Leave it to The New York Times to use a Big Storm as one more excuse to call for Big Government:
Disaster coordination is one of the most vital functions of “big government,” which is why Mitt Romney wants to eliminate it. 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.
I think this is what a logician would call a false dichotomy. Often in federalism it's not either-or -- the federal government does it or state and local governments do it -- but rather who does what. Romney's point that states have a better grasp of their situations and quicker access to exactly the right resources is not only valid but a key philosophical underpinning of federalism. But when the disaster gets big enough or widespread enough, it's appropriate for the federal government to coordinate efforts and offer logistical support. But it's folly to suppose, as the Times and other federal advocates do -- that Washington should always take the lead. That assumes federal bureaucrats are smart enough to know what every state needs in every situation, and they certainly don't.
The Times editorial uses Katrina as an example of how bad things can get if the feds don't have their act together. If I'm remembering my recent history correctly, part of the problem in Lousiana was lousy federal-state-local coordination, a problem not eveident in, for example, Mississippi. The federal government may have been at fault, but its was not the only blame.
I heard a story on the radio on the way in today about Indiana sending more than 100 people and 40 ambulances and other vehicles to assist New Jersey efforts in the wake of Sandy. The request came from New Jersey's Department of Homeland Security and went to Indiana's Department of Homeland Suecurity. The federal government set up the umbrella organization, but the state units handled their own mutual aid plans. Seems pretty sensible to me.
Comments
I'm not sure Chris Christie would agree with you. Nothing like a disaster to make the Feds look like good guys.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/30/christie-praises-obama-doesnt-give-a-damn-about-romney-photo-op/
There are a lot of farmer mutual insurance companies out there covering barns, etc. In case of fires, they are able to pay their claims and even in the case of small storms, but when you get a Palm Sunday '65 situation, you're likely to have 90% of the members filing claims, and insurance doesn't work in such situations. That's why there's reinsurance - and it's not just property and casualty companies that do it. In the 1970s, Kennedy National Life was keeping $10K of the risk on every life they insursed, and reinsuring the rest of the risk with Lincoln. The farmer's mutuals, however, had to go to Germany for their reinsurance. A big tornado could cause more loss than the company would pay in 20 years premiums, so American reinsurance companies wouldn't touch them. The Germans figured that if they reinsured 50 companies and a local storm really devastated one local mutual, they'd have 49 other companies bouying up the losses on that 1 company.
The problem with states handling disaster relief is that the states are going to be quibbling with each other over who gets how much money. If Philly gets clobbered while the rest of Pennsylvania is largely untouched, sjould they get less aid or more aid than Delaware, which is entirely hit hard, but is muc h smaller?
A federal organization can say, "Well, let's first get in food and water, and set up tents to sleep in, then work on fixing the roads so ambulances, line trucks, etc., can get in, then take a look at getting factories running, and helping with temporary fixes to houses so people can move back in." That's what a charitable relief organization like the Mennonite Central Committee would decide. Put state politicians in charge and they'll insist on fixing their own state's hangnails first instead of working on heart attacks in the neighboring state.
In many cases, we're able to set up policies and rules to ensure that resources go to the needy in an efficient and orderly manner, but in an emergency, we can't do that. That's why we call them emergencies. Nobody likes a dictator, even a benevolent one, but that's the kind of leadership we need in a multistate disaster.