is it the rest of the country’s responsibility to make them whole again?’” could apply to all of us populating tornado alley as well.
That being said; such a topic is an excellent opportunity to open a discussion on the proper role of federal government. Is it the responsibility of the federal government to ‘make’ people whole again?
I believe a case can be made that the federal government does have a role to play in assisting states to assist in the repair of state, county, and even city infrastructure as this infrastructure is supposed to serve the citizenry. But is it the responsibility of the federal government to provide food, shelter, and potable water to individual citizens or to provide funds to rebuild private residences? I think a substantial case can be made for the former, but the latter is on shakier ground.
Let me tell you a story. I live in Bonnerdale, Arkansas about 20 miles from the city of Hot Springs. During the last week of April 2011 we had four tornados whirl through Garland County, Arkansas. One passed within 500 yards of our house. The electrical grid was down for a week, and the County Judge himself told me over the phone that our outlying area was ‘on your own’ for at least 10 days because his crews were tied up in Hot Springs proper. Out of 24 houses in our area only half were habitable afterward. I was lucky enough that one of them was mine. I used my farm equipment to cut and drag trees, repair and smooth driveways, and repair washed out roads so people could get around.
We have an Emergency Power System. The EPS cost us @ $8,000 but will carry all household electrical essentials; water heater, ceiling fans, lights, micro wave, refrigerator/freezer, TV, coffee pot, and space heater for 16 days if necessary without refueling. Transfer to Generator power from grid loss is automatic.
We have 72 days of emergency rations in the form of MREs’ stowed in the emergency shelter dug in beside the house. We have 60 days supply of each of our medicines as well. But most importantly we pay @ $250 per month for something called new called insurance. It covers the house and contents, the car, the truck, the farm equipment, the livestock, and the outbuildings. That tornado could have swept the property clean and we’d have been OK with a single cell phone call to our insurance agent. This is what insurance is for. Insurance companies have actuarial tables for everything. For instance; I called them up to add a new livestock trailer to my policy; cost $1 per month. But if I loan my trailer out to a neighbor and he gets into an accident. I have coverage whether he does or not. Insurance companies have coverage for renters as well as homeowners. They have flood insurance as well as wind & hail damage policies. They cover against natural disaster, theft, and fire; just about everything short of an act of war.
We pay a rather tall rate for total replacement coverage (plus a $500 thousand umbrella liability policy), meaning any and all damage will be 100% restored. We would have been made whole if the storm had taken the entire cattle ranch; let alone just the roof of the house. We’re not rich by any stretch of the imagination. I make @ 30k at work and the ranch hasn’t made a dime’s worth of profit yet. Ranching and farming are the only backwards business models I know of because you’re expected to pay retail for everything but sell everything wholesale: But that’s a conversation for another time.
I don’t believe the proper role of federal government is to ‘make people whole’ again. In my case; that’s the responsibility of State Farm Insurance; and we pay $3,000 a year for them to do so. While I believe there is a role for federal government to assist in the repair of public infrastructure, and a state role to provide emergency short term assistance to local populations displaced by natural disasters. That short term assistance should never last more than the 48 hours it takes until private insurance companies get their adjusters on the ground. Anything else is outside the purview of government.
If you have no insurance, you probably need to rethink your strategy and take some personal responsibility. Good judgment comes from experience: And experience comes from poor judgment.
Bill, I could not agree with you more! You make a very good case for repair of infrastruture and public services used by ALL citizens, and with that I agree. However, FEMA wants to step in and make private citizens whole – with taxpayer money. Like you, I pay insurance premiums “just in case.” But if FEMA continues down its present road, why bother with personal insurance?
And I really like your closing paragraph.
Bill,
Justifying the use of federal monies for the restoration of state and local public facilities is a slippery slope toward blurring the lines of federal vs state authority. How can you very well tell the feds to get their noses out of your local schools, but then tell them their money is good enough to rebuild them after a tornado? How can you very well oppose federal stimulus spending on local infrastructure projects, but then ask for federal dollars to rebuild bridges and freeways after a hurricane or earthquake? Any place you do not wish to have federal authority, you cannot justify the use of federal money. Anything that is under the state’s authority should also be the state’s responsibility. Much like you do as an individual, state and local governments and municipalities can purchase insurance and use other financial instruments to protect themselves from risk, but also have the additional advantage of being able to raise funds through preferentially-treated bonds and taxation so that they can handle the consequences of such disasters. In places where such disasters occur with predictable regularity, they would be as foolish not to do so as the individuals who are left out to lunch because they opted not to purchase insurance for their belongings. The federal government should no more be re-roofing your state capitol building when the 50th tornado of the year blows through than it should be filling in your pot holes when the street begins deteriorating. To the extent that there is any justification at all for FEMA involvement in natural disaster relief and recovery it should be solely saving the lives of American citizens and restoring federal assets. Federal helicopters rescuing people stranded on rooftops from rising flood waters? Fine and dandy. Federal contractors rebuilding the interstate highway after it has collapsed? Great. Federal contractors repaving your local arterials, re-roofing your local DMV and pumping water out of the basement of the governor’s mansion? I cry foul, sir.
Patrick,
You’ll get little argument from me. My reference to the federal government rebuilding infrastructure is based upon their initial investment. If the feds finance even a portion of a public school, which they do, then I believe they’ve declared de facto ownership of that facility and are required to repair it.
Likewise; any other associated infrastructure such as roads, bridges, buildings, electrical distribution systems etc. If the project was originally financed with any federal money then the feds need to fix that broken piece.
“Justifying the use of federal monies for the restoration of state and local public facilities is a slippery slope toward blurring the lines of federal vs. state authority.” Isn’t this exactly what the federal government wants; a ‘transfer’ of authority from the states to themselves?
This is a problem of recognition by State government. Governors and state legislatures need to realize that all federal money comes with strings. Enough dollars equates to enough string to wire the puppet. Soon Washington pulls the strings and the state dances. Look at highway funds, public school funds or a plethora of other programs that funnel money from federal government to the states; Medicaid, unemployment, SNAP, take your pick. All these and a host of other programs come with built-in federal controls that are usually all out of proportion to the dollars ‘given’.
Bill,
Perhaps there is a justification for the federal government providing restoration to the public facilities for which they have provided financing, but perhaps not. After all, if your home is destroyed the bank that financed your mortgage doesn’t help rebuild your house after a natural disaster – your insurance company provides for that. I suppose it would depend on the extent of the federal government’s involvement. But as you rightly point out, these are all little “strings” that weave themselves into a noose on the states. Demanding federal funds for disaster recovery at the expense of compromising local authority because the local authority was already compromised by accepting federal funds for local construction projects in the first place is a vicious circle.