by Sam Hieb
A couple of editorials on government’s role in disaster relief in Triad newspapers.
The Winston-Salem Journal uses Hurricane Irene as a convenient excuse to cheerlead for big government:
It’s easy to accept the sweeping generality that there is too much government on our backs, too many government programs, too much government spending. Then something like Irene comes along and reminds us how much safer we are today because of government meteorological work and disaster-relief help.
The federal budget needs to be balanced, but that balancing act should be accomplished with a clear eye on our need for essential government services.
The Journal doesn’t mention FEMA’s money issues, but the N&R does in this morning’s editorial praising North Carolina’s rainy day fund, which will take care of the majority of Irene’s cleanup costs.
Unfortunately the N&R’s suggestion to bulk up FEMA’s funding is small income-tax surcharge paid by working Americans,” who “could consider it an insurance policy that would make sure FEMA has the means to help them if their home is destroyed by a tornado or hurricane.”
I understand Ron Paul wants to do away with FEMA. Some might think I’m just as crazy when I say do away with HUD, the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Energy. As it stands, I wouldn’t go so far as to do away with FEMA, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to fund it without looking at cuts to totally nonessential services, such as HUD, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy……..