Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Sandy, FEMA and the GOP's drastic budget cuts

As superstorm Sandy continues to wreck catastrophic damage on the East Coast, The New York Times editorial board reminds policymakers that "a big storm requires big government":

Over the last two years, Congressional Republicans have forced a 43 percent reduction in the primary FEMA grants that pay for disaster preparedness. Representatives Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and other House Republicans have repeatedly tried to refuse FEMA's budget requests when disasters are more expensive than predicted, or have demanded that other valuable programs be cut to pay for them. The Ryan budget, which Mr. Romney praised as 'an excellent piece of work,' would result in severe cutbacks to the agency, as would the Republican-instigated sequester, which would cut disaster relief by 8.2 percent on top of earlier reductions.

Does Mr. Romney really believe that financially strapped states would do a better job than a properly functioning federal agency? Who would make decisions about where to send federal aid? Or perhaps there would be no federal aid, and every state would bear the burden of billions of dollars in damages. After Mr. Romney's 2011 remarks recirculated on Monday, his nervous campaign announced that he does not want to abolish FEMA, though he still believes states should be in charge of emergency management. Those in Hurricane Sandy's path are fortunate that, for now, that ideology has not replaced sound policy.

Eugene Robinson at The Washington Post also takes Mitt Romney to task for wanting to cut FEMA funding:

Now, with an unprecedented and monstrous storm bashing the East Coast, this glib exercise in ideological purity is newly relevant. Was Romney really saying that the federal government should abdicate the task of responding to natural disasters such as the one now taking place? Yes, he was. Did he really mean it? Well, with Romney, that's always another question.

As the legendary Watergate source Deep Throat never actually said: 'Follow the money.'
The dishonest 'solution' proposed by Romney and running mate Paul Ryan for the federal government's budget woes relies largely on a shell game: Transfer unfunded liabilities to the states.

The Anniston Star editorial board:

Though we'd rather she not, Hurricane Sandy offers an object lesson just in time for Election Day. The Tea Party and its favorite politicians dream of a federal government stripped down to next to nothing. They would slash the budget, meaning quick and efficient response to a multi-state natural disaster would be impossible. Grover Norquist, the anti-tax zealot Republicans must obey, sums up the logic better than we can: 'My goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.'

For some, those are comforting words. At least they are until the flood waters and high winds have damaged your home, your family, your school, your ability to make a living and so on. Then that much-despised government can mean the difference in recovery time.

Stephanie Whiteside at Current examines the implications of the GOP's desired disaster budget cutbacks:

For states hit by disasters, the results could be tragic. The response to Hurricane Katrina suffered from lagging on the part of FEMA, and climate change means an increased likelihood of extreme weather ' even if nobody is willing to talk about it. States are already strapped for cash, and cutting FEMA would only leave disaster victims stranded without assistance.

Kevin Drum at Mother Jones looks at the context of Mitt Romney's remarks about slashing FEMA funding, made in June 2011 in the aftermath of the Joplin tornado disaster:

Republican orthodoxy that demanded spending cuts in return for raising the debt ceiling had infested everything, even emergency spending. Sure, Joplin might be suffering, but by God, America was out of money and there was nothing left for them. Romney, who was still in his severely conservative phase back then, went along because he didn't dare cross Eric Cantor. This is the real problem here. There's no telling if Romney really believed what he was saying or not, but as president he probably wouldn't dare cross Cantor either.

Randy Schultz for The Palm Beach Post editorial board:

With Hurricane Sandy's wind field twice as big as Hurricane Wilma's, and with roughly one-sixth of America potentially at risk, we ask again: How much evidence does Congress need before passing a national disaster insurance plan?[...]

As proposed by former U.S. Rep. Ron Klein, a national catastrophic insurance plan would not be a federal bailout. That may happen after Sandy, and Congress won't care about the debt. Mr. Klein's legislation, which passed the House but never got a hearing in the Senate, would create a system under which the Treasury Department basically would underwrite private-market bonds that investors would buy to repay large insurance claims at no net loss to the Treasury. Only states like Florida that have lower-level repayment systems could participate.

Some Republicans, such as Rep. Allen West, never seemed to understand the concept. In June, though, Gov. Rick Scott ' a self-professed free-market Republican ' came out in support of it. We would like to believe that reality overcame ideology. Reality is moving in right behind Sandy.

The Miami Herald editorial board:

The epic storm known as Hurricane Sandy should become Exhibit A in a renewed push to create a national windstorm insurance program. This monster storm should convince lawmakers ' and the next president ' once and for all of the crucial need to put this issue near the top of the national agenda.

Why does a national windstorm insurance program make sense? Let us count the ways:

' As Sandy makes clear, this is most assuredly not a localized problem. The storm is threatening all or parts of 10 states where 50 million Americans live. And, by the way, it's the second storm to hit the area in as many years, while Florida has escaped major hurricanes during the same period.

' State programs don't work very well.

Ed O'Keefe at The Washington Post gives us the comparison

Obama campaigned four years ago on a promise to revamp the federal government's disaster-
response functions and has embraced changes long sought by state governors and professional emergency managers. Since becoming president, he has led the federal response to multiple natural disasters, including tornadoes, flooding and major hurricanes, learning from government stumbles during the presidency of George W. Bush ' most notably in the case of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Obama's posture has been to order federal agencies to aggressively prepare for and respond to major storms and other disasters.

As governor of Massachusetts, Romney requested federal disaster assistance for storm cleanup, and he has toured storm-ravaged communities as a presidential candidate, but he has agreed with some who suggest that the Federal Emergency Management Agency could be dissolved as part of budget cuts.

In other words, President Obama has strengthened our national disaster response plan while Romney has asked for federal money which he argues should never exist in the first place. Oh, and Romney does photo ops.

[UPDATE]: Right on que:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney canceled a planned rally Tuesday in Lima, and his campaign stop in Kettering has been changed to a disaster relief event. Attendees were encouraged to bring disaster relief supplies for donation. Romney may make some brief remarks there.

As Susan Gardner points out in today's campaign schedule post:

Oh, wait. What's this? Mitt Romney isn't "campaigning" today. He's having a "storm relief event." I kid you not, that's what his campaign staff is calling it. Oh, and it's with other storm relief eventers like Richard Petty and Randy Owen. But don't mistake it for campaigning, no sirree. Not in a place like ... Ohio.