Romney's Disastrous 'Relief' Event: The Opposite of Helpful

[Exile]

Romney's Disastrous 'Relief' Event: The Opposite of Helpful

54 comments
By David Neiwert





Mitt Romney claimed he was suspending his campaign today. Sorta. Kinda. Not really.
Actually, he was out schmoozing voters in Ohio under the guise of calling it a "disaster relief" event:

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney urged his supporters on Tuesday to keep up their efforts to help those impacted by Hurricane Sandy, and pitched in to box up donations.
"We have heavy hearts, as you know, with all of the suffering going on in a major part of our country," he said at an appearance in Dayton, Ohio, touted by the campaign as a "storm relief" event. "A lot of people are hurting this morning and they were hurting last night."
He thanked the crowd for bringing goods, which he said will be sent to New Jersey.
"I appreciate the fact people right here in Dayton got up this morning, some went to the grocery store, I see, and purchased some things that these families will need," he continued. "I appreciate your generosity. It's part of the American spirit, the American way, to give to people that are in need."

This warmed the cockles of the talkers' hearts at Fox News, of course, where no one doubted that Romney was not, repeat NOT campaigning. He was just helping box up some canned goods to help in the relief effort, and, heavens, if some photographers or some voters happened to be nearby, that was swell too. (Oh, and by the way, Obama was campaigning because Bill Clinton was out doing events in Minnesota, donchaknow.)
But had anyone at the Romney campaign bothered to ask the Red Cross, they would have been informed that collecting canned goods is exactly what they don't need. From the Red Cross website:

The American Red Cross does not accept or solicit small quantities of individual donations of items for emergency relief purposes. Items such as collections of food, used clothing, and shoes often must be cleaned, sorted, and repackaged which impedes the valuable resources of money, time, and personnel that are needed for other aspects of our relief operation.
The Red Cross, in partnership with other agencies, suggests that the best use for those types of donations is to support needy agencies within donors' local communities.
The best way to help a disaster victim is through a financial donation to the Red Cross. Financial contributions allow the Red Cross to purchase exactly what is needed for the disaster relief operation. Monetary donations also enable the Red Cross to purchase relief supplies close to the disaster site which avoids delays and transportation costs in getting basic necessities to disaster victims. Because the affected area has generally experienced significant economic loss, purchasing relief supplies in or close to the disaster site also helps to stimulate the weakened local economy.

As John Aravosis observes:

It “impedes” relief efforts, it doesn’t help. The Red Cross prefers money because it’s far easier to handle, and can be spent where it’s most needed and on what is most needed.
Afterwards, Romney refused to answer any questions about his previously documented proposal to eliminate FEMA:

"Gov are you going to eliminate FEMA?" a print pooler shouted, receiving no response.
Wires reporters asked more questions about FEMA that were ignored.
Romney kept coming over near pool to pick up more water. He ignored these questions:
"Gov are you going to see some storm damage?"
"Gov has [New Jersey Gov.] Chris Christie invited you to come survey storm damage?"
"Gov you've been asked 14 times, why are you refusing to answer the question?"

Oh, and here's how the press badges for the event read, via Dave Weigel:
enlarge
Credit: Dave Weigel

I guess intermixing "Romney Victory" with "Disaster" is appropriate after all.

[Sir X]

Hurricane Sandy Exposes Mitt Romney’s Self-Made FEMA Problem
by John Avlon Oct 30, 2012 4:33 PM EDT
Mitt Romney’s suggestion during the primary season that he might do away with FEMA has come back to haunt him in the wake of Sandy, writes John Avlon.
Print
Email
Comments (483)

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, President Obama has been coordinating storm response from the White House—while Mitt Romney has been dodging questions about what critics say was a primary campaign call to cut funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.


At a campaign stop in Ohio that hastily was rechristened a Hurricane relief event but nonetheless began with a Romney bio video, the candidate didn’t respond to what the press pool report said were 14 questions about FEMA funding.

The controversy stems from a tortured answer Romney gave at one of the countless Republican primary debates—when he lumped FEMA into a federalist argument about devolving funding and power to the states, specifically with regard to disaster relief. “Absolutely,” he said when asked if he’d support shutting the agency down and having the states handle emergency relief.

"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.”

To be fair, it’s very unlikely Romney would defund FEMA as president. He was simply doing what he often does—pandering to a particular audience. As a rule, Republican candidates object to federal government power, while Republican presidents end up seeing its virtues when they are in control of it.

But speaking to Republican voters, Romney’s suggestion that disaster relief funding was part of the “immoral” growth of the deficit and debt illustrates a larger problem: the disproportionate influence that ideological activists have on our primaries at a time when the parties are so polarized. Practical considerations and common sense take a back seat to pandering to the cheap seats.


U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney helps to load donated goods as he attends a storm relief campaign event in Kettering, Ohio, on Oct. 30, 2012. (Emmanuel Dunand / AFP / Getty Images )

To be fair, it’s very unlikely Romney would defund FEMA as president. He was simply doing what he often does—pandering to a particular audience.
The response to Hurricane Sandy shows just why we have a federal government as a backstop, particularly when our country is facing a massive natural disaster that does not neatly correspond to state lines.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican and Romney surrogate, was off-script but on-topic Tuesday morning when he told the Today show:

“The federal government’s response has been great. I was on the phone at midnight again last night with the president, personally; he has expedited the designation of New Jersey as a major disaster area ... the president has been outstanding in this. The folks at FEMA, Craig Fugate, and his folks have been excellent.”

