Emergency Management and Government

I don't know about yourself or what you want to be
When we gamble with our time we choose our destiny
--Molly Hatchet

Laughable editorial by the NYT where the title, "A Big Storm Requires Big Government," says it all. The central claim is that "Disaster coordination is one of the most vital functions of 'big government.'"

Constitutionally, there is no enumerated power for the federal government to engage in disaster relief. Indeed, students of political history know that it is during crises that governments opportunistically seek to grab more power. The framers understood this, and made no provisions for expanding central government authority during emergencies. Indeed, because governments seek to accumulate power during crises, it is precisely during such events that constitutional limitations must be respected.

The essay offers no compelling argument as to why disaster relief is more effectively administered at federal rather rather than at state levels. Prior to the creation of FEMA during the Carter administration, states retained primary responsibility for disaster relief. Like all federal bureaucracies, FEMA's reach has extended far beyond its initial scope--which was to assume a dominant role in any nuclear disaster that might arise in the US. FEMA has attracted emergency resources at the expense of the states, which has created conditions of dependency and moral hazard as people take more risks under the assumption that their behavior has been federally insured.

The more compelling argument remains with the states. Local relief initiatives are positioned to respond quicker and in a more intelligent manner than remote initiatives. Levels of emergency resources should be determined locally; consequences for having too few or too many would be administered locally as well. States where weather and other disaster related risks are high, such as New York, Florida, Louisiana, California, would need to set aside more emergency resources rather than rely on others to insure their behavior.

For emergencies that extend beyond the ability of a state to handle, then it would be up to people in other states to assist as they see fit. Stepping up voluntarily to help others has been central to the American way. I know of no instance prior to the forceful assumption of control of emergency management the federal government that Americans voluntarily ignored the difficulties of others following disaster.

The implication that, absent FEMA, people are incapable of responding appropriately to disaster is absurd.

The true purpose of this opinion piece is to blast Mitt Romney, who has indicated that he would dismantle FEMA and return emergency management to the states. Whether Romney would actually do so is certainly questionable. But the notion of turning emergency relief back to the people is commendable.