Mitt Romney alluded to shuttering FEMA in a debate last year:
Only last year, as Romney hewed to the right while battling for the GOP nomination, he appeared to suggest in a debate that the Federal Emergency Management Agency should be shuttered and its responsibilities left to the states.
“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,” Romney said at a debate last year. “And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.”
Asked by moderator John King of CNN whether that would include disaster relief, Romney said: “We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids.”
Huffington Post
So now that there is an actual natural disaster, it seems like a perfect time for Romney to point out and show how his vision would be preferable in a crisis and he would be happy to talk about it.
Or not.
Mitt Romney refused to answer reporters’ questions about how he would handle the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), after a Tuesday “storm relief” event in Ohio for Hurricane Sandy.
TV pool asked Romney at least five times whether he would eliminate FEMA as president/what he would do with FEMA. He ignored the qs but they are audible on cam. The music stopped at points and the qs would have been audible to him.
Huffington Post
Well, I guess he was so distraught over the hurricane that he was unable to answer the relevant policy questions.
Failing that, this did give Romney a chance to show how he handled emergencies while governor himself. The media has lauded Christi and Cuomo for their proactive approach in dealing with the storm and to be sure, Romney must have some relevant experience that would be worth mentioning since he hopes to become President.
Or not.
Mitt Romney is all about dismantling the federal government’s role in emergency management and putting the states in charge , which sort of raises the question of how Romney responded to emergencies when he was governor of Massachusetts. Would it surprise you to hear that the answer is “not well”? In fact, Romney failed Massachusetts at both preparedness and response, as the Huffington Post’s Jason Cherkis and Ryan Grim report.
In 2004, Romney vetoed funding for flood prevention in recently flooded Peabody, Massachusetts. Romney claimed he didn’t have enough information about the project, though local officials said they had given him lots of information. In 2006, Peabody flooded again. Romney was there for a photo op after the flood, but Peabody probably would have preferred to have had the funding to prevent flooding in the first place.
When the city of Greenfield flooded, in 2005, Romney was too busy traveling the nation positioning himself for a presidential run to find out the extent of the flooding or declare an emergency. The most senior person in his administration, the city’s mayor, could get in touch with was the lieutenant governor’s chief of staff. Without help from the state, Greenfield faced an example of what America can look forward to if Romney becomes president:
Forgey says a resident opened up the high school and used it as a crisis shelter. A radio station launched a food and clothing drive and the Red Cross provided services. […]
The town could handle distributing donated shirts and juice. But Greenfield, with its population of 18,000, couldn’t repair this level of loss, which had been estimated to exceed $1 million. Forgey said she needed the state government to respond and for Romney to declare an emergency. But for days, Greenfield residents were on their own, with limited outside help.
Romney says he wants states to handle emergency response. But when he had the chance to show how well that can work, all he showed was failure and indifference.
Daily Kos
I am constantly amazed at how no matter what situation comes up in the real world, Romney manages to have huge marks of hypocrisy or flat-out failures that he has to hush up rather than point at with pride. I am ever more amazed that this horrifically flawed candidate stands a good chance to be elected President in less than a week.
Gyrate
October 31, 2012, 12:40pm
2
Esquire weighs in, reprinting a comment from the local papers at the time of the 2006 floods:
We find it inconceivable that Gov. Mitt Romney claims the state can do nothing to help those residents still struggling to rebuild homes and businesses after the May flood. Massachusetts is sitting on millions in unspent emergency funds from Hurricane Katrina and more than $1 billion in cash reserves, yet Romney has failed to even respond to the Lowell delegation’s requests to discuss additional aid for victims. The governor’s spokesman — since Romney can’t be bothered to comment now that the photo opportunities have dried up even though some residents’ basements haven’t — said the state will not consider spending its own money for flood victims until it’s clear how much cash the federal government will give.
So when he was in charge of the state he wanted the federal government to pay for it, and when he’s in charge of the federal government he’ll want the state government to pay. And money trumps everything. Got it.
I find it very telling that the state that elected Romney for Governor is soooo not going to support him for President.
It’s almost like they know something about his governing abilities…
Romney speaks! Well, kinda… His office issued a statement meant to clarify his position on FEMA:
“I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters. As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters.”
At a minimum, this is preferable to the candidate blowing off the question altogether. But the written statement from aides – why Romney wouldn’t say this out loud is unclear – leaves key questions unanswered.
For example, why is it that Romney now believes FEMA should get “the funding it needs,” but last year, he said “we cannot afford” to fully fund the agency? Other than the calendar, what’s changed?
What’s more, the budget plan Romney endorsed would mean at least a 34% cut to FEMA’s budget. Has the Republican candidate changed his mind about this, too, or does he stand by his previous commitment?
And let’s also not forget that GOP policymakers over the last two years have said they only intend to fund disaster relief if they can cut a comparable amount of spending elsewhere in the budget. Would a Romney/Ryan administration operate with this principle in mind?
The election is five days away. The answers to these questions matter.
The Maddow Blog
The answers to those questions don’t matter to the Romney supporters on this board, apparently… :rolleyes: