Should storm-damaged states get federal aid?

residenttroll wrote:

jf1acai wrote: Interesting that no one has touched on the subject of federal wildfire assistance. Is that somehow different, because it affects us?

Again, it's a state issue unless it's on federal lands. No reason for the Feds to run the show in firefighting of wildland fires...

I do not see wildfires as any different than any other natural disaster. My oversight in not including it. Here again I suspect that the air force could aid in providing water or fire retardant drops. They have the flying skills and could use such events to further training of their pilots.

Rockdoc, what you describe pretty much matches the existing National Response Framework .

And the Air Force does have a program called Modular Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS) which is used to supplement state and local aerial firefighting capabilities when necessary.

As I see it, the question being posed here is whether the federal government should be involved or not. I believe that it has to be, and agree with you that response to wildfires is no different than response to floods, tornados, etc. Many of the posters here seem to ignore the need for federal assistance for wildfires, while saying that natural disasters which occur in someone else's backyard should be someone else's problem, and not ours.

jf1acai wrote: Rockdoc, what you describe pretty much matches the existing National Response Framework .

And the Air Force does have a program called Modular Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS) which is used to supplement state and local aerial firefighting capabilities when necessary.

As I see it, the question being posed here is whether the federal government should be involved or not. I believe that it has to be, and agree with you that response to wildfires is no different than response to floods, tornados, etc. Many of the posters here seem to ignore the need for federal assistance for wildfires, while saying that natural disasters which occur in someone else's backyard should be someone else's problem, and not ours.

Thanks for pointing out my ignorance. Lets call use of our military active involvement of the federal government as opposed to passive involvement that would entail keeping a fund and throwing that money toward states whenever a disaster hit. I'm all for active involvement of our government but not with a passive involvement. I see active involvement as making better use of our resource and being more cost effective. We have to pay our troops no matter what they do. Rather than having them sit around the barracks, they could serve America in a way that everyone can appreciate.

Great question. Yes I believe the areas hardest hit should get federal assistance.

major bean wrote: I have homeowners' insurance. They have homeowners' insurance. That is called individual responsibility. If they have not purchased insurance then they were taking the chance that they would be lucky.
The government has no business flooding the states with money that should be paid by the insurance companies.
As far as food, clothing, shelter, etc.; that is the purpose for which charities, churches, benevolent societies exist.
Neighbors helping neighbors. That is what makes America great. That is what builds character, responsibility and backbone.

I must agree with MB on this point. It gets down to individual responsibility.

Red Cross and other organizations like it can provide immediate assistance with food, water, basic need items and shelter. Insurance companies setup quick response teams usually the day after an tragic event like this to quickly help their insured with the next steps in the recovery. Community asstance is available to those who are outside that scope, renters etc.

I say let the process run it's course where possible. If the state or local governments are over there head then then at that time I see reasonable requests for federal assistance as viable and should at least be considered.

As far as federal assistance in search and rescue, basic security and any of that type of help that the national guard can provide outside of that process and should be immediately available upon request.

I like the distinction between active and passive involvement. And I agree that the federal government should be actively involved in natural disaster response, while most charitable organizations and community outreach is better restricted to passive involvement, due to lack of training and equipment. And the passive involvement is where fellow citizens should be helping each other, rather than sitting back and waiting for a government handout.

Note that I am NOT saying that charitable organizations such as Red Cross and Salvation Army, and citizens groups such as CERT and ARES, which have equipment and trained personnel, should not be involved in active response, and the National Response Framework specifically includes active participation by such groups.

kresspin wrote:

major bean wrote: I have homeowners' insurance. They have homeowners' insurance. That is called individual responsibility. If they have not purchased insurance then they were taking the chance that they would be lucky.
The government has no business flooding the states with money that should be paid by the insurance companies.
As far as food, clothing, shelter, etc.; that is the purpose for which charities, churches, benevolent societies exist.
Neighbors helping neighbors. That is what makes America great. That is what builds character, responsibility and backbone.

I must agree with MB on this point. It gets down to individual responsibility.

Stop confusing my opinion of you. Now I must go sit down and conduct a little hand-wringing and soulsearching.

jf mentioned fires up here.

I have fire insurance. When I lived in a flood-prone area, I had flood insurance. If I lived in California I'd have earthquake insurance (if there is such a thing).

I don't think New Orleans should have been rebuilt, but if it was rebuilt, it shouldn't have been with U.S. dollars. The U.S. government is not an insurance company and is especially not a free insurance company.

If the state or local governments are over there head then then at that time I see reasonable requests for federal assistance as viable and should at least be considered.

This is the area which caused one of the biggest problems with the Katrina response. At that time the federal government was not allowed to proactively respond to a disaster, they could only provide assistance as specifically requested by the state. Louisiana was so overwhelmed they had no idea what to request, leading to confused and delayed federal response.

The National Response Framework now allows, in fact requires, proactive federal response.