The official blog of the Libertarian Party
July 24, 2006
FEMA: The Real Joke's on Us
Here's what Jay Leno had to say about the recent flooding in DC:
"And terrible rains in Washington, DC, this week. In fact, Karl Rove's office was leaking again. It rained so hard today President Bush ducked into to take shelter in a theater showing Al Gore's movie. Major flooding struck all parts of the Federal Government. You know the FEMA office had over three feet of water in it. And here's the sad part. They still don't know. The other day, a 140-year-old tree fell on the White House lawn because of the storm. Well, actually, a combination of factors that brought the tree down. The weather, the age of the tree, and of course Patrick Kennedy's car."
The jokes may be funny, but the fact that FEMA had to get involved because of a little flooding in DC isn't. Nor is it funny that Delaware received federal disaster aid for "severe storms and flooding that began on June 23, 2006." We can add five counties in northeastern Pennsylvania to the list, but have to note that at least one county in New York is whining that it didn't get it's share of gub'mint cheese.
According to FEMA data, we've had four to five times the amount of "declared disasters" in the last couple of years as we had in the early 1950s. This begs the obvious question: Has the weather become considerably worse over the last few years, or is government becoming more considerably more expansive?
Right now, people in the Queens borough of NYC are upset because the governor didn't declare their area a disaster area after a power outage. They want their potential cheese and are willing to whine about it. As there are currently power outages in St. Louis, expect more cries for government assistance.
My family is forced to rely on FDR's New Steal Deal program, the Tennessee Valley Authority, for their electricity. Power outages at the family home are a very frequent occurrence. Does this mean we and our neighbors should receive government assistance because of the government incompetence which caused our power outages in the first place?
What's happened is an expansion of welfare mentality. We have individual safely nets, corporate safety nets and now safety nets to "protect us" from Mother Nature and Con Edison.
Perhaps I shouldn't complain so much. Next time we experience a power outage, I can buy that expensive suit I always wanted. My wife has always had a thing for Louis Vuitton handbags. While she's busy shopping, perhaps I can run over to the local strip club and booze it up a bit. If you think this sort of thing doesn't happen with FEMA funds, I'd suggest you think again.
Posted by Stephen Gordon at July 24, 2006 01:01 PM
Reader Comments:
I've been a critic of FEMA for as long as I've known what it was. The theory behind it is that Americans can live in any environment without having to pay for the consequences of severe weather. You're absolutely right, Mr. Gordon: It is an expansion of the welfare state. Programs like FEMA discourage individual responsibility, and consequently lead to an expansion of the state, which equals increased taxes to pay for the idiocy of other people. Why should I have to pay because someone chose to live in a hurricane-prone environment?
This is, furthermore, a big reason why people now blame the federal government for natural disasters. Katrina, according to them, was a result of George W. Bush, not a natural phenomenon called *ahem* a natural disaster.
I must say, I am outraged, but not surprised, by the stupidity shown in this blog entry. When people have to work and take care of children do you expect them to just sit around and deal with it. They pay energy bills and they expect to get what they pay for. I too would whine if I had to deal with the summer without power for a week. I don't live in Queens but I do live in NYC and if you think these people just "want their potential cheese"... then you are one ignorant person. I really don't care if I am being inappropiate because your comments were inappropiate... good luck attracting voters with it LP.
Jeremy,
I imagine you are at this website because you believe, at least somewhat, in personal responsibility. And if that's the case, then why can't you see this blog entry as representative of the bigger movement: toward personal rather than government action?
Regarding paying the power bills... if your power is off or out or even temporarily disabled, you aren't charged for the time that it's down. If you are, then you contact the power company and explain to them that you aren't going to pay for that which you did not receive.
Again I state, this is about moving toward a less intrusive government and more private control. Running to FEMA for help for every single problem, regardless of its size, only expands the power of the federal government and subsequently devalues the state limits as written in the Constitution. Yes it's a tragedy for people to suffer through certain things like power outages, especially in the summer heat. But there's an element of responsibility that people don't have anymore because they can always ask for government assistance. And it's no surprise that such a system creates the type of corruption the blog entry mentioned.
If you're going to live in an area with incredibly hot summers, then you are also taking a risk that it will be hot there and, imagine this, sometimes you won't be living in a perfect world. And when problems arise, it shouldn't be the government that bails people out, especially when those problems revolve around something common for a given area.
I find that I often respond too quickly. Just a bit angry. You may find that a great amount of these "whines" was about wasted tax dollars, if that means anything. Yes I believe in indivudual responsibility but I believe in a level of community responsibility. And tell me Marcus, do you have the land to offer these people new places to live? Because if you did, I am certain many of them would choose to leave. You act as if poor and middle class citizens have as much choices as a wealthy person does. And children don't choose to be born in these places you know. However, I must agree that federal assistance should not go to these places.
Poor and many middle class families do not have as much choice as wealthy people, that is true. But was it the government that put those people there? No. Children had no choice where they were born, but if they grow up in a certain area and problems arise, why is it the government's fault all of a sudden? Sure they might not be able to move away, but since the government did not force them to live there, it should not be the government's responsibility to provide subsidies and support.
The government in a way did put them there. Through State-Supported Capitalism.
| 
I've been a critic of FEMA for as long as I've known what it was. The theory behind it is that Americans can live in any environment without having to pay for the consequences of severe weather. You're absolutely right, Mr. Gordon: It is an expansion of the welfare state. Programs like FEMA discourage individual responsibility, and consequently lead to an expansion of the state, which equals increased taxes to pay for the idiocy of other people. Why should I have to pay because someone chose to live in a hurricane-prone environment?
This is, furthermore, a big reason why people now blame the federal government for natural disasters. Katrina, according to them, was a result of George W. Bush, not a natural phenomenon called *ahem* a natural disaster.
Posted by: Marcus Brutus at July 24, 2006 04:41 PM