This is a hypothetical inspired by what is happening here in VA. Louisa County, the epicenter of that East coast earthquake that happened this summer, has been turned down for requested FEMA assistance.
It’s hypothetical because 1) I don’t know Louisa County’s politics and 2) it is not clear to me why their request has been turned down. It could be due to perfectly justifiable, non-political reasons. I don’t know.
But let’s say that Louisa County was ultra-Tea Party country, represented by congresspeople like Eric Cantor who have gone on record for their negative views about FEMA and federal aid.
Would it be unethical for the administration to give these people the finger? Or does it have a responsibility to them regardless of their political views and contradictory behavior?
(I say the latter because it’s the “right” thing to do. But I do like the message that the former sends. I suppose that makes me evil.)
Is it ethical to without aid from people because of their political beliefs? Of course not, and I would hope this was about as debatable as “Is it o.k. to kill puppies and kittens if their owners refuse to donate to the ASPCA?”.
It’s not ethical or even legal to do what the OP describes.
Of course, turning from the hypothetical to the real, there’s absolutely no good reason to believe it’s happened. The President (and his agencies) are entitled to the presumption of legal and ethical behavior. And even without that presumption, there’s no good evidence (apart from the denial itself) that any improper motives were in play.
What would you think of a mayor ordering his fire department not to put out a fire on property owned by a political rival? This is essentially the same thing.
So, FEMA should withhold aid from people because Eric Cantor said some bad things about the agency? Yeah, that makes sense. Especially because Eric Cantor said, according to the OP, that “Republicans may seek corresponding budget cuts before approving storm funding”. The best way to stop that type of anti-social rhetoric is to punish the people in his district. Especially the ones who didn’t vote for him.
It shouldn’t be on FEMA to say, “Hey, you said FEMA sucks, so we’re not sending you any money.”
On the other hand, I think if people like Eric Cantor had any balls, they would step up and say, “Nonsense! My devastated constituents don’t need any of that tainted FEMA money! They’ll pick themselves up by their own boot straps, as God intended. You just take all that cash right back, mister!”
Possibly his position is that FEMA (a) shouldn’t have taken his constituents’ money away in the first place, and (b) should now say “You all just take all that cash right back!”
FEMA doesn’t take any money from anybody. FEMA is funded by taxes, sure, but there isn’t an itemized - and this is how much of your personal taxes go toward FEMA. If it makes them feel better, they can just assume all their taxes are going toward buidling a better cluster bomb and all will be square.
All us pussies who think FEMA’s existance is a good idea will continue to utilize it when needed, and those boot-strap pullers will be secure with their non-involvement in such an underhanded scheme all while knowing that their tax money is going toward a better cause.
Alright .. some hyperboly, because I don’t know exactly what Cantor said about FEMA (taking the OP at face value) … but if someone has gone on record saying that a program is unneeded and then in the next moment he turns around with his hand out toward the program, then fuck him.
I don’t think we should target based on politics, but I think it’s a good time to restrict FEMA aid to life saving activities. I’m tired of sending money year after year to conservative areas only to have them whine about taxes and try and deny human rights to anyone who isn’t like them. Maybe we should have a sunshine tax so Florida can send Oregon a dividend when they have good weather, since we send them aid every time a hurricane blows through.