That’s the point of federal emergency management, and of a national government for that matter: to help states and citizens recover from disasters that they could not afford to rebuild from themselves. Putting ideology first is idiotic and impractical.

The issue was gaining traction at a Union Hall in Canton, Ohio on Tuesday, when a Union Steelworkers leader named Leo Gerard slammed Romney’s comments to cheering workers at the Golden Lodge: “Ask him to go down there this afternoon and tell those people it’s immoral to have the government come help you when you’ve lost your business, you’ve lost your roads, you’ve lost your schools!”

Putting the heated spin aside, let’s look at how Republican budgets have been influenced by ideology. The Hill noted that Ryan’s 2012 budget proposal from Rep. Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate, called for disaster relief funding to “be fully offset within the discretionary levels provided in this resolution.” That means that whenever a disaster occurred—and the federal government stepped into help—the cost of the response would need to be met with cuts in other nondefense discretionary budget items. To put that in perspective, even before Sandy is accounted for, the Obama administration has spent more than $5 billion in disaster assistance since 2009. Does anyone seriously find that “immoral”?

A second threat to FEMA has come from the “fiscal cliff” looming in 2013, when most of the post-2001 tax cuts will expire and automatic spending cuts to almost all programs—including FEMA—will be triggered if Congress can’t reach a more rational agreement before then. An Office of Management and Budget report on the impact of falling off that cliff states that “The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s ability to respond to incidents of terrorism and other catastrophic events would be undermined.”

The Obama administration does not want these sequestration cuts to occur, but the failure of congressional negotiators to come to agreement on a bipartisan measure— and the mechanism for automatic cuts if a deal isn’t reached that congressional Republican leaders insisted on—has compounded the fiscal cliff and now threatens to impact disaster relief.

This should be something we can all agree upon. Disaster relief is an essential role of the federal government. Getting these practicalities wrapped up in ideological debates is irresponsible and reflects the way party activists have become isolated from the realities of governing. And Republican budget plans have real-world implications that won’t pass the common-sense test for the vast majority of citizens.

It exposes the absurdity of the ideological straight-jacket that candidates like Mitt Romney put themselves in when they pander to the ideologues within their party during the primary season, whether they actually mean to implement their ideas or not.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

John Avlon is senior columnist for Newsweek and The Daily Beast, and the anchor of Beast TV. He is a CNN contributor regularly appearing on the show Erin Burnett Out Front at 7 p.m. EST. He won the National Society of Newspaper Columnists’ award for best online column in 2012.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

TAGS:

[Exile]

Did you hear what Brown the ex-FEMA head under Bush said - Obama responded too quickly....woooeeiiii...of all the people...

[Sir X]

LOL...we need more like this ,fox a try dem best.I am personally going to watch Fox on election day and the day after.

Comedy central to rahtid.

[Exile]

I watch Fox all the time...to hear the spin and the vile...

[Sir X]

yuh good.

[Exile]

Have to get all the perspectives....I read most of the posts on the forum here..not all..

[Sir X]

I could understand if they were trying to be savvy with the propoganda ,but no dem juss declare dem position and shove it down yuh throat.

I read only topics that interrest me here, i go by the headings, then i dive into it,hoping to find a substanative point of view to disagree with......lol...if i cant i leave them alone..hehe

[Exile]

That means you take a position before..not an objective stance...you don't have to agree with the points..but you know how they think...
I remember when I use to listen to Rush Limbaugh on RADIO back in the 80's when in school in the US....had sm 'redneck' friends who thought he was great....and it was amazing sm of the things he said back then...then all of a sudden he was the voice of GOP...I had so much more perspective..

[Sir X]

Definetly not objective ,i have my bias, but it doesnt stop me from trying to be objective and that i give myself credit for, being truthful with myself.Some of us dont.

[Exile]

We all have biases..that cannot be helped...since we are the sum of our experiences and others who influenced us...objectivity is an ideal that doesn't exist but we may strive for or give the perspective of...or we reduce bias.

[Islandman]

I used to watch Fox fairly often, used to like OReillys program because although I disagreed with him often there were times he made good points and he gives (or gave) opposing views a voice. When Obama became president they went from a conservative channel to sheer hatred, couldn't watch it much anymore.

Oreilly still has productive things to say from time to time, watched him debate Jon Stewart a few weeks ago and there were some good exchanges. Most of the rest of Fox is just ridiculous. I Prefer to read some of the conservative blogs to get an intelligent perspective from that political viewpoint.

[Gamma]

Intelligent is a key word. I like to harp on the fact that Hannity is college drop out and in his case, it shows. His reasoning is infantile and incomplete as best, just like his college transcript

[Islandman]

Glen Beck made Hannity sound like an intellectual when he was on Fox. I watched his show once or twice and if it was any other channel i would have thought it was satire along the lines of the Colbert Report. Never saw anything like that on a news channel before or since.

[Willi]

I have seen OReilly on BBC and he is different animal over here. Di man sound intelligent and quite reasonable. i think he said that the Fox thing is part entertainment and posturing...