NY Times goes off the deep end as it attempts to criiticize Romney for injecting commonsence into a discussion on federal emergency aid.

In a ridiculous article,  an editorial, if you will,  found in the NYT's Monday edition,  entitled "Big Storm Requires Big Government,"  the big spenders at the Times chastised the GOP and Mitt Romney for their opposition to an increased role on the part of FEMA and the Federal Government.   


Disaster coordination is one of the most vital functions of “big government,” which is why Mitt Romney wants to eliminate it. [and this editor says, Huh???]  At a Republican primary debate last year, Mr. Romney was asked whether emergency management was a function that should be returned to the states. He not only agreed, he went further.

“Absolutely,” he said. “Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.” Mr. Romney not only believes that states acting independently can handle the response to a vast East Coast storm better than Washington, but that profit-making companies can do an even better job. He said it was “immoral” for the federal government to do all these things if it means increasing the debt. 

It’s an absurd notion, but it’s fully in line with decades of Republican resistance to federal emergency planning. FEMA, created by President Jimmy Carter, was elevated to cabinet rank in the Bill Clinton administration, but was then demoted by President George W. Bush, who neglected it, subsumed it into the Department of Homeland Security, and placed it in the control of political hacks. The disaster of Hurricane Katrina was just waiting to happen.   

Understand that none of the above review presents that which is problematic,  in and of itself. FEMA did not exist before Jimmy Carter,  and we all got along just fine.  Katrina was not a problem resulting from slow response times centered at the federal level,  but was the fault of a wholly dysfunctional Louisiana State system and an idiot's form of governance at the local (City of New Orleans) level, period.  

As it turns out,  "coordination" and [borrowed] monies" are all the feds have to offer in such cases.  Not only are the several states different in their demands for reconstruction and prevention,  in most cases these very differences are, first,  neighborhood and community differences,  then state issues.  

Understand that emergency aid is never an issue of the budget.  Such expenditures are never counted against the typical view of the national debt.  That way,  a particular Administration is not charged with such.  While this arrangement is fair to the particular Administration,  it leaves us with a confused and inaccurate view of our debt.  

At any rate,  you should know that a Mitt Romney Administration will be as concerned about the cost of true emergencies as the next Administration.