Too bad Knute's critical comments only "Crosscut" in one political direction. Paul and Cantor over the top?...probably. FEMA policies need review? Sure. Any positive solutions? Any comments on the other end of the spectrum like Rep. Johnson and Guam flipping over? No.

Just as we've overused the word "hero" we've overused the words "disaster" and "emergency". I bet if you played word association with Governors and other "emergency" management bureaucrats the first thing they think of when they hear either is "money". Those words look really good on grant applications. And, with just about every aspect of governance nowadays, there are armies of "non-profits" at the ready to assist with disaster recovery (spending). I know this is anecdotal, but I know people on the Gulf Coast... During the BP spill, there were legion of federal bureaucrats and non-profit "volunteers" patrolling the beach, urging people to apply for the recompense to which they are "entitled". One person told me a federal worker said he was entitled to compensation even if if it was just his daily beach walk that had been inconvenienced.

After our own 2001 Nisqually Earthquake (hardly a major disaster), FEMA spent tens of millions in Puget Sound rebuilding brick chimneys, mostly for people who could well afford to do it themselves, and did not even require that they be rebuilt in a way that makes them less likely to fail in the next earthquake. FEMA should not be abolished but it is perfectly reasonable that its role be reduced to providing short term emergency assistance and not handouts to people who have chosen not to be insured or to communities that have the resources to get back on their own feet.

FEMA serves an important service. Its failure during Katrina only underscores how important a well-functioning FEMA-like agency is to massive disasters like Katrina. It is part of the social contract itself that Americans can expect a reasonable amount of help from their government in times of crisis. The Republican viewpoint on this and other issues seems increasingly nihilistic (Merriam-Webster definition 2a), an empty and alienating philosophy that will not serve the party or America over the long term despite its current appeal among the alienated right wing.

That said, certain aspects of FEMA help could easily be shifted to the private sector via insurance mechanisms. If we required all homeowners to hold general disaster insurance (in lieu of the insurance now currently required, if any) that covers everything from wind damage and landslides to hurricanes, tornados, and earthquakes, then you obviate much of the need for FEMA grants.

We already indirectly require some disaster insurance. For instance, people with mortgages on houses in in high-risk flood areas from federally regulated or insured mortgage lenders are required to have flood insurance. Expanding this to most disaster scenarios regardless of one's location makes a ton of sense. People could opt out by getting mortgages from non-federally-regulated lenders, but then should have no expectation of FEMA-style help in case of a disaster. Then most North Dakotans would be insured for tornados and floods; Washingtonians for volcano eruptions and earthquakes; Floridians from hurricanes; etc.

An interesting take on how the post-Katrina disaster response of FEMA worked in the case if Irene:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hurricane-irene-and-the-benefits-of-big-government/2011/08/29/gIQA4bnEoJ_story.html

If you ignore the Republican bashing Knute has a good point; we need insurance against disasters. But shouldn't it be a program that collects premiums (especially from urban areas, maybe especially in coastal areas, that are susceptible to catastrophic loss of life) rather than a "spend whatever can be plausibly justified" (vote buying) handout? why is FEMA different from other property insurance that consumers and governments purchase? well, you know it's like, free. As it is, people who live in rural Arkansas pay taxes to insure against the risks of collapsing freeways in Los Angeles. Suburban and rural low risk areas subsidize (usually wealthier) urban high risk areas.

"As it is, people who live in rural Arkansas pay taxes to insure against the risks of collapsing freeways in Los Angeles. Suburban and rural low risk areas subsidize (usually wealthier) urban high risk areas."

I could point out that the suburban and low risk areas are subsidized by the urban areas and the "blue" states subsidize the "red" states through massive tax spending transfers on the federal and state levels, but that is a different issue.

This is the nature of insurance: spreading of risk. But as Knute points out, this is a concept is based on the social compact that we are in this together. That though I live in Washington I have a responsibility to help out a North Dakotan damaged by an unusual flood. And she has a responsibility to help me if I am damaged by an earthquake. But in the atomized lala land of the Tea Party, its every person for themselves and if you are injured, why, that's an act of God demonstrating His displeasure. Not in the top 1.5% of the population that has household incomes of $250,000 or more? Why, that's evidence of your moral failings. Part of the increasingly squeezed middle class or just poor? Afflicted by hurricane, earthquake, volcano, flood, or drought? Its just God's vengence and your own fault. After all, as anyone can plainly see, the drought in Texas is God's revenge against Rick Perry's execution of innocent people.

It's only the ineptitude of Louisiana officials in the days leading up to Hurricane Katrina that made FEMA seem remotely agile and competent. It seems that the people have learned this lesson well - they left New Orleans and many are not coming back. A perfect example of the flexibility of our federal system.

I worked for FEMA on the Nisqually Earthquake recovery, and also in Alaska on the Denali Quake. It's (at least in Region X) an excellent government service, and I know folks working in the Northeast for FEMA who are now really responding to Irene.

Dismiss FEMA and you dismiss carrying for your fellow citizens. But that's what the Right wants, eh? If you can't make your way to fortune through the stock market, then you are obviously not worthy. FDR set this country on the right course in helping create the concept of a safety net for all citizens. FEMA is one more building block along that route. If we don't need FEMA, then everything built in the Kent Valley from Renton to Puyallup doesn't need any flood control protection. Just let them build on the floodplain and praise the Lord and pass the sandbags. And raise the insurance rates on Boeing. Wichita is a lot dryer. Sheesh, I feel sorry for you folks who have such a shallow understanding of the good work agencies like FEMA do in times of crisis.

It is all well and good to bash the government until something goes wrong and you need a little help.

Teapartiers, take a cue from your hero, Ayn Rand:

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them/

Steve E., a natural disaster in New York or Boston is orders of magnitude more costly (in all respects, physical destruction and loss of life) than a disaster in Minot. Those of us who choose to live in areas prone to earthquakes should pay for that risk. Likewise floodplains or barrier islands. If you drive a Ferrari you pay more for insurance, right?

Ron Paul is right on (IMHO) on some issues, such as calling for the reigning in of big banks and bringing home the Imperial troops scattered all around the globe. Hugely important issues that just about everyone else ignores totally. Yet he seems to be an utter nutcase in other ways, as with the Ayn Rand sink or swim, devil take the hindmost stuff. I really like much of what he says, but the other stuff is really scary.

Good job Knute in exposing yet another Republican hypocrite. They ought to just call it the Hypocritic Party. The Democrats and the Hypocrites.

There really is no Republican Party anymore. Republicans in Congress are merely lobbyists who happen to have gotten elected. Their sole purpose is to get taxpayer money for themselves and their super-rich friends while playing their constituents for suckers. It's amazing how well it all works too.

Cantor is typical of them. Bashing government until his district needs it. Then it's A-OK.

Bachmann is another. Accepting government funds to run her 'Pray away the Gay' conversion therapy clinic.

Rand Paul is another. Bashing government subsidized health care while accepting Medicare patients.

Perhaps most hypocritical of the Republicans is their faux support for a Constitutional Amendment to balance the Federal budget. Why do they need a Constitutional amendment to do their jobs? They could balance the budget tomorrow but none of them really wants to.. because they're too busy accepting federal money themselves. And of course it's the perfect diversion for their supporters to keep focused on.

I remember the first Tea Party rally I ever saw. Most of the people there were retired. I wanted to ask how many of them refused Medicare and Social Security "handouts". It is annoying to hear this constant carping about government from the same people who demand that cops and firemen show up when they're needed, planes stay aloft, parks and schools be maintained (in their neighborhoods, mind you), roads be free of potholes and tolls.... the list goes on. Everyone wants something for nothing. Everyone thinks he/she has has a right to the very things they have no trouble denying their neighbors. What's up with this country?

Earthquake! "Hurricane" (well, Tropical Storm really)!

The Fear: Shut down the subway. Evacuate New York!

The Reality: One busted up road in Vermont.

Obama and Chris Christie reject the Cantor/Paul approach to disaster aid:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/nyregion/obama-visits-flood-ravaged-new-jersey.html?_r=1

jabailo, you're way off base. New York City wasn't evacuated, only low lying areas like Battery Park City, the Lower East Side and the Upper East side. These were places that did, in fact flood. Most of Manhattan just hunkered down at home for a few days.

Lots of track on the Metro North line washed out and had trees over the tracks. Imagine if the Mayor had done nothing like you seem to indicate and these trains got washed into the ocean and hundreds of people got killed as a result.

You're more busted up than that Vermont road.

Disclosure: I am a political refugee who moved from Cantor's district.

Two aspects of disasters are not addressed here. One is that "disasters" are a structural problem (not random, or even surprising) that will increase over time as more people live in earthquake and storm zones, as growing populations deplete natural resources like water, and as climate change progresses. This means that at a societal level, the cost will increase more than inflation. Conservatives today say they do not want government to pay these costs (unless it happens to their district), but are not thinking ahead to what will happen if the private sector must bear the costs.

The other is that FEMA is only a fraction of the response to disasters. For every public employee you see after a disaster, there are many private sector folks. Large amounts of money actually flow into the coffers of companies, many of them not based in the affected area, who do everything from rebuilding power grids to administering grants. In the aftermath of every major disaster, there is a large flow of cash from public coffers to private and corporate accounts. You'd think the GOP would wise up and stop complaining, since this accomplishes their agenda